From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:51:25 +1000
Organization: Monash University - Melbourne. Australia.

In article <1992Sep2.011752.22783@bain3.bain.oz.au>, bill@bain3.bain.oz.au (Bill Richardson) writes:
> 
> Reply to Charles & Mark
> 
> I only know what I quote ... the information is from a book called 'The 
> Fingerprint Of God' by Hugh Ross. I quote from page 128
> 
> 
> A summarised argument of an example of the case FOR a "designed" earth :
>
> (1) the earth as a fit habitat
> 
>   Some astronomers overestimate the probability of life elsewhere
>   in the universe ignoring many important parameters.
>
>   [List of parameters deleted]
>
> ...safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth
> of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced
> life. Considering that the universe contains only about a trillion galaxies,
> each averaging a hundred billion stars, we can see that not even one planet
> could be expected, by natural processes alone . ......
> 

Showing that the earth is a very, (very) special place is NOT an argument that
can show design; it CAN be a result of natural processes.  The argument (and
a previous poster has mentioned it) is called (I think) the anthropomorphic
principle. Although I cannot remember the exact name, I can relate the
concept.  It goes something like this :

  - It IS accepted that many important parameters and many particular
    conditions exist now and existed in the past to result in our
    (mankind's) current existence.
  - However, if ALL those parameters/conditions were not met, then 
    WE WOULD NOT BE AROUND NOW TO DISCUSS THIS SAME ISSUE.
           (I'm not shouting, I just wish to emphasise ;) )
  - Thus, it is only natural that when we look about us we see the
    remarkable number of coincidences that had to occur for us to be
    here!

To look at it another way, if the universe's "random number generator" was
generating numbers from 1 to a trillion trillion, and our existence
depended on a 1 arising, you would be correct in saying that we had only
a small (but finite) chance of being here.  However, given long enough time
a 1 will eventually come up.  We would then suddenly exist, look at the
random number generator and it would be natural to say "Gee, there is only
a very small chance that we exist.  Perhaps someone fiddled with it"
However, you can see that a "fiddler" is NOT necessary.

> (2) Creator or chance?
> 
> .. William Lane Craig: Suppose a dozen sharpshooters are sent to execute a
> prisoner  by firing squad, and the prisoner survives. The prisoner could
> conclude, since he is alive, that all the sharpshooters missed by some
> extremely unlikely chance. He may wish to attribute his survival to an
> incredible bit of good luck, but he would be far more rational to conclude that
> the guns were loaded with blanks or that the sharpshooters all deliberately
> missed.

I don't see the relevance of this statement.  In it, we ALREADY ASSUME that
each gun is being fired by SOME INTELLIGENT BEING. Of course, it is
more natural to say that THEY did something intelligent.  If, however,
we assume randomly rotating guns, we can simply put it down to GOOD lUCK.

> 
> quoted from The Fingerprint Of God by Hugh Ross
> published by Promise Publishing Company, Orange, California 92667
> ISBN 0-939497-18-12
> 
> Regards
> 
> -- 
> **\ Bill Richardson                      Mail: bill@bain3.bain.oz.au       //\\
> **/ A/P DBBGS, Bain & Co Sydney, Aust.   Ph: +61 2 258 1512 (fax 258-1000)   //
> **\       Looking for the secret, searching for the sound                   ||
> **/       But I can only here the preacher and the baying of his hound.     **

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3168.
" It is said that small things amuse small minds. 
  Where does this leave the Nuclear Physicist ? "
Newsgroups: aus.religion