From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:35:19 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

tycchow@nevanlinna.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:

> Although I agree that probability arguments in no way establish that
> "evolution is false," I do not think that the responses that I have
> seen posted so far are on the mark.  Many of them seem to argue that
> the calculations cited are of no value at all.  However, suppose we
> interpret the calculation this way: GIVEN assumptions X, Y, and Z, the
> probability of abiogenesis is extremely small.  The calculation then
> serves the function of suggesting that our current models of abiogenesis
> are inadequate and motivating further investigation.  Hence it seems
> that a better response to such probability calculations is not to
> dismiss them out of hand but to say:

Yes, we noticed this tendency for offhand dismissal of the probabilistic
argument too. Yes, a proof is simply a correct reasoning from premises
which may or may not be true. Yes, our proof is intended to suggest that
there are alternative explanations for the origin of life, although we
think that mere refinements of the models of abiogenesis are not
adequate.

> 
> 1. A demonstration that the probability of an event is extremely small
>    cannot "prove" that the event did not occur, or even that the theory
>    that yields the low probability is wrong.  The probability of
>    flipping a fair coin a thousand times in a row and getting all heads
>    is 2^(-1000) but this doesn't "prove" that such an event has never
>    occurred, nor does it prove that if such an event occurred then the
>    coin could not have been fair.  Thus, even if all the assumptions in
>    the calculation are independently justifiable (which they almost
>    certainly are not), such calculations are inherently incapable of
>    "proving" that evolution or naturalism or whatever is wrong.

> 
> 2. This does not mean that probability calculations have no value at
>    all.  An extremely low probability *suggests* (but does not "prove")
>    that there is something inadequate about the assumptions used to
>    arrive at the probability and can thus motivate us to look for further
>    explanations.  In the case of the coin, a long sequence of heads
>    *suggests* that the coin might be biased, or that the sequence has
>    somehow been selected out of a much longer sequence of coin flips---
>    suggestions that point to directions for investigation.
> 
> Note also that both the creationist and the philosophical naturalist find
> the low probability unacceptable.  They differ in that the low probability
> suggests to the creationist that the assumption of naturalism is wrong,
> whereas it suggests to the philosophical naturalist that the model of
> abiogenesis employed is wrong.

We find the low probability unacceptable, yes, because there is a
specific argument used by some evolutionists that the evolution of
higher organisms is "probable" given the 4 billion year age of the
earth. We believe that it can be shown that this figure for the age of
the earth has to be almost unimaginably larger in order for the
word "probable" to have meaning, at least in the sense generally
accepted by statisticians. To show this, we attempt to use the same
assumptions about evolutionary processes that the evolutionists who make
such statements have in mind. This is the specific purpose of the proof
(the complete statement of which is, unfortunately, still forthcoming).

More broadly, we propose that the standard plea of the evolutionists
that it is now certain that molecular evolution is "the way" in which
life has arisen in the universe does not follow from any or all of the
premises of the theory of evolution. That it does not follow from them
does not prove that evolution didn't happen, only that the stated
reasons why it must have happened are insufficient to guarantee it. This
suggests that claims of the certainty of evolution are premature, and
that further investigation is needed. We believe that the fact that
evolution is being presented this way in spite of a lack of sufficient
theoretical support indicates that there are other motives involved than
the sincere search for scientific truth.

Because of this, we think it is useful, indeed essential, to begin
discussing other proposals for the origin of life, and to do this within
the language of science as far as is possible. If certain supposedly
"religious" sources can provide us with clues to other possible
explanations of the origin of life, then we do not see any reason why
these sources should be treated with scorn, nor do we think that those
scientific texts which prematurely proclaim that evolution absolutely
must have happened should just be thrown away.

Although it is the creationists who are often portrayed as unreasoning,
wild-eyed fanatics, I have had recent personal experience of precisely
that kind of behavior from those purporting to be evolutionists. The
results of posting on this newsgroup have convinced me that this is
more than a simple issue of the search for truth. What is going on here
is a war between world-views.

I wish to thank you for your sobriety. Although I cannot tell from your
comments which viewpoint, if any, you favor, it is clear that you are
actually thinking about what you are reading, and that your reading is
accurate and not illusioned by anger.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------