View Single Post
Old 27th April 2008, 12:46 PM   #134
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 731
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Could you explain what you do not understand in my reasoning? And if you understand the reasoning, could you explain why you consider it ridiculous?
This is worth some comment.

Creationists, in general, attempt to disprove scientific hypotheses by negation, i.e., such and such cannot be true because the probability of its occurrence is infinitesimally small.

This sort of reasoning is unscientific, because no matter how small the probability of some event may be in advance of its happening, if the event actually occurs, then its probability is instantly raised to Unity (100%).

At any given instant the arrangement of atoms in the universe is incredibly improbable -- were it to be calculated in advance. But, "it is what it is," and so any future probability calculation must be tempered by the reality of what actually exists.

Life is here -- so is homo sapiens. We are sentient beings. So, the question of our improbability is no longer at issue. The only question is "how did we come to be?"

The fossil and genetic record of past and present life shows very clearly that we are here due to the instant effect of random mutation on germ cell DNA, as tempered by environmental pressures (natural selection). This is simply not open to reasonable dispute.

What "is" open to dispute is whether or not those mutations and environmental pressures are the result of mere physical processes, or, some metaphysical catalyst.

If the former, then the scientific method should be capable of completely measuring the activities (except for those activities which are of quantum mechanical character).

If the latter, then NO AMOUNT OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION WILL SUFFICE, because science cannot conclude on a hypothesis that cannot be measured -- and that is the very definition of what is metaphysical.

The set of all things metaphysical and the set of all things physical has no intersection. It cannot, because as soon as something previously believed to be metaphysical is measurable via the scientific method, that something ceases to be metaphysical.

I have little doubt that my monologue here will do anything to stop the constant argument over what randomness is or is not capable. Perhaps, it is simply that randomness "is" God acting within the universe [n.b., lawyers use the term "Act of God" to describe those things over which man has no control, and which cannot be predicted in advance]).

Regardless, the short answer to the question of why your reasoning is "unreasonable," is because you are attempting to apply scientific investigation to prove that which cannot be scientifically proved.

God is simply not amenable to investigation by mere mortals.
"A child of five would understand this -- send someone to fetch a child of five!" -- Groucho Marx
kjkent1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top