Absolute chance vs. architect

[Jim_Baur]

Evolution theories have strong arguments to support them.

Architect theories have strong arguments to support them, too.

I cannot image or believe that all of the laws, life, consciousness and all that is needed to support all that we observe is possible by absolute chance.

Common sense indicates that an architect was needed.

I do not exclude, from a philosophical point of view, evolution theories either.

I hold the opinion that evolution is possible.

I hold the opinion that an architect is needed and a some being to hold the present order in existence.

Evolution and architect do not contradict each other.

Actually, they support each other and make the arguments stronger.

However, an architect can stand by itself, and absolute chance cannot.

If an evolution opinion is based on the principle of absolute chance, then it is too weak to be accepted. It is irrational by its absolute nature.

I will listen and read–I do not think I will continue in an argument, but want to see what others think of this position.

THANKS!!!

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, I wont argue with you but you might like to read this blog:

scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/11/evolution_a_game_of_chance.php

Sarah x

 

[rossum]

If an evolution opinion is based on the principle of absolute chance, then it is too weak to be accepted.

Evolution includes natural selection. Natural selection is not a chance process. You cannot model evolution as a purely chance process. Chance is indeed involved but any model of evolution which fails to include the non-chance element of natural selection is a faulty model and will not produce correct results. GIGO.

You should also be aware that there is a temporary ban on evolution threads in many fora, including this one.

If we’re lucky we might get the nun with the ruler.

rossum

 

[Jim_Baur]

Does evolution include many, many more realities than just natural selection?

If it is not chance, is it caused?

 

[Jim_Baur]

Oops!

I had no idea it was outlawed.

I shall stop as of now.

Again, thanks!

 

[AntiTheist]

Discussing evolution may be banned, but the question you posed – whether the world we see around us is the result of chance or conscious design – is a philosophical question that can be discussed. The answer might include a brief explanation of evolution (as the OP seems not to really understand the process), but it would not be a discussion of evolution: it would be a discussion of chance vs. design.

There’s a story by Douglass Adams that I’m going to roughly paraphrase: it’s the story of the puddle of water. This puddle wakes up one fine day and thinks, “What a world this is! It’s been made perfectly for me. Look at this hole I’m in. The hole fits me perfectly! Clearly, this hole was designed with me in mind.”

Now, obviously, we all know that no one goes around digging holes specifically for puddles. A puddle is the word for water that happens to fill the holes that already exist. In other words, the puddle has it entirely backward: the hole wasn’t created for it; rather, it filled a space that was already there.

Proponents of “design” – in all of its forms – are in the position of the puddle. They look at a world that seems to fit them perfectly and they conclude that the world must have been made for them, never suspecting that it is indeed possible that the opposite is true: that they – or, more correctly, their species – developed to fit the world.

Others have pointed out that evolution is not based on chance. Its mechanism, natural selection, consists of the selective pressure of the environment: it is, indeed, the opposite of “random chance.” But these discussions inevitably turn into the theist pushing back chance further and further: “But what are the odds that the selective pressures would be thus? What are the odds that the laws of the universe would be just this way? There are millions of things that had to be perfect in order for our species to evolve!”

The argument, it seems, is that something incredibly unlikely could not happen in any way other than conscious intent. Of course, this argument is just plain wrong, as a simple analogy will make clear.

Imagine that you are dealt a bridge hand. What are the odds of being dealt a perfect hand (Ace through King, all of the same suit)? The odds are somewhere in the neighborhood of one is several billion – it’s an astronomical number. But – and here’s the important part – what are the odds of being dealt a different combination of cards, a “non-special” combination, something like a hand consisting of Jack of Spades, four of clubs, three of diamons, Queen of hearts, Jack of diamonds, eight of hearts, etc. The odds are exactly the same.

This is worth examining: the probability of being dealt some random hand is exactly the same as being dealt a perfect hand. Every single hand is astronomically unlikely. But the unlikelihood of a hand doesn’t prevent it from being dealt. It’s only because we look at the “perfect” hand and think of it as “special” that we can’t see this.

So no – the likelihood or unlikelihood of our universe existing as it does has absolutely no bearing on whether or not some supernatural intelligence made it so.

 

[danserr]

This is worth examining: the probability of being dealt some random hand is exactly the same as being dealt a perfect hand. Every single hand is astronomically unlikely. But the unlikelihood of a hand doesn’t prevent it from being dealt. It’s only because we look at the “perfect” hand and think of it as “special” that we can’t see this.

Leslie gives the following example:

Bob is given a new car for his birthday. There are millions of license plate numbers, so the number CHT 4271 would occasion no special interest. But, suppose Bob had been born on August 8, 1949. And suppose the plate he were given read “BOB 8849.” It would be absurd of him to simply assume “well it had to be some number, and any number is equally improbable.” Surely, this would suggest a probability of design.

The issue is not just the issue of improbability of the event alone, but the combination of improbability plus independent pattern.

 

[Spock]

Bob is given a new car for his birthday. There are millions of license plate numbers, so the number CHT 4271 would occasion no special interest. But, suppose Bob had been born on August 8, 1949. And suppose the plate he were given read “BOB 8849.” It would be absurd of him to simply assume “well it had to be some number, and any number is equally improbable.” Surely, this would suggest a probability of design.

The issue is not just the issue of improbability of the event alone, but the combination of improbability plus independent pattern.

No, it does not suggest anything. The “pattern” you mention is something that you “read into” it. By the same method you could argue that a license plate of “ANA 7738” was designed for Bob. Do you see why? Each letter and number is exactly one less than his name and birthday. Anything and everything can be “viewed” as a pattern, if you look long enough and hard enough. Good, old, meaningless “numerology”, from the time of the alchemists. Alas, it still lingers on.

This is called the odometer syndrom. When looking at the car’s odometer, and seeing 6 identical numbers, we surmise a “pattern” there. For Bob in your example, the odometer reading of “080849” would be “significant”. But so would be “881949” or “194988”, or… We are always searching for patterns, and even is there are no patterns, we invent them. Patterns are just like beauty: “they only exist in the eyes of the beholder”.

For me, if I see the number of “6174”, or “8128”, or “1729”, those stand out like a sore thumb. They are very “special” numbers for me. For you they are proabably just ordinary, run-of-the mill numbers. For example: 1729 is the smallest integer, which can be added up as the sum of two cubes, namely 10 cubed + 9 cubed, or 1 cubed + 12 cubed. There are no smaller numbers with this property. 8128 is “obviously” a perfect number, it equals the sum of its divisors. I leave 6174 as a homework.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

No, it does not suggest anything. The “pattern” you mention is something that you “read into” it. By the same method you could argue that a license plate of “ANA 7738” was designed for Bob. Do you see why? Each letter and number is exactly one less than his name and birthday. Anything and everything can be “viewed” as a pattern, if you look long enough and hard enough. Good, old, meaningless “numerology”, from the time of the alchemists. Alas, it still lingers on.

This is called the odometer syndrom. When looking at the car’s odometer, and seeing 6 identical numbers, we surmise a “pattern” there. For Bob in your example, the odometer reading of “080849” would be “significant”. But so would be “881949” or “194988”, or… We are always searching for patterns, and even is there are no patterns, we invent them. Patterns are just like beauty: “they only exist in the eyes of the beholder”.

For me, if I see the number of “6174”, or “8128”, or “1729”, those stand out like a sore thumb. They are very “special” numbers for me. For you they are proabably just ordinary, run-of-the mill numbers. For example: 1729 is the smallest integer, which can be added up as the sum of two cubes, namely 10 cubed + 9 cubed, or 1 cubed + 12 cubed. There are no smaller numbers with this property. 8128 is “obviously” a perfect number, it equals the sum of its divisors. I leave 6174 as a homework.

Particle physicist and catholic apologist Stephen Barr wrote and outstanding article a few years ago on this subject, he even had a license plate analogy. Rather than quote from it I’ll link to it, I highly recommend it to everyone on this thread.

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-design-of-evolution-22

 

[danserr]

You really think that Bob should just assume that were the result of chance? Would you really think that likely in that situation? Wouldn’t it be more probable that someone bought that license plate for him?

Someone gives him a car, on his birthday. The first 3 letters are his name, and the next 4 his birthday. And he should just assume it’s the result of chance? That is completely implausible.

I watched a debate between a Christian and an athiest. The atheist tried to object to the teleological argument by asking 20 people in the room to name a number from 1-100 at random. They each named a number and it went something like 12493234323423432… and so forth. The atheist, then argued that since each number is equally improbably, one should no more be surprised at that number than any other.
-The Christian then asked the atheist: what if each of those people wrote down a number, and the first one wrote down the number 1, the second, the number 2, the third, the number 3 and so forth. Would he think that this were the result of chance, since any number is equally improbable? The atheist conceded he would not try to explain this by way of chance.

Or suppose Anti-theist’s example of the card hand. Let’s say now, that for 12 hands in a row, the same person won with 4 aces each time. Would you think this was the result of chance, or that something was up? Would you say “well any hand would be equally improbable and really anything can be a pattern if you look hard enough.”? If so, when can we meet and play cards ?

 

[tonyrey]

So no – the likelihood or unlikelihood of our universe existing as it does has absolutely no bearing on whether or not some supernatural intelligence made it so.

It is not just a question of our universe existing but of what has occurred, is occurring and will occur in our universe, notably the purposeful activity of all living organisms and the rational activity of human beings -and probably of other beings on other planets.

On the face of it your argument seems to be that nothing whatsoever in our universe could have any bearing on whether it is designed - which is ludicrous. It amounts to blind faith in the power of Chance to produce anything and everything!

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Again, this either/or+synthesis is both an inadequately framed question and answer. It leaves too much out of the"equation."

 

[Spock]

You really think that Bob should just assume that were the result of chance? Would you really think that likely in that situation? Wouldn’t it be more probable that someone bought that license plate for him?

Someone gives him a car, on his birthday. The first 3 letters are his name, and the next 4 his birthday. And he should just assume it’s the result of chance? That is completely implausible.

Yes, in this case, exactly as you presented it, the only plausible explanation is that the licence plate was ordered, too. So what is the point? Presumably you intended this as an analogy. An analogy of what? Explain, please. Tell me what does the birthday stand for, what does the car stand for, what does the licence plate stand for? What does the “giver” represent? In other words, translate the details from the analogy into reality.

I watched a debate between a Christian and an athiest. The atheist tried to object to the teleological argument by asking 20 people in the room to name a number from 1-100 at random. They each named a number and it went something like 12493234323423432… and so forth. The atheist, then argued that since each number is equally improbably, one should no more be surprised at that number than any other.
-The Christian then asked the atheist: what if each of those people wrote down a number, and the first one wrote down the number 1, the second, the number 2, the third, the number 3 and so forth. Would he think that this were the result of chance, since any number is equally improbable? The atheist conceded he would not try to explain this by way of chance.

Obviously that atheist was not a mathematician. If we can make sure that the people in the room are unable to coordinate their actions, none of them has any idea what the others write down, then every possible sequence is equally probable. But the point is not this. I am certain that those debaters had no idea just what probability is, what is the difference between a-priori and a-posteriori probabilities. What is the so-called “surprise” factor of an outcome. I will explain the details later. First let’s see the translation of your analogy.

Or suppose Anti-theist’s example of the card hand. Let’s say now, that for 12 hands in a row, the same person won with 4 aces each time. Would you think this was the result of chance, or that something was up? Would you say “well any hand would be equally improbable and really anything can be a pattern if you look hard enough.”? If so, when can we meet and play cards ?

I will answer this one, once you explain the analogies above.

 

[danserr]

If we can make sure that the people in the room are unable to coordinate their actions, none of them has any idea what the others write down, then every possible sequence is equally probable.

Ah, but now you are begging the question, by assuming in advance that nothing strange was up. But with the universe we don’t know this, and if you assume that design is not the case, then you are similarly begging the question.

The two in question were professional academic philosophers. They were perfectly aware of probability.

The purpose of the analogies is simply to show that the atheist may not merely retort that any outcome may plausibly be the result of chance because any outcome is equally improbable. The analogies show that something is up when the improbability is combined with an independent pattern.

Consider one version of the teleological argument.

1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to chance, necessity, or design.
2. It is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
4. There are a dozen or so constants that recent science has shown must be remarkably narrowly finely tuned to allow for a life-permitting universe. (Gravitation, the weak force, ratio between mass of an electron and mass of a proton, rate of expansion of the universe, entropy level of the universe etc). If just one of these were a hair off, no life could exist. For example, A change in the gravitation constant by one part in 10 to the hundredth power would prevent a life-permitting universe. Of these dozen or so constants, if any one of them were even a hairbreath off, no life could exist. Yet, all of them “just happened” to line up to allow for a life permitting universe.
5. Given the improbability that even one of these values would allow a life permitting universe, yet the fact that they all lined up to allow a life-permitting universe, it is implausible that such is the result of chance.
   -So the point of the analogies above was to show that the skeptic may not simply maintain that any universe is equally improbable, but some universe must exist so we shouldn’t be surprised that ours does. It is not improbability alone that demands explanation, but the combination of improbability plus independent pattern. Any license plate number would be equally improbable, but the combination of pattern plus improbability makes us think that something is up.

-Hence the Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose rejects chance as a reasonable explanation, while Hawking appeals to a multiverse to explain it away. And you may not reject Hawking as not knowing about probabilities. The modern scientific fondness for inventing the multiverse is testimony to the inadequacy of the chance hypothesis. The failure of chance and the improbability of the multiverse are what led Anthony Flew, the British philosopher to accept the teleological argument and become a theist.

 

[tonyrey]

Again, this either/or+synthesis is both an inadequately framed question and answer. It leaves too much out of the"equation."

What else you do you suggest? An appeal to ignorance?

 

[AntiTheist]

Leslie gives the following example:

Bob is given a new car for his birthday. There are millions of license plate numbers, so the number CHT 4271 would occasion no special interest. But, suppose Bob had been born on August 8, 1949. And suppose the plate he were given read “BOB 8849.” It would be absurd of him to simply assume “well it had to be some number, and any number is equally improbable.” Surely, this would suggest a probability of design.

The issue is not just the issue of improbability of the event alone, but the combination of improbability plus independent pattern.

No. The “pattern” is entirely in your mind: your decision to regard the perfect bridge hand as “special” or the Bob license plate as “special” doesn’t make it any more likely that those situations were the result of conscious intelligence.

Your argument here suggests that any and every coincidence can be considered an act of conscious intelligence, which is not a sensible way to approach existence.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

-Hence the Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose rejects chance as a reasonable explanation, while Hawking appeals to a multiverse to explain it away. And you may not reject Hawking as not knowing about probabilities. The modern scientific fondness for inventing the multiverse is testimony to the inadequacy of the chance hypothesis. The failure of chance and the improbability of the multiverse are what led Anthony Flew, the British philosopher to accept the teleological argument and become a theist.

I’m a believer and I kind of like the “teleological” argument from the fine tuning, though it ain’t a proof, but I have to point out Roger Penrose does not reject chance as an explanation. I’ve read most of his books and he’s a typical materialist and agnostic scientist.

 

[danserr]

I’m a believer and I kind of like the “teleological” argument from the fine tuning, though it ain’t a proof, but I have to point out Roger Penrose does not reject chance as an explanation. I’ve read most of his books and he’s a typical materialist and agnostic scientist.

agreed. he is a non-theist. but he also rejects random chance as an explanation. So does hawking, he only makes it work by appealing to a multiverse.

I agree, the teleological argument should be considered “evidence” not “proof.”

 

[Spock]

Ah, but now you are begging the question, by assuming in advance that nothing strange was up. But with the universe we don’t know this, and if you assume that design is not the case, then you are similarly begging the question.

I don’t see your explanation of the analogy. What is the equivalent of Bob’s birthday? Of the license plate? As I said, in the example which you brought up, the answer is that the licence plate was likely ordered on purpose. How does it relate to reality? Either you can make a one-to-one correspondence, or drop the whole analogy, and talk about what you wanted to illustrate. By the way that fact that those two people were philosophers makes it very unlikely that they understand probability theory.

 

[Spock]

Ah, but now you are begging the question, by assuming in advance that nothing strange was up. But with the universe we don’t know this, and if you assume that design is not the case, then you are similarly begging the question.

Certainly that is the null-hypothesis. Suppose the experiment is much simpler, namely tossing a thousand coins into the air. The expected result is to have heads and tails about half the time. But even if the result is wildly different, one such experiment tells you nothing. It could be a statistical fluke. How to decide it? Simple. Repeat the experiment a few million times. If there is a significant deviation from the “500 heads and 500 tails” expected result, then you can start to speculate. But one experiment tells nothing.

The two in question were professional academic philosophers. They were perfectly aware of probability.

Bah, as if that would mean anything. Philosophers are not very knowledgable about anything.

The purpose of the analogies is simply to show that the atheist may not merely retort that any outcome may plausibly be the result of chance because any outcome is equally improbable. The analogies show that something is up when the improbability is combined with an independent pattern.

The analogy is meaningless without a one-to-one translation.

Consider one version of the teleological argument.

1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to chance, necessity, or design.
2. It is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

This hinges on lots of things. Define “fine tuning” in a meaningful fashion. Prove how it did not come by chance, or did not come by necessity.

1. There are a dozen or so constants that recent science has shown must be remarkably narrowly finely tuned to allow for a life-permitting universe. (Gravitation, the weak force, ratio between mass of an electron and mass of a proton, rate of expansion of the universe, entropy level of the universe etc). If just one of these were a hair off, no life could exist. For example, A change in the gravitation constant by one part in 10 to the hundredth power would prevent a life-permitting universe. Of these dozen or so constants, if any one of them were even a hairbreath off, no life could exist. Yet, all of them “just happened” to line up to allow for a life permitting universe.

What you quoted is sheer nonense, empty speculation. I especially “like” (sarcatic remark) the ironclad assurance that if any of those alleged constants would be just a little bit different, then life would not be possible. What a ridiculous assertion! How would anyone know that? As if a different type of life would be impossible. Sheesh. I wonder who was the first idiot who came up with this?

1. Given the improbability that even one of these values would allow a life permitting universe, yet the fact that they all lined up to allow a life-permitting universe, it is implausible that such is the result of chance.

This is where the whole argument collapses. How do you know what is “probable” and what is not? This is where the proponents of this so-called argument display their total ignorance of what probability means.

I am going to explain with a simple and correct analogy. You have a huge box in front ouf you. The box is filled with with lots of little balls, and on each one there is a number. You don’t know the size of the box, you don’t know what numbers are written on the balls. You reach in and pull out one, and it contains the number 17 (for example). This is all you have. How can you decide if this result was a “surprising” result or not? You cannot know it. You need to know how many “balls” ar in the box, and what numbers are written on each ball. But you cannot have that information.

However, what you did was about like this: Looking at the number of 17, you start to speculate: "hmmm, it is possible to construct a 17-sided polygon with only a straightedge and a compass. This is very rare. Only a few numbers have this property (Fermat primes of the format 2^(2^n) + 1). Therefore it is very surprising to have one of them. Wow. It must be the result of some design process. What a joke this “reasoning” would be.