One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Monkey1976]

A good analogy on the situation is the following…

Before you stands a bicycle thief with 30 or 40 locks on the ground, all opened.

You discover that the locks had been wrapped securely around the bike, but somehow the thief has successfully opened all of them one after the other.

If the locks had one or two dials of numbers, you might conclude that the thief was “just lucky.” However, if each lock had hundreds of dials and, still, the thief successfully and successively opened each one, I don’t think your answer would be, “Well, he got them opened so there was a probability of 1 that he would. I see no difficulty and no special skills involved.”

The fact that you don’t see this point puzzles me somewhat.

Hitting on just the right settings for cosmological fine tuning is exactly like hitting just the right settings for the dials on those locks. Any setting was possible, for each constant. Why were those precise settings (correct numbers on the locks) achieved instantly at the Big Bang?

Hitting the right amino acid sequences to obtain functional proteins were just like the bicycle thief getting the correct numbers on not just one, but many locks. Getting DNA code at just the right configuration to “open” the possibilities of replication and the potential for a variety of life forms, again, was like the bicycle thief getting the right combination of numbers from a huge pool of possible configurations.

Your answer…

… well it happened so it was just as likely as any random set.

The bike thief standing with a pile of opened, but impossibly configured locks, at his feet begs to differ with you,

The odds of getting 10 heads in a row can be calculated by 1^n. For a coin, the probability of heads is 1:2. So, for 10 occurrences of heads, the probability is 1:2^10, or 1:1024. Now let’s look at the probability of getting HTHHTTHTHT: In each flip, the probability of getting the specified configuration for that flip is 1:2, so for 10 flips the final probability is 1:2^10, or 1:1024 - exactly the same as getting 10 heads in a row. There is nothing “privileged” about a run of 10 heads other than the significance that we give it because we like patterns. For any given starting set, all possible combinations of the same length have the same probability of showing up in a random scrambling. If a particular scrambling would have consequences attached (such as being set free for 10 heads in a row) and those consequences are present (the victim is freed), then it isn’t unreasonable to assume a - from our point of view - random chance. It might be unlikely, but the fact that it had a non-zero probability yet still happened doesn’t imply anything about how it happened. Because there is no direct implication of an intelligent cause, taking an objective view of the measurement means that we have to apply Occam’s razor and avoid the introduction of an outside entity. To claim that probability directly implies an intelligent designer simply because the odds of the particular configuration whose consequences we see are incredibly small is an argument from incredulity.

 

[dshix]

The odds of getting 10 heads in a row can be calculated by 1^n. For a coin, the probability of heads is 1:2. So, for 10 occurrences of heads, the probability is 1:2^10, or 1:1024. Now let’s look at the probability of getting HTHHTTHTHT: In each flip, the probability of getting the specified configuration for that flip is 1:2, so for 10 flips the final probability is 1:2^10, or 1:1024 - exactly the same as getting 10 heads in a row. There is nothing “privileged” about a run of 10 heads other than the significance that we give it because we like patterns. For any given starting set, all possible combinations of the same length have the same probability of showing up in a random scrambling. If a particular scrambling would have consequences attached (such as being set free for 10 heads in a row) and those consequences are present (the victim is freed), then it isn’t unreasonable to assume a - from our point of view - random chance. It might be unlikely, but the fact that it had a non-zero probability yet still happened doesn’t imply anything about how it happened. Because there is no direct implication of an intelligent cause, taking an objective view of the measurement means that we have to apply Occam’s razor and avoid the introduction of an outside entity. To claim that probability directly implies an intelligent designer simply because the odds of the particular configuration whose consequences we see are incredibly small is an argument from incredulity.

So, you are saying that since we are here to observe it, it just so happens that this particular universe had the exact right set of constants to produce life by chance?

Do you believe in the multiverse hypothesis?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The odds of getting 10 heads in a row can be calculated by 1^n. For a coin, the probability of heads is 1:2. So, for 10 occurrences of heads, the probability is 1:2^10, or 1:1024. Now let’s look at the probability of getting HTHHTTHTHT: In each flip, the probability of getting the specified configuration for that flip is 1:2, so for 10 flips the final probability is 1:2^10, or 1:1024 - exactly the same as getting 10 heads in a row. There is nothing “privileged” about a run of 10 heads other than the significance that we give it because we like patterns. For any given starting set, all possible combinations of the same length have the same probability of showing up in a random scrambling. If a particular scrambling would have consequences attached (such as being set free for 10 heads in a row) and those consequences are present (the victim is freed), then it isn’t unreasonable to assume a - from our point of view - random chance. It might be unlikely, but the fact that it had a non-zero probability yet still happened doesn’t imply anything about how it happened. Because there is no direct implication of an intelligent cause, taking an objective view of the measurement means that we have to apply Occam’s razor and avoid the introduction of an outside entity. To claim that probability directly implies an intelligent designer simply because the odds of the particular configuration whose consequences we see are incredibly small is an argument from incredulity.

It’s just as much an argument from incredulity to claim that “hitting” thirty or forty hugely improbable sequences repeatedly implies nothing more than each was the one outcome that obtained as a matter of simple fact and THAT fact needs no further consideration.

The analogy of the bicycle thief was intended to point out the peculiarity of such a claim. We wouldn’t make it to explain how the thief unlocked all the locks, but somehow because we find ourselves to exist, that fact means we ought to merely accept it as a given and dismiss any thought about what an extraordinary outcome our existence truly is.

Such a view is like finding a briefcase with a fortune in it, then insisting we shouldn’t try to explain its origins but just be content with the fact that it is in our hands at this moment as a “stroke of luck.”

 

[Monkey1976]

So, you are saying that since we are here to observe it, it just so happens that this particular universe had the exact right set of constants to produce life by chance?

No, what I’m saying is that the probability is not an argument for a designer. I believe that God specifically set our universe up so that life would exist, but I don’t think that God can be proved empirically, because such a proof would remove the need for faith.

Do you believe in the multiverse hypothesis?

To a degree, yes. I think that it offers a neat solution to the apparent contradiction of God’s omniscience and our free will. Being God, He can see all of the possibilities of everything throughout all possible timelines.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, what I’m saying is that the probability is not an argument for a designer. I believe that God specifically set our universe up so that life would exist, but I don’t think that God can be proved empirically, because such a proof would remove the need for faith.

My question would be, then, “Does the life of Jesus, if it has strong empirical support, also remove the need for faith?” Knowing with some degree of historical certainty that he was crucified and rose from the dead actually removes the need for faith?

Is faith really a question of holding beliefs in the face of any and all empirical evidence?

I don’t see how that needs to be the case.

 

[Monkey1976]

It’s just as much an argument from incredulity to claim that “hitting” thirty or forty hugely improbable sequences repeatedly implies nothing more than each was the one outcome that obtained as a matter of simple fact and THAT fact needs no further consideration.

The analogy of the bicycle thief was intended to point out the peculiarity of such a claim. We wouldn’t make it to explain how the thief unlocked all the locks, but somehow because we find ourselves to exist, that fact means we ought to merely accept it as a given and dismiss any thought about what an extraordinary outcome our existence truly is.

Such a view is like finding a briefcase with a fortune in it, then insisting we shouldn’t try to explain its origins but just be content with the fact that it is in our hands at this moment as a “stroke of luck.”

I’m not saying that it “needs no further consideration”. All I’m saying is that a designer is not - from an objective point of view - the only explanation.

 

[RACJ]

I’m not saying that it “needs no further consideration”. All I’m saying is that a designer is not - from an objective point of view - the only explanation.

Do you think that a single-cell organism was our original ancestor, Monkey? That is what evolution teaches. If you DO believe it, please roughly explain the methodology. If you do NOT believe this, why are they teaching it in school? Rob

 

[Monkey1976]

Do you think that a single-cell organism was our original ancestor, Monkey? That is what evolution teaches. If you DO believe it, please roughly explain the methodology. If you do NOT believe this, why are they teaching it in school? Rob

I accept the evidence that points to a common line of descent for all life present on Earth, and the evidence that the earliest form of life for which we have a record is blue-green algae found in rocks that are more than 3.5 billion years old. I also accept that all mankind is descended from a particular pair of humans which we refer to as Adam and Eve. Scripture simply states that God formed Adam “out of the dust of the earth” - it doesn’t say what tools He might have used, and it is on that front that I accept the science.

What I don’t accept is the “evolitionism” or the expansion of evolutionary theory into the realm of philosophy, which leads to people like Dawkins twisting it to deny the reality of God, or eugenicists advocating sterilization for those they see as “defective”, or the various “racial purity” movements that have plagued the 20th century.

 

[buffalo]

No one wants to touch this one? :nope:

I want to specify you flip 100 heads in a row then alternate and flip 100 tails in a row. Keep doing it until are successful. How many years must you be doing this at 1 flip per second.

 

[dshix]

No, what I’m saying is that the probability is not an argument for a designer. I believe that God specifically set our universe up so that life would exist, but I don’t think that God can be proved empirically, because such a proof would remove the need for faith.

Well, I have to disagree with you, then. The fact that it doesn’t make probable sense that any ordered thing exists in the universe suggest that there must be an intelligent creator.

The very fact that any order exists in the universe is a testament to His existence.

To a degree, yes. I think that it offers a neat solution to the apparent contradiction of God’s omniscience and our free will. Being God, He can see all of the possibilities of everything throughout all possible timelines.

If that’s the reason why you believe in the multiverse hypothesis, it’s unnecessary. There is no contradiction between God’s omniscience and our free will, and God doesn’t need to create another universe for each and every different possible decision. He can see all "if this, then that"s. God doesn’t need to create a multiverse to see every possibility.

 

[Monkey1976]

No one wants to touch this one? :nope:

I want to specify you flip 100 heads in a row then alternate and flip 100 tails in a row. Keep doing it until are successful. How many years must you be doing this at 1 flip per second.

Anywhere between 200 seconds and the end of time. Probability doesn’t tell us that something will definitely happen after a given amount of time. It’s just as likely that I’d flip 200 heads in a row, or 200 tails, or a mix with no apparent pattern, or 100 tails followed by 100 heads, or a binary representation of the first few dozen digits of pi, or…

Chance has no half-life, and dice have no memory. Rolling a 6 doesn’t affect the chance of the next roll also being a 6.

 

[Monkey1976]

Well, I have to disagree with you, then. The fact that it doesn’t make probable sense that any ordered thing exists in the universe suggest that there must be an intelligent creator.

It suggests the possibility of a creator, but it doesn’t prove that such a creator exists.

The very fact that any order exists in the universe is a testament to His existence.

I agree! I just don’t believe that this is something that can be shown from objective measurement. It can be argued from a philosophical or theological standpoint, but not from an empirical standpoint.

If that’s the reason why you believe in the multiverse hypothesis, it’s unnecessary. There is no contradiction between God’s omniscience and our free will, and God doesn’t need to create another universe for each and every different possible decision. He can see all "if this, then that"s. God doesn’t need to create a multiverse to see every possibility.

With quantum mechanics - which has proved to be a fairly successful theory so far so long as one ignores gravity - predicting the multiverse, I choose to believe that the way God sees the all of His if/then statements in the program of creation is through multiple universes. In my understanding, the existence of multiple universes doesn’t contradict anything in the Faith, as the only “point” where any two universes intersect is God Himself. Once of the consequences of a multiverse according to quantum mechanics is the impossibility of travel between them. Even if one had a time machine and went back into the past, all that does is - from our point of view - “create” a “new” branch to follow with return to the traveler’s “home” universe now being impossible.

 

[edwest2]

Actually, Intelligent Design is Science: it begins with the empirical evidence and ends with the conclusion of design. Please note: Intelligent Design says nothing about the identity of the Designer; that is a question for Theology.

It is actually Darwinism that is not Science and is really just pseudo-science, Materialism really: Darwinism begins with the unsubstantiated, unproven claim that there is no Designer and that all reality is limited to the purely material. You see, Materialism was designed to exclude the Designer, but let’s not pretend that it is Science. I have never met a Darwinist that will admit that the Universe may in fact be Designed and that this Design may in fact extend deep into biology and that in fact it is possible to detect this Design via Science.

But, you see, God exists. God created the Universe. He designed the Universe. Therefore, He is synonymous with the Intelligent Designer. We shouldn’t be surprised that it is possible to detect the fingerprints of the Designer on the things he Designed.

Intelligent Design Theory is certainly Science because it’s conclusions are based solely on the empirical evidence.

True scientists follow the empirical evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads to the conclusion of Intelligent Design.

The evidence is mounting. There is no need to overstate or understate its importance. But it is important. Archaeologists are quite good at looking at bits of stone and determining that one was shaped by wind, rain and other methods of erosion.

Even if they never find out who made it, an arrowhead found in the dirt has distinctive marks that show it was designed for a purpose. That it is not just another similar piece of stone that has obviously not been designed but broke into a shape that only resembles the arrowhead without close examination. As we examine the genome, we are finding previously unknown function in what was arbitrarily called junk not long ago.

Peace.
Ed

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Do you think that a single-cell organism was our original ancestor, Monkey? That is what evolution teaches. If you DO believe it, please roughly explain the methodology. If you do NOT believe this, why are they teaching it in school? Rob

Well, I believe it. I can’t explain the methodology of the Theory of Evolution, but I’m not a scientist. I also can’t explain a lot of the methodology used in the development of Catholic Theology, but I’m not a theologian. One doesn’t actually have to be an expert in something who can briefly explain complex concepts at the drop of a hat in order to believe something to be true. If that were the case, we’d all be atheists.

 

[dshix]

Anywhere between 200 seconds and the end of time. Probability doesn’t tell us that something will definitely happen after a given amount of time. It’s just as likely that I’d flip 200 heads in a row, or 200 tails, or a mix with no apparent pattern, or 100 tails followed by 100 heads, or a binary representation of the first few dozen digits of pi, or…

Chance has no half-life, and dice have no memory. Rolling a 6 doesn’t affect the chance of the next roll also being a 6.

Right. So, using the flipping coin analogy, there is 1 in n possibility that we will get a perfectly ordered output. (n being the total number of possibilities)

However, there is an n - 1 over n possibility of getting an un-ordered combination.

Thus, there is a far greater possibility of getting an un-ordered series of coin flips, rather than the single possibility of a perfectly ordered series of 100 heads followed by 100 tails.

Extending that to the universe, there is a 1 over n possibility for the gravity constant to be EXACTLY what it is. If it were but a tiny bit more or a tiny bit less, the universe as it is now would be unsustainable. Thus, there is a 1 over n possibility, considering the gravity constant alone.

However, there is an n - 1 over n possibility of having an un-ordered universe.

__

If we take this to include everything about our universe that is perfect, that, if it were off by the tiniest degree, the universe would collapse into a disordered state, the number, 1 ordered chance over n disordered chances, becomes very, very, VERY small.

Do you see now? It has nothing to do with whether every combination has equal probability, but everything to do with how many of those combinations could lead to an ordered universe.

 

[Monkey1976]

My question would be, then, “Does the life of Jesus, if it has strong empirical support, also remove the need for faith?” Knowing with some degree of historical certainty that he was crucified and rose from the dead actually removes the need for faith?

Is faith really a question of holding beliefs in the face of any and all empirical evidence?

I don’t see how that needs to be the case.

The Resurrection is a miracle - a suspension of physical laws through the direct action of God. Is it possible that God created DNA and all the necessary proteins ex nihilo through a miracle? Of course! Does the physical evidence suggest that it is otherwise impossible? No. By the standards of the Church, that suggests that the creation of DNA was not a miraculous act. For something to be declared a miracle, there must be no physical explanation.

Empirical evidence is evidence which - when examined by different objective parties - will lead to the same conclusion by them all, and whose measurements can be repeated to the same result.

 

[buffalo]

Anywhere between 200 seconds and the end of time. Probability doesn’t tell us that something will definitely happen after a given amount of time. It’s just as likely that I’d flip 200 heads in a row, or 200 tails, or a mix with no apparent pattern, or 100 tails followed by 100 heads, or a binary representation of the first few dozen digits of pi, or…

Chance has no half-life, and dice have no memory. Rolling a 6 doesn’t affect the chance of the next roll also being a 6.

Right, so you flip two heads in a row, then a tails. Start over and try again.

How plausible is it to do it in 200 seconds?

 

[RACJ]

Well, I believe it. I can’t explain the methodology of the Theory of Evolution, but I’m not a scientist. I also can’t explain a lot of the methodology used in the development of Catholic Theology, but I’m not a theologian. One doesn’t actually have to be an expert in something who can briefly explain complex concepts at the drop of a hat in order to believe something to be true. If that were the case, we’d all be atheists.

Well, you are far more trusting in the people of science than I am. People in any walk of life can have an agenda. Millions of souls have lost their faith due to specious reasoning under the auspices of “science”. Rob

 

[Monkey1976]

Right, so you flip two heads in a row, then a tails. Start over and try again.

How plausible is it to do it in 200 seconds?

How plausible, or how probable? The probability is 1:2.58e120, just as it would be at 201 seconds, or 200 hours, or 200 years, etc.

 

[Monkey1976]

Well, you are far more trusting in the people of science than I am. Millions of souls have lost their faith due to specious reasoning under the auspices of “science”. Rob

Not so much under the auspices of science as under the misapplication of science to realms where hard science doesn’t work (psychology, philosophy, theology, etc)