The bankruptcy of Creationists' probability argument

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I wouldn't be surprised if there are lifeforms in our solar system.

Erm, I should hope you wouldn't...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Simple, really.

Est. # of galaxies in the universe: 125 billion

Now it is reasonable to assume in every galaxy there is at least one planet with conditions like earth. That is being very stingy, considering there are 100 billion potential solar systems in our galaxy alone.

So even with that conservative estimate, we know life developed on our planet out of those 125 billion earth-like ones. So the odds are at the most 1 in 125 billion, I'd say.

You can't say anything about the odds of life with such a small sample size. i.e 1. If you roll two dice and one comes up 6, the odds of a 6 are not at least 1/2 as you would suggest.

If you are going to use the Drake equation you have to use other estimation techniques.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
UR, I'm afraid this is a strawman. I doubt there are many theists who subscribe to the belief that "low probability equates impossibility". Nothing personal of course, comrade.

I am afraid you are out of touch with the mainstream creationist arguments. Just in this thread CyberShy made exactly this argument, that life is too complex to arise from non-life. He is not alone, Lincoln did the same thing before. It is a favourite argument among Creationists - ICR, etc. Just search the Web and you will be surprised how many of them are sprouting this silliness.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by monkspider
UR, I'm afraid this is a strawman. I doubt there are many theists who subscribe to the belief that "low probability equates impossibility". Nothing personal of course, comrade.

William Dembski uses a similar argument. It goes something like this:

1. We can set an upper limit on the number of Earthlike planets in the Universe: the number of galaxies, multiplied by the number of stars in a typical galaxy. The actual number of Earthlike planets will be much less than this, but it certainly won't be higher.

2. We know roughly how old the Universe is: how many years there have been in which random abiogenesis might have occurred.

3. If the probability of abiogenesis is so low that it's very unlikely to have occurred on any Earthlike planet in any year since the beginning of the Universe, then a divine miracle is the most reasonable explanation.

4. (Waves hands, pulls numbers out of butt...) That's how unlikely abiogenesis is.

5. Therefore God did it.

Step 4 is a "leap of faith", and the weakest step in the argument. We don't know how unlikely abiogenesis is: currently, most of the steps seem plausible.

Creationists and ID advocates like to use the myth of the "life sequence": a specific and rather long polynucleotide molecule that must be formed in one step from free-floating nucleotides. It is possible to calculate that this really is as improbable as Dembski claims, IF you accept his premise that the first replicator really must be that big, and that only one possible configuration will do the job.

There is no reason to accept either assumption.

And step 3 ignores the possibility of an infinite number of alternate Universes.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Asher
As an agnostic, I think it's safe to say that the assertion this thread makes is as ridiculous as the assertion it tries to refute of creationists.

Ah...how fun it is to sit on the fence.

I am an agnostic and firmly believe in evolution. I don't see how they are incomaptible.

The catholic church(Which last time i checked believed in God) agrees with evolution

[Ari Rahikkala]

Being agnostic doesn't necessarily mean you're sitting on the fence, it isn't the state "between" theism and atheism. It only means that you believe there is no proof of God (soft agnostic) or that there can't be any proof of God (hard agnostic). An agnostic can well be a devout believer or a hardcore atheist.

[Dauphin]

I don't get this improbable equals improbable therefore its God's doing gig.

Are they saying that the chance of life being created was originally made extremely probable by God and then made impossible after the event?

I could understand saying that it is so unlikely that divine intervention is a statistically acceptable option - which happens when the notional chance of a creationist god is as likely as 'natural' abiogenesis.

Neither of those options seems particularly convincing though.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Caligastia
He admits there's a chance! Come to Jesus Ramo!

I thought you believe in Urata (however it is spelled) or some similar wacky beliefs?

[Kepler]

To show that life can arise from non-life is pretty simple. There are many borderline cases (self-replicating molecules, complex proteins, amino acid macrostructures) that can go either way. The fact that the line itself is blurry is a sort of proof in itself that non-life can give way to life with minor chemical alterations.

Creationism is another in a long line of efforts to defend the "ultimate reality" of faith by psuedo-scientific means. It's incredibly silly. Faith is what's left in the residual category after all the rational, predictable processes are done explaining as much of the world as they can. That will always be a very large category.

It shrinks with time. Planets were once literally drawn through the heavens by the gods. The insane were once touched by either an angel or a devil. Little by little, the scientific method creates theories invade some of these formerly unexplainable things, and every time it happens there's a rear-guard action to try to censor or discredit the new ideas.

An understandable impulse, but completely unnecessary, as it doesn't defend religion, but merely ridicules it. If nothing else, all of the "for what purpose?" questions will ALWAYS be safely in the Faith category, and theists can live there never worrying that the game will be broken up.

[TheStinger]

Does this mean God only does things that are statiscaly unlikely. Surley God should reserve himself to the impossible. If it is merely unlikley why doesn't he just wait.

Or is it just that God is the answer when people don't understand something, Oh look the sun comes up every morning that must be God

[monkspider]

I have always maintained that there is a great deal of evidence in the world that seems to point toward the direction of God's existence. But it is irrelevant. All people will one day realize God, even UR and Carl Sagan. He will be quite a bit different than what the outspoken fundamentalists had led them to believe, however.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Does this mean God only does things that are statiscaly unlikely. Surley God should reserve himself to the impossible. If it is merely unlikley why doesn't he just wait.

Or is it just that God is the answer when people don't understand something, Oh look the sun comes up every morning that must be God

Maybe God does certain things so often that they become statistically likely - everything from the miracle of birth to making holes in socks.

[Kepler]

> Or is it just that God is the answer when people don't understand something, Oh look the sun comes up every morning that must be God

Yes.

Or, something they don't like. "I didn't take my daughter to the doctor when she had that bad cold and now she's dead. Oh well, must be the Lord wanted to call her home."

Or something they DO like, but have no other reason to believe. "Ordinarily I'd say it's not nice to kidnap people and work them to death, but luckily the Lord made white people superior to black people."

In the words of Doug Adams, that about wraps it up for God.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
I have always maintained that there is a great deal of evidence in the world that seems to point toward the direction of God's existence.

Really, that would be just your interpretation of it. I too am awed by a night sky filled with stars, but the idea of a supernatural creator does not cross my mind when I stare at it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Maybe God does certain things so often that they become statistically likely - everything from the miracle of birth to making holes in socks.

Here in lies a problem which I deem to be the conflict between science and Christianity. If God intervenes so much, how can one tell what is natural and what is not?