Re: Small probabilities

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Thu Dec 01 2005 - 19:51:11 EST


Why should one suppose that a meaningful pattern _must_ result in the
numbers obtained from a fair alternative reading of any portion of the
Hebrew text? The fact that it does so, in abundance, in respect of the
Bible's opening words is surely the stuff of mystery and wonder.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Nield" <>
To: "Iain Strachan" <>
Cc: "Randy Isaac" <>; "Vernon Jenkins"
<>; <>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: Small probabilities

> Has Iain taken into consideration the fact that the passage in Genesis is
> not a random sequence of letters but rather a Hebrew text and therefore
> should be expected to show some patterns if one searches for them?
> Don
> Iain Strachan wrote:
>> On 11/29/05, *Randy Isaac* <
>> <>> wrote:
>> Yes, Vernon, I do agree that facts are facts. Can't argue with
>> that. The significance and meaning of those facts is the
>> question. Your observations are clever and perhaps even creative
>> and artistic.
>> Randy,
>> I wonder if you could clarify what you mean by saying that Vernon's
>> observations are "clever" and "artistic". I may have got you wrong, but
>> it might appear from that that you are saying that with sufficient
>> ingenuity you can find a clever pattern in any sequence of numbers.
>> One of the things I've tried to do in this whole discussion about small
>> probabilities and description length (Kolmogorov theory etc) is to
>> illustrate that I think what Vernon has found is _not_ just the product
>> of an ingenious imagination, or a clever arbitrary bit of mathematical
>> manipulation - that the pattern in the integers was indeed something that
>> was deliberately put there, rather than just a coincidence.
>> One of the inhibiting factors of this discussion, it seems to me is that
>> Vernon wishes to put an interpretation on it (that the first chapter of
>> Genesis is literal truth), which I don't subscribe to, and which makes
>> the overwhelming majority of people on the ASA list want to dismiss his
>> observations out of hand. I think if we could divorce the fact (of the
>> pattern) from Vernon's interpretation, then we might get a little
>> further. I am of the opinion that the pattern, which we both agree is a
>> fact, is a piece of deliberate design. But in general, there appear to
>> be three interpretations of the facts:
>> (1) The pattern is a complete coincidence.
>> (2) The pattern is deliberate and was put there by the human authors.
>> (3) The pattern is deliberate and is intentional Divine action for some
>> purpose.
>> All of my contributions to the "small probabilities" threads (and earlier
>> ones on Kolmogorov) have been to the end of illustating that I think
>> there are sound methods for showing that (1) is not the case. I,
>> therefore have to deal with what are the likely implications of (2) or
>> (3) being the truth.
>> What do you think?
>> Iain
>> Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that there is any
>> philosophical or theological significance to the patterns and
>> relationships you have described. The verses you have quoted
>> previously to justify such signficance do not give carte blanche
>> permission to deduce meaning from arbitrary arithmetic
>> manipulation of numeric values of letters. As we've discussed in
>> this forum, the low probability of occurrence of numerical results
>> is not an indication of divine significance.
>> Randy
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Vernon Jenkins <>
>> *To:* Randy Isaac <> ;
>> <>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 20, 2005 7:28 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Small probabilities
>> Randy,
>> Further to the matter of the observed coordination of the
>> numerical geometries that derive from unbroken sequences of
>> the Bible's opening Hebrew words, I invite you consider some
>> additional data which lend considerable weight to these
>> incontrovertible and remarkable events. The relevant page
>> titled "Genesis 1:1 - The Inside Story" may be found at
>> <>.
>> You may remember, some time ago, Iain commenting on the fact
>> that these realities are 'not everyone's cup of tea'. But
>> facts are facts! And facts are the lifeblood of rational and
>> meaningful debate. Is our grasp of the eternal verities so
>> sure - so secure - that we, as Christians, can afford to
>> ignore such solid empirical data? Surely not, as I think
>> you must agree.
>> Vernon
Received on Thu Dec 1 19:54:57 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 19:54:57 EST