From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Probability / Attrition
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 17 Nov 92  09:02:08

Uhm, instead of looking at the question of "the probability
of life arising from slimy muck and gunk," is it possible to
look at -evolution- (not abiogenesis) through probability?
 
What is the probability of a "random" mutation being benificial
to an organism? What is the probability of the same mutation
being benificial to a population of that species? We know
that it is -probable- to occur, because observation shows us
that it DOES occured--- but what are the probabilities involved?
 
(Beneficial equals an improved ability to survive or out-reproduce
competing organisms.)
 
I would think the questions are far too complex for humans
to calculate. So why do some Creationists claim they know the
probabilities? I doubt if there are any Creationists who are
all-powerful and all-knowing; therefore the figures they
assert are bogus.
 
The recient "1e15^-1000" figure was given without any proof
except "read the book," and naturally to read the book t.o.
Regulars would have to pay for it (it seems the book in
question only exists in theist book stores and not in public
libraries or real book stores). So must one pay four or five
dollars (plus shipping and handling) to read ancient Creationist
lies and misunderstanding, couched in new, deceptive terms, even
though they have been proven false five or more decades ago? I
have a very large pile of books in my reading queue, and even
if I were to read the suggested book, I may not have the skill
to determine what in the book is bogus and what is valid.
 
Can any evolutionary scientists out there (or Creationists,
for that matter) even map out what is required to produce
a valid probability, let alone calcutate it? Make it simple:
what is the probability of a rose mutating beneficially? Not
just mutate without harm, but BENEFIT itself and its species
if the mutation breeds true.
 
--------
 
As long as I'm bitching and complaining. . . .
 
The trend I see in Creationists is to assert over and over again
the same old, tired claims. The names of the Creationists change,
the claims are re-asserted using different terms and phrases,
but the basic Creationism assertions have stayed the same for
decades (centuries?). Scientists answer these Creationist's
claims, correcting them, again and again and again, until the
scientists get so damn tired of doing so, they give up.
 
The Creationist calls this a "victory."
 
It is my observation that Creationists are not interested in
providing proof, or even evidence, of their claims; their only
desire is to out-last and out-shout, through attrition, the
evolutionary scientist until the latter surrenders out of
dispair and the sheer exertion of trying to educate the willfully
ignorant. While the scientist has a great many other tasks she
or he wish to persue in her or his career, and thus cannot devote
a massive amount of time debunking Creationists, the Creationists
are much better funded, and their -career- is attacking science
and evolutionary theory. In other words, the former do not, as
a rule, have the time and funds to debunk Creationist propaganda
and lies, while Creationists have all the time in the world,
PLUS GET PAID, to manufacture the propaganda and lies.
 
How the bloody hell can education, intelligence, and rationality
preserve the many gains in science, when the forces that are in
place to attack science pays more money, and has more time? If
a scientist were to track down a particular Creationist book, read
it, find the flaws in its assertions, and explain the flaws to other
real (as compared to Creationist) scientists, what has been gained?
The Creationists will cry "Is not!" and the scientists who did the
work debunking the book's claim is out time and money and effort.
 
It's all a matter of attrition. When enough of the educated give
up defending science from the psudo-science called Creationism
(due to time constraint, money constraint, dying, apathy), the
forces of ignorance takes up the slack. And the ignorant ALWAYS
outnumber the real scientists.
 
Why the bloody hell do people still believe there is a "evolution
creationism controversy," when there hasn't been for over 100
years? Does society really care that little about education?
Newsgroups: talk.origins