Re: [asa] Calculation of probability for life to originate on Earth unintelligently

Moorad

We are in total agreement!

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Alexanian, Moorad
  To: Iain Strachan ; Michael Roberts
  Cc: D. F. Siemens, Jr. ; johnston@uidaho.edu ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 1:43 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Calculation of probability for life to originate on Earth unintelligently

  I do not think anyone knows how to calculate possible outcomes from given initial conditions. Unless one can know what the possible outcomes can be, how is one to calculate probabilities for individual outcomes? One does not know dynamics that well to make any sort of predications.

  Moorad

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Iain Strachan
  Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 7:04 AM
  To: Michael Roberts
  Cc: D. F. Siemens, Jr.; johnston@uidaho.edu; asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: Re: [asa] Calculation of probability for life to originate on Earth unintelligently

  David's argument is crass for reasons I've explained 1001 times on this list but no-one is prepared to listen. I'm not saying that Koonin's probability argument is convincing, but just that David's dismissal of it is a completely silly argument. Here's attempt no 1002 (sigh!) Try and listen and digest this time, please.

  The reason is quite simple - for a low-probability argument to have any validity, you have to specify the target before the event, not after it. To deal any arbitrary bridge hand and say it has probability is such and such after the event means absolutely nothing at all. It is as if you presented a darts player with a blank wall 20 feet wide by 20 feet high, and then drew a bullseye-sized circle around wherever the dart landed. The fact that the probability of the dart being in the circle is small means nothing at all because you specified the target after the event. But on the other hand if you made the darts player throw a dart at a real dart board, told them to aim for the bullseye, and they hit it first time, you'd be reasonably justified in suspecting that they were a pretty skilled darts player. The difference being that the target is specified before the event.

  Or in brigde-hand parlance, suppose I shuffled a deck of cards, and dealt out a bridge hand & wrote it down in a sealed envelope. Then I got someone else to shuffle a second pack, deal the cards, and then open the envelope. If the cards on the table matched what I'd written down on the envelope, they'd have good reason to be amazed. If they said "I'm not amazed because that combination is just as (un)likely as any other" then I for one would be amazed that anyone could be that stupid.

  David has expressed the concern that he wishes to keep the bretheren honest, and I agree he should. But by the same token, we must not let our earnestness to challenge ID lead us into making foolish and ignorant arguments. Dembski would eat David's argument for breakfast, and it would be well justified.

  Just as much as I'm concerned that Christians shouldn't make stupid arguments about radioactive dating and the age of the earth, by the same token I'm concerned that we, on the other side shouldn't make stupid arguments about probability that just show our ignorance of the subject. There IS a principled way to challenge the ID camp's ideas about "complex specified information" - Indeed I have recently constructed a computer simulation that shows complex specified information being generated out of nothing, with absolutely no prior input of information. If I can get it published, it will be a serious challenge to the notion that CSI is a reliable indicator of design. However, to make silly statements about the probability of a bridge hand is to demonstrate that you don't even understand the concept you're trying to debunk.

  By the way, Michael, you say you remain agnostic. Did you actually read and assess Koonin's paper?

  Iain

  On Nov 12, 2007 11:31 AM, Michael Roberts < michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

  Like David I am not convinced of probability arguments. I have heard them for years. I don't find David's response crass but see it as a warning.

  What we need to do is to start where we are and that is a 13by universe etc with a gradual succession of life on earth over the lat 4by years. How can we decide what the probability is if we don't know all the details. It is then simply quasimaths.

  I remain agnostic

  Michael

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Iain Strachan

    To: D. F. Siemens, Jr.

    Cc: johnston@uidaho.edu ; asa@calvin.edu

    Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 8:30 AM

    Subject: Re: [asa] Calculation of probability for life to originate on Earth unintelligently

    D.F. Siemens wrote:

      Additionally, there is the view that the unusual cannot happen. Yet every time a foursome sets out to play bridge, they arrive at something that has 1 chance in that has 1 chance in 80,658,175,170,943,878.571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277, 824,000,000,000,000.

    This is a typically crass argument that gets tediously trotted out again and again on this list as though it proves something. In Koonin's terms it has to be one highly specific bridge hand that gets dealt. Sure, any bridge hand has the same probability, but I guarantee that if you sat down at a bridge table and dealt the cards and you all got 13 of the same suit each, that you'd suspect someone had messed with the pack. Koonin's solution (which at least has more merit than your argument) is to postulate zillions of bridge hands being dealt in parallel universes.

    Iain

  --
  -----------
  After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.

  - Italian Proverb
  -----------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 12 09:18:32 2007