“law of large numbers”. Uh huh.
As expected, those are estimates of the likelihood of natural formation, not estimates of the likelihood of something being designed.
2 Likes
Hmm. And how many ways are there to design such a lottery? Only a few?
If no one ever won a particular lottery, would it be unreasonable to suspect that it had perhaps been “designed” that way, in order to enrich the people running it?
1 Like
You don’t seem to know what the law of large numbers is.
2 Likes
Fair point, I don’t dispute that. If you want to believe it was a natural event, that’s up to you. I don’t want to have students grade themselves or professor grade them on what they believe. But if they want to learn the arguments, they can demonstrate proficiency in at least knowing what the arguments are, such as whether an event is consistent with normative expectation.
Violations of the law of large numbers are not consistent with normative expectation. I minimize the use of the word “natural” since that has metaphysical connotations, whereas “expectation” is mostly a mathematical notion independent of metaphysics.
Providence still covers it.
OK, now, that’s just Orwellian.
1 Like
This is not true. We expect that, over long periods of time, there will be large deviations from average expectations. We expect non-normative things to rarely and non-reproducibly happen, and would surprised if they did not happen.
3 Likes
Thank you for your objections, but this gave me an opportunity to clarify what is meant.
There are deviations that would be inconsistent with the lifetime and probability resources of the observable universe. That is what I meant.
That said, no one would reasonably make that argument for 500 fair coins 100% heads being the result of chance. Sure they most likely would invoke a human designer as the cause, but it is inconsistent with random events in the normal sense of the word – we would not, invoke chance and multiple universes as a scientific explanation, at least in the experimental sense.
At issue for Abiogenesis is whether the abiogenesis events are consistent with what is expected to be found in the observable universe over geological time.
But, if I may ask, do you believe abiogenesis happens by ordinary chemical mechanisms or do you believe it is more in line with a Miracle of God like Jesus healing the blind man or Jesus rising from the dead?
1 Like
Okay, but we don’t know the probability resources of the observable universe, nor do we think it should be restricted to “observable”, nor can we compute the probability of these rare events happening. For the origin of life, you are suggesting we multiply one inconceivably high (and poorly defined) number times another inconceivably small (and poorly defined) number. The result of such a procedure is like 0/0 or inf/inf. It is mathematically undefined.
This is the issue, if you drop “observable.” The answer is, “we do not know.”
Historically, most Christians may have believed in spontaneous generation. That is the traditional view, and it seems to be directly stated in Genesis 1. Scripture certainly does not teach against spontaneous generation. At the same time, Genesis does teach that all things that are created were created under the providential governance of God, and for his purposes.
Getting back to the science, NO ONE today believes abiogenesis occurred by ordinary chemical mechanisms. That seems like a red herring. NO ONE today, moreover, believes we understand how the first cell arose. This is an open problem.
So, we don’t know from theology or from science the answer. I am very curious, but also believe the right answer is “we just don’t know yet” precisely how the first cell arose.
1 Like
Then, since you don’t know what the likelihood of any of these features arising under a design scenario, likelihood is not a reason to prefer one over the other.
You just failed to offer an alternative.
A pity they’ll never be taught the flaws in the arguments.
1 Like
We can scientifically predict the probability distribution function that someone will win the lottery each time it is drawn.
You are conflating permutation with combination.
If you put a label on each of the 500 coins and then toss them, the probability of any one permutation of the result (i.e., a particular result for each of the labeled coins) is 2-500.
That permutation would be inconsistent with the lifetime and probability resources of the observable universe.
The essential problem is that ID probability arguments make calculations based on permutation probabilities. Meanwhile, the world of biology is teeming with successful combinations.
Best,
Chris
EDIT: Another problem: Many ID probability arguments inappropriately assume I.I.D. when in fact there are dependencies between events.
3 Likes
How much do you think the probabilistic resources of the universe (time and populations) help with the problem?
How about we just don’t know…“yet” implies it will be eventually solved.
Sure but you are trying to explain the origin of those successful combinations. OOL to be successful requires reliable self replication and energy conversion which takes a lot of successful combinations working together.
We do not know yet if it happened by natural causes alone (which would still be providentially governed) or not. The “yet” does not tip the scales either way. Though I hasten to add we may never know.
1 Like
This thread is kinda aggravating to try to follow because it seems like about half the comments are discussing some form of common descent, while the other half are discussing the origin of life.
3 Likes
Yes, I know, but @stcordova dislikes splitting, and we are trying to avoid annoying him right off the bat 
.
I also think that he may be conflating the two, as you (and I) are not.
As an aside, since your flair indicates you’re a 30-year veteran, I’d like to express my appreciation for your service. That has nothing to do with anything we’re talking about here, but it seemed the right thing to acknowledge you and express my personal thanks before I said anything else.
3 Likes