From: Alexanian, Moorad (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Dec 28 2002 - 18:25:50 EST
When dealing with purely physical phenomena, we can certainly attach
probabilities to different outcomes provided we know all the possible
outcomes and the corresponding probabilities associated with each
outcome. One day we will be able to compute the probability of the
outcome of any complex purely physical system. However, when it
comes to humans, one is not sure since humans are not purely physical
entities. There is a nonphysical aspect of humans that cannot be
predicted since the possibility of one of us coming into being
involves living organisms, which may go beyond the purely physical.
So long as the living cannot be reduced to the purely physical, then
the existence of any human being cannot be predicted in terms of
purely physical theories. That is to say, one cannot reduce the
history of all that exists to science. It is interesting that
complex systems are in some sense discrete and so one may calculate a
finite probability for their realization. There is !
no way that one can have a system of continuum beings. Such a
situation is outside the realm of probability theory. Moorad
From: Dick Fischer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tue 12/24/2002 10:51 PM
Subject: Probability or Predictability?
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
I think probability is misunderstood. The probability of my
my mother multiplied by the probabilities of my grandparents
great grandparents, my great, great grandparents, etc. for hundreds of
generations is so low that the probability that I'm here is
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
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
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 28 2002 - 21:37:07 EST