I thought IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d take a closer look at the article posted 92g
Cheating with chance
by Don Batten
The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument.
I doubt this.
The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional Ã¢â‚¬ËœsimpleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged2 to be worse than 1 in 10^57800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros.
But the author numbers are meaningless because of two important consideration. First a cell is a very complex organism, no proponent of abiogenesis has ever imagined that life suddenly leaps from goo to a single cell, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just preposterous. This make much of the authors remaining argument irrelevant.
Secondly if the process of abiogenesis is unknown on what is the author basing the improbability?
Evolutionists often try to bluff their way out of this problem by using analogies to argue that improbable things happen every day, so why should the naturalistic origin of life be considered impossible. For example, they say the odds of winning the lottery are pretty remote, but someone wins it every week. Or, the chances of getting the particular arrangement of cards obtained by shuffling a deck is remote, but a rare combination happens every time the cards are shuffled. Or the arrangement of the sand grains in a pile of sand obtained by randomly pouring the sand is extremely complex, but this complex and improbable arrangement did occur as a result of random processes. Or the exact combination and arrangement of people walking across a busy city street is highly improbable, but such improbable arrangements happen all the time. So they argue from these analogies to try to dilute the force of this powerful argument for creation.
You probably realize there is something illogical about this line of argument. But what is it?
In all the analogies cited above, there has to be an outcome. Someone has to win the lottery.
The author is very much mistaken, the purpose of the analogies is to make the idea explainable with small numbers, but as the numbers get larger, there will be times when there will be no lottery winner
. Would you play a lottery game where you pick 8 numbers out of 100? Lottery is designed to allow, on average, a couple of big winners each week, and the pool size is representative of the population of players.
Note several other things about these analogies:
The arrangement of cards resulting from shuffling would not normally suggest anything other than a random process. However, if all the cards were ordered by their suits from lowest to highest, we would logically conclude that an intelligent agent arranged them (or Ã¢â‚¬Ëœstacked the deckÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ in card-playing parlance) because such an arrangement is highly unlikely from genuine shufflingÃ¢â‚¬â€a random, non-intelligent process.
The author is missing an important evolutionary point i.e. the pattern that results in abiogenesis only need to happen once, lets say thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the equivalent of getting 4 aces, once that arrangement has happened the 4 aces glue together, the pattern is not lost, and canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be unshuffled.
The arrangement of the sand grains in a pile <snip>, and
The arrangement of people crossing a busy street would not normally suggest anything other than a random process. <snip>
Improbability does no make it impossible, the author has made no claim.
Many scientists today claim that an invisible Ã¢â‚¬Ëœintelligent causeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ is outside the realm of Ã¢â‚¬ËœrealÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ science. These scientists have redefined science as naturalism (nature is all there is). However, scientists recognise the evidence for an invisible intelligent agent when it suits them. For example, forensic science determines if past events were the result of accident or plan and purpose (Ã¢â‚¬ËœWho done it?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢).
wow!! This is pushing the boundaries of credibility, Science is the exploration of the natural world, it wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“redefinedÃ¢â‚¬Â.
Forensic sciences uses evidence to discover past events, comparing this to investigating the supernatural is stretching the use of analogy to breaking point.
The Piltdown ape-man fraud was discovered, after some 40 years and numerous postgraduate research theses, when researchers had the opportunity to examine the original bones and not just replicas, and they noticed file marks on the teeth.4 Such marks do not happen by natural processes and the researchers recognised the involvement of a human (intelligent) agentÃ¢â‚¬â€a hoaxer.
?? Proving what?
Likewise, United States taxpayers are spending millions of dollars yearly in funding the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). If those listening hear a radio signal with random noise, it is clearly the product of a natural process, but if there is a pattern such as Ã¢â‚¬Ëœdah-dah-dah-dit-dit-dit-dah-dah-dahÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, it will be hailed as evidence for an intelligent, although invisible, source.
perhaps, but with good reason the noise from space is random noise (some exceptions), a signal on a fixed frequency would/should point to an artificial cause.
If such evidence indicate an intelligent source then surely the incredible amount of information on the DNA in living things, equivalent to a library of a thousand 500- page books in a human being,5 shouts Creation by a Creator!
Well perhaps to the author, but as DNA is further understood it seems a very haphazard sort of thing with vast areas of inactivity, and a sort of history of evolution recorded in it (reference The recent Documentary Ã¢â‚¬Å“DNAÃ¢â‚¬Â).