**From:** Dick Fischer (*dickfischer@genesisproclaimed.org*)

**Date:** Tue Dec 24 2002 - 22:51:36 EST

**Previous message:**Dick Fischer: "California Teachers to Teach Evolution"**Next in thread:**Alexanian, Moorad: "RE: Probability or Predictability?"**Maybe reply:**Alexanian, Moorad: "RE: Probability or Predictability?"**Maybe reply:**Peter Ruest: "Re: Probability or Predictability?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Peter Ruest wrote:

*> I think it will not be possible to compute the probability of formation
*

*>of any complex system. The best we can hope for
*

*>is the estimation of some very very rough upper bounds for such a
*

*>probability.
*

I think probability is misunderstood. The probability of my father meeting

my mother multiplied by the probabilities of my grandparents meeting, my

great grandparents, my great, great grandparents, etc. for hundreds of

generations is so low that the probability that I'm here is so negligible

that either I'm not here or - it must be God!

Where do we go wrong? It is because we specify a known result. Then we

say the likelihood of such a result from random processes is impossibly

low. Essentially, this is wrongheaded.

It's like looking at Sagittarius the teapot and saying, "What is the

likelihood that a handful of stars could arrange themselves into what looks

just like a teapot? An intelligent designer must have arranged the

stars." This ignores the billions of stars all over the sky that don't

resemble anything, and a teapot is only one of thousands of possible objects.

Another example. Place a teacup in a field, and throw a rock

blindfolded. What is the probability it will land in the cup. Low. But

throw the rock first, and then place the cup over the rock. Can't

miss. That, basically, is what is going on. We know already where the

rock will land, and then say, "Gee, how did it land there"? A low

probability only exists if we specify where the rock will land before we

throw the rock.

Random variation produces things. Some things are useful. Some are

complex. Random variation also produces things that are simple and

useless. Natural selection sorts it out.

If you looked at a continuum of results you could grade them out on the

basis of usefulness and complexity, with useless, simple stuff at one end,

and useful, complex stuff at the other. To be fair we should look at the

entire continuum. But what IDers do instead is to look at only the tip end

of the continuum, the useful, complex end, and say, random variation

couldn't produce it.

Go back to the rock and teacup example. What is the likelihood you could

throw a rock into a teacup blindfolded. You might think that it is

low. But what if you threw 10,000 rocks 10,000 times with 10,000 teacups

scattered all around? The probability certainly is low if the rock is

specified, the throw is specified, and the teacup is specified

beforehand. But that is predictability, not probability.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

www.genesisproclaimed.org

**Next message:**Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Quality of 'ID Science'"**Previous message:**Dick Fischer: "California Teachers to Teach Evolution"**Next in thread:**Alexanian, Moorad: "RE: Probability or Predictability?"**Maybe reply:**Alexanian, Moorad: "RE: Probability or Predictability?"**Maybe reply:**Peter Ruest: "Re: Probability or Predictability?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Fri Dec 27 2002 - 15:03:34 EST
*