>>I was impressed by the discussion of probability (though recent posts here and
elsewhere have convinced of the weakness of much of these arguments),<<
Arthur Chadwick responded:
>>While I do not know the specifics of either what impressed you about
probability or what you view as weakness to such arguments, I would remind
you and several others on the reflector that science is about probability
and little else, and anyone who disparages the proper use of probability does
not understand the workings of science. For reasons that are obvious to anyone
actively engaged in science, the nature of evidence and experimentation requires
that probability assessments are an integral property of scientific evidence.
Many have tried to assert that probability arguments are misapplied to origins
considerations. Yet the argumentation is often flimsy (and no doubt the
applications are not always above reproach) but to flatly assert that
probability considerations have no bearing on the study of origins is to assert
that the study of origins is outside the domain of science. Incidentally,
Walter Remine in his book The Biotic Message, documents a number of
misapplications of statistics by conventional origins researchers that are worth
reading.<<
Well I seem to have gotten myself into trouble on my very first post. I am
definitely guilty of making a comment which is open to all sorts of
interpretation. For that I apologize. Being a mathematician myself I have the
highest regard for probability and its applications to science (some of my best
friends are probability theorists :)). My particular reference, in my previous
post, pertained to the probability that a self-replicating organism could
evetually evolve from the primordial conditions that existed at the earth's
early life. As I recall, the argument I saw a year ago showed that the chance
was too low to allow for any meaningful life to exist today. This is what
impressed me at that time. My recent reconsideration of these arguments have
resulted from arguments I've seen (perhaps on this reflector) which has
effectively challenged some of the premises in the arguments (e.g. the
assumption that only one functional protein can perform a given task).
Simply put, I am now more 'cautious' when encoutering these arguments, but I _do
not_ discount them.
In Christ,
Jim
James Turner
Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques
Le Bois Marie
35 Route de Chartres
F-91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France
email: 103531.1532@compuserve.com
turner@ihes.fr
After Aug. 1:
Department of Mathematics
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
email: jt2n@virginia.edu