Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Theistic Evolutionists Close Ranks — Let the Bloodletting Begin!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Theistic evolutionists hold that Darwinian evolution is God’s way of bringing about the diversity of life on earth. They used to be content to criticize ID on scientific grounds. But that’s no longer enough. They are now charging ID with undermining the very fabric of civilization and even the Christian religion itself. Ken Miller’s most recent book, just out, makes this point in the title — Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. From the title, you’d think that Darwin is the Messiah and that until his ideas about evolution gained acceptance, our souls were in jeopardy.

Miller has called himself an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Darwinian (cf. the 2001 PBS Evolution Series). But one has to wonder which of these masters he serves more faithfully. A year or so ago, when Richard Dawkins’s website posted a blasphemy challenge (reported at UD here — the challenge urged people to post a YouTube video of themselves blaspheming the Holy Spirit), I asked Ken Miller for his reaction. He pooh-poohed it as “a clumsy attempt to trivialize important issues.” The obvious question this raises is whether systematic efforts by atheists to trivialize (and indeed denigrate) important issues is itself an important issue.

Could it be that the evolutionists’ assault on both science (by perpetuating the fraud that natural selection has unmatched creative powers) and religion (by using evolution as a club to beat people of faith) is undermining America’s soul? Not according to Miller. He’s got other fish to fry. For him, it’s the ID proponents’ assault on evolution that is undermining America’s soul. Forget about Dawkins and his blasphemy challenge. Let’s shaft the ID community.

Francis Collins agrees. His endorsement of Miller’s book leaves no doubt that the ID people are a bigger threat than the atheistic evolutionists like Dawkins:

“In this powerfully argued and timely book, Ken Miller takes on the fundamental core of the Intelligent Design movement, and shows with compelling examples and devastating logic that ID is not only bad science but is potentially threatening in other deeper ways to America’s future. But make no mistake, this is not some atheistic screed — Prof. Miller’s perspective as a devout believer will allow his case to resonate with believers and non-believers alike.” –Francis Collins, Director, the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

With devout believers like this, give me a good infidel any time. Ever since Phil Johnson began publicly voicing his criticisms of Darwinism in the early 90s, his biggest detractors and most vicious critics have been — surprise, surprise — fellow Christians. In fact, we had a Mere Creation conference at Biola University in 1996 rather than at Calvin College (where we had planned to hold it initially) because Howard Van Till was so enraged with Johnson during his visit in the winter of 1996 that he was visibly shaking (Johnson and Niles Eldredge were having a debate at Calvin College — Eldredge turned to Phil after witnessing Van Till’s meltdown and remarked that even though things get heated among fellow evolutionists, it’s nothing like what he witnessed here).

So here’s the deal, everyone. Theistic evolutionists are implacably opposed to ID (Denis Alexander, head of a Templeton funded science-religion center in Oxford recently admitted, in these very terms, that this is his view toward ID when he asked for my consent to use and edit a video of me — and you wonder why I didn’t give my permission). They are happy to jump in bed with Richard Dawkins if it means defeating ID. They are on the wrong side of the culture war.* And they need to be defeated.

What’s our strategy. The strategy is multipronged. Let me just give you one prong: WIN THE YOUTH. The release date for Miller’s book is June 12th. I’ve got a book titled Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (co-authored with youth speaker and high-school teacher Sean McDowell) whose release date is July 1st. It is geared specifically at mobilizing Christian young people, homeschoolers, and church youth groups with the ID alternative to Darwinian evolution. You might want to compare Francis Collins’ endorsment of Miller’s book with Ann Coulter’s endorsement of mine:

In my book Godless, I showed that Darwinism is the hoax of the century and, consequently, the core of the religion of liberalism…. Liberals respond to critics of their religion like Cotton Mather to Salem’s “witches.” With this book, two more witches present themselves for burning: Sean McDowell, whose gift is communicating with young people, and Bill Dembski, often called the Isaac Newton of intelligent design. I think Dembski is more like the Dick Butkus of Intelligent Design. His record for tackling Darwiniacs is unmatched. This book gives young people all the ammo they need to take on Darwinism and understand the only viable scientific alternative to Darwinism: intelligent design. Every high school student in America needs a copy of Understanding Intelligent Design. –Ann Coulter, BESTSELLING author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism

You know, I would be happy to sit down with theistic evolutionists and discuss our differences. I think they are wrong to baptize Darwin’s theory as God’s mode of creation. But I don’t think they are immoral or un-Christian for holding their views. But ID proponents, for wanting ID to have a place at the table as a scientific alternative to Darwinism, are, according to Miller, Collins, Alexander, etc., immoral, undermining Western civilization, and destroying America’s soul. Well, you want this fight, you’ve got it.

————
*Miller himself uses the warfare metaphor in the subtitle of his most recent book — Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.

Comments
-----“tragicmishap: “Regarding freedom of expression, that’s exactly what I’m worried about. I’m worried about tyranny of Darwinism being replaced with tyranny of ID or whatever. Science and humanity will gain nothing by replacing one form of indoctrination with another.” So, do you have any reason to believe that ID supporters will not tolerate those who disagree with them? You are being tolerated here, aren’t you? In any case, I get it. You feel a great sense of urgency that the ID community may someday gain power and tyrannize the Darwinist community, even though you have no evidence to support those concerns. On the other hand, you are not overly concerned that the Darwinist community already has power and tyrannizes the ID community daily, even though you have been given abundant confirmations of that fact.StephenB
June 23, 2008
June
06
Jun
23
23
2008
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
tragicmishap ID is as ready as chance & necessity. Maybe more. We can at least prove that intelligent agents can cause complex specified information to appear where none existed before. Look at it like a murder case where we need to show means and opportunity. Chance & necessity - we can show opportunity but not means. In other words, we can place the alleded perpetrator at the scene of the crime but we can't prove it had the means to commit the crime. Intelligent design - we can means but not opportunity. In other words, we can show that intelligent designers can cause highly improbable specified changes to heritable genetic material but we can't prove the perpetrator was at the scene of the crime. As far as I'm concerned that puts chance & necessity and intelligent design on equal footing. Preferring one over the other is a matter of dogma not science. Plus the assertion that for a scientific theory to be falsified requires a replacement theory is a dog that doesn't hunt. That is not part of any philosophy of science that I ever heard of. It's a lame assertion made by chance worshippers and nothing more. DaveScot
June 23, 2008
June
06
Jun
23
23
2008
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
One more comment: "DaveScot, I appreciate your analysis, but no scientific theory ever disappeared without a ready replacement." ID is not ready, and I think we all know that. My point is that it getting even more people on board will not make ID more ready. The only way to do that is focus on the realm of creative ideas and furthuring science, not on propaganda objectives.tragicmishap
June 23, 2008
June
06
Jun
23
23
2008
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
StephenB: Regarding freedom of expression, that's exactly what I'm worried about. I'm worried about tyranny of Darwinism being replaced with tyranny of ID or whatever. Science and humanity will gain nothing by replacing one form of indoctrination with another. "It is one thing to have the majority on our side, which we do. It is quite another thing to be liberated from the tyrants who have the power to discredit our scientists and ruin their careers." Actually the advantage in the former area can very easily lead to the advantage in the latter. Raise funding for private scientific enterprise. Doing that would require a massive amount of money and minds, all focused on making discoveries rather than lecturing 8 year olds and insisting how right we are.tragicmishap
June 23, 2008
June
06
Jun
23
23
2008
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
DaveScot, I appreciate your analysis, but no scientific theory ever disappeared without a ready replacement. Most people cannot function without a coherent worldview. We need to be making positive arguments. People get frustrated with negative ones.tragicmishap
June 23, 2008
June
06
Jun
23
23
2008
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
scordova:
1. Gear ID toward the youth
Indeed. Preferably like soon to be EXPELLED John Freshwater did.sparc
June 20, 2008
June
06
Jun
20
20
2008
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Denis Alexander is director of the Faraday Instiute in Cambridge.Nick D
June 20, 2008
June
06
Jun
20
20
2008
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
Let us say the YEC case has a remote chance of succeeding. Fine, I'll take that as a given....but what if Maxwell's equations can be reformulated successfully in favor of YEC? Understand, the age of the Earth and Universe is an empirical, theoretical, and historical question. It does not have to be a theological question! If this simple question about reality is answered for a shorter time frame than say 100,000,000 years (not even 10,000), then Darwinism is toast! To that end, when I was at GMU, there was some discontent about mainstream cosmology. The question was, "how can gravity assemble stars and galaxies". At least 3 professors and the chair of our Center for Space and Earth Observation, a PhD from MIT by the name of Menas Kafatos, beleived, gravity did not assemble stars and galaxies, but rather electricity!!! I'm now convinced gravity did not assemble stars and galaxies. God used electricity, not gravity!!! Maxwell's equations deal with electricity and magnetism and light. These developments are friendly to YEC, because if the speed of light were faster in the past, a plasma cosmology could assemble stars and galaxies in a matter of hours -- and any development friendly to YEC is friendly to ID. See: Plasma Cosmology Rocks! If the TE's want some bloodletting, what will happen if in addition to their new foes (the ID proponents), their old foes (the YECs) re-join the battle. Whoa!scordova
June 19, 2008
June
06
Jun
19
19
2008
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
tragicmishap: this is an ongoing conflict over two world views. ID advocates celebrate freedom of expression, employ a legitimate scientific methodology, and go where the evidence leads. Darwinists deplore freedom of expression, impose an unduly restrictive process, and ignore evidence that does't support their ideology. While I don't accept creation science, I don't think that it is nearly so ridiculous as radical Darwinism. To propose that God created the world in seven days is less laughable than to propose that everything created itself. So if school children are laughing about creation science, it is because Darwinists have brainwashed them in materialistic ethics. That means that we need to educate the next generation of children to refrain brainwashing the generation that follows them. That way they won't shut down ID labs, withhold research funds, and, at the same time, demand to know why more research isn't being done. It is one thing to have the majority on our side, which we do. It is quite another thing to be liberated from the tyrants who have the power to discredit our scientists and ruin their careers. It should not be necessary to come up with some new scientific breakthrough as a means of winning back our freedom of expression. If anything, that is putting the cart before the horse.StephenB
June 19, 2008
June
06
Jun
19
19
2008
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
The only thing that appears to be possible at this point in time is teaching the scientific weakness of evolution by chance & necessity - God knows it’s incredibly weak and getting weaker every day.
Who now? ;) PS I am led to understand "God knows" is a religion-neutral idiom. I just thought it was funny given your astute observation abouthow design should be taught.soplo caseosa
June 19, 2008
June
06
Jun
19
19
2008
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Publishing picture books for ages 3-10 may have won public opinion, but it got creation science no further. You know what that approach did do though? It made creation science a laughing stock in the academic communnity, fit only for Sunday School children.
Creation science is the laughing stock of academia because it was bad science, not because it was presented in Sunday school. The creation science of the past left a blemish on the new generation of creationists like myself. It is not well-known, but a fairly sizeable portion of the ID movement came from a mix of Old-Earth Creationists and re-treaded TE's, and many of these were from academia. See: Eugenie Scott defeat Ed Brayton. I pointed out there, that ID was primarily for university students and professors, not kids. That means ID was geared to the adults and not to the youth initially. What needs to happen: 1. Gear ID toward the youth 2. If creation science is fixable, and if it gets fixed, then it can begin to wedge into academia like ID has. It's not there yet, it has a ways to go [finding a revision to Maxwell's equations would be a good start if the creationist want to wage a serious scientific onslaught. Until then, creation science is like a great race car stuck in the mud]...if creation science succeeds, ID for biology will be proven beyond a shadow of doubt.scordova
June 19, 2008
June
06
Jun
19
19
2008
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
tragic Now we have to win the adults. No, we have to win our constitutional right to teach the controversy without teaching religion along with it. The prevailing theory of evolution is an emperor wearing no clothes. If it can be taught objectively it will get laughed out of the classroom on its own lack of merit. The opposition knows this is true which is why they must resort to legal chicanery to keep their exclusivity in the classroom. Creation science poisoned the well by a) starting from a literal interpretation of Genesis and making ridiculous arguments for how many disparate scientific disciplines from physics to geology to astronomy are all wrong and 2) trying to get the Genesis interpretation taught in science class which is not going to pass constitutional muster. The chance worshippers know that and have been very successful in equating intelligent design with creation science in order to win the court cases. Unfortunately they've been given a lot of help because it's quite true that many, or at least enough, intelligent design proponents are guilty as charged. The Dover school board deserved to lose when the facts came out - lying under oath, hiding the source of money to pay for textbooks, declaring in school board meetings they were standing up for Jesus, and things like that. Intelligent design has to be divorced from the religious motivations. I fear that might not be possible. The well was poisoned too well. The only thing that appears to be possible at this point in time is teaching the scientific weakness of evolution by chance & necessity - God knows it's incredibly weak and getting weaker every day. Once chance & necessity is put down something else will rise by default whether it's taught or not because students are going to be able to figure out by themselves that if it didn't happen by chance then it must have happened by design - there's just no third option.DaveScot
June 19, 2008
June
06
Jun
19
19
2008
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
All I'm saying is that according to observable evidence, the propaganda approach has failed to make any headway beyond that which has already been made. Follow the evidence where it leads. Publishing picture books for ages 3-10 may have won public opinion, but it got creation science no further. You know what that approach did do though? It made creation science a laughing stock in the academic communnity, fit only for Sunday School children. Maybe we should be trying something different with our resources, as ID has always been advertised as "a new approach". If as you say (and I agree), the public opinion war has already been won, why do we need to focus on that theater? It makes no strategic sense. Focus our resources on the front lines. Offensive warfare is all about applying a large amount of force at a small, weak point in the enemy's defenses to achieve a breakthrough and a major victory. I don't understand why "WIN THE YOUTH" is supposedly our most effective strategy at this point. IMO, that is now liberated territory. Now we have to win the adults.tragicmishap
June 19, 2008
June
06
Jun
19
19
2008
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
-----"tragicmishap: "It’s simply human nature and social inertia. Darwin has inertia going for it. And average human beings will not give you the time of day unless you do something for them they can appreciate. Scientists and lay people alike are not inclined to give ID a chance because ID has not done anything for them." I don't know where you are getting this. The vast majority of the American people, at least those who care, believe in design and reject Darwinian evolution. The only reason that the chance worshippers (Dave Scots wonderful phrase) have any credibility at all is because the secular press and the secular academy keeps pushing it down our throats. We need to push back now. The discoveries will come in time, but maybe not right away.StephenB
June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
StephenB: I'm not saying it's fair that we need to make scientific leaps while Darwinism doesn't. I'm saying if we wish to win this war, that is what is required. War isn't fair. It's simply human nature and social inertia. Darwin has inertia going for it. And average human beings will not give you the time of day unless you do something for them they can appreciate. Scientists and lay people alike are not inclined to give ID a chance because ID has not done anything for them. If we don't come up with something like Kepler's eliptical orbits that beautifully solves a pressing issue, very few will be motivated to muster the energy that it takes to overcome Darwinism's greater inertia. It's just human nature. It's not fair or rational, but it is human. And it wouldn't take "a miracle" as you suggest. We believe that ID is the superior scientific theory. As such, if applied rigorously it should yield scientific results that are superior to Darwinism. Right now, all I see is a lot of arguing about who is right about the current evidence. ID should be looking forward, creating new evidence and making new discoveries. Stop whining to the refs, and do what it takes to overcome the obstacles and win.tragicmishap
June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Correction If you notice they say either - revised and/or updated, and you will find that the more parameters that were discovered, that were necessary for life, the more they would add to the probability he calculated. If you notice the dates the smaller probabilities are his earlier papers when he started this line of research.bornagain77
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
If you notice revised and updated you will find that the more parameters that were discovered that were necessary for life would add to the probability. If you notice the dates the smaller probabilities are his earlier papers when he started this line of research.bornagain77
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
Now Junkyard, Here is the short video again: The privileged planet excerpt: Pay attention to how they assign probability to the 20 parameters they consider, then you will see how Dr. Ross assigns his probability. (If this doesn't explain it for you I give up!) http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=bc25d2e6882b6b03a578bornagain77
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
correction: Here were some other values given: If, for example, each star in that 0.1-percent group has ten planets around it, the number of planets would add up to a hundred million trillion (that is, 10^20). [its 10^22 in the list above.] The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 10^140 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros).JunkyardTornado
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
JY, your hung up on his method? here is an excellent site, other than Dr. Ross's, for probability of Jesus fulfilling prophecy: Mathematical Probability that Jesus is the Christ http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm excerpt: Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students. The students carefully weighed all the factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students. From these figures, Professor Stoner, concludes the fulfillment of these eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of the prophecies (Idem, 107) - the likelihood of mere chance is only one in 10^17! Another way of saying this is that any person who minimizes or ignores the significance of the biblical identifying signs concerning the Messiah would be foolish. But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation, Stoner used 48 prophecies (Idem, 109) (even though he could have used Edersheim's 456), and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is the incredible number 10^157. In fact, if anybody can find someone, living or dead, other than Jesus, who can fulfill only half of the predictions concerning the Messiah given in the book "Messiah in Both Testaments" by Fred J. Meldau, the Christian Victory Publishing Company is ready to give a ONE thousand dollar reward! As apologist Josh McDowell says, "There are a lot of men in the universities that could use some extra cash!" (Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, California: Campus Crusade for Christ, 175). -- Thus even with the most unrealistic skeptics helping assign chances to the problem at hand you still soon pass Dembski's PB threshold. As well I wanted to comment on the fact that you seem to be confusing the probability of a given sequence of atomic molecules filling a particular space shape, which is where 10^150 PB is applied, with the probabilities that certain overall environmental characteristics necessary for life will be met in any particular location of the Galaxy. They are two different things entirely, but if 10^150 is what you require for something to be impossible by chance so be it.bornagain77
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
ba77: Well, I've got articles 46-80 left (articles containing "probability" on reasons.org, Ross's site) but I've hit the wall. If for some reason you want to go through those and find ANYWHERE a probability for a factor necessary for life is given AND how that probability was determined go ahead (or not). As I said, thus far in what I've searched, (1-45;80-92) there are none. There are a lot of interesting quotes, though: [Didn't necessarily want this to be a hit piece. Oh well.] ------------------------------ First, scattered throughout the returned articles were pages containing questions sent in by listeners and/or readers. Here were some interesting ones:
Kim from Denmark asked: How does Dr. Ross figure out all of those probabilities for the fine-tuning of the universe? David wanted to know: Are the probabilities calculated and the methods used to get them commonly accepted by the scientific community? Chris in Charlotte, NC: Is the use of probability a valid argument for the existence of God? Josh in Huntington, WV: Don’t we have to know about all of the fundamental constants before declaring the probability of the universe developing through random chance?
What was interesting about the particular links above, is that you would click on them and they would go NOWHERE. They were dead links. They were the ONLY dead links in any of the returned pages. --------------- Letter from Ross to supporters:
Dear friends, I started to write about probability theory and its application to the ongoing origin of life question, but my wife (and editor), Kathy, reminded me that this is a letter to friends, not another apologetics article. Guess which kind of writing is harder for me...
----------------- Here's an interesting quote:
"If we suppose that our universe is so constructed that the self-organization of life is not an unlikely event, then we have evidence of the supererogatory goodness of our universe, of its being more than just minimally fit for the existence of life. This supererogatory goodness of the universe would itself call for theistic explanation."
Consider what he is saying here (someone named Collins, I believe, or maybe it was Koons, not Ross though, but a full length article on Ross's site): If life is not unlikely, that as well demands a supernatural explanation! So all these probability calculations by Ross and his people are pointless! Whether life is or is not unlikely, a supernatural explanation is demanded. ------------------------- In a pdf article, "Are We Alone" by Seth Cooper, Ross is quoted at length saying that only carbon-based forms of life are possible. Copying is turned off, so to read what he says, you'll have to go to the article. In the same article it also says (somewhat incredibly) that evolutionary scientists have admitted that Ross' calculations rule out life on earth coming from aliens. ------------------- The figures for number of planets, number of habitable planets, etc at the end of the original list seemed quite definite and authoritative. But those values (and others) vary continually throughout Ross's site: (Original list:)
Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe ? 1022 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
Here were some other values given:
If, for example, each star in that 0.1-percent group has ten planets around it, the number of planets would add up to a hundred million trillion (that is, 1020). The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 10140 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros).15 The overall probability of a given planet being habitable is 10^-33 The probability that any given planet will manifest all 66 characteristics is less than 1 chance in 10 83 This list [of essential life factors] grows longer with every year. It started with two parameters in 1966,1 grew to eight by 1970, to twenty-three by 1980, to thirty by 1990, and to forty by 1995.2 Currently, the list includes more than 120 parameters and shows no signs of leveling off.3 [2001] [the list as of 2004 had jumped to 322]
------------- Interesting quote: [The probability angle in the following is what's kind of unsettling.]
Astronomers and physicists have not proved in an absolute sense that the Creator is Jesus Christ, but they have demonstrated the enormous probability that He is. The probability numbers are large enough to eliminate other possibilities from realistic contention. However debatable may be the scientific inquiries that hinge on probability calculus, there can be little doubt about the clarity of scripture in this regard: It is unique to humanity that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." ...just the last decade, significant characteristics of the universe have for the first time been measured. In those measurements both the existence and the identity of the Creator have been unmistakably revealed. He is none other than the personal, almighty, transcendent God of the Bible. The facts and the probabilities have ruled out all other candidates.
------------------------ The following are the articles that contained a lot of info related to life factor probabilities (without any of them actually explaining how probabilities were calculated): Worldview and science [1st returned article] Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible Theism vs. the Many-Worlds Hypothesis by Robert Koons, PhD Design and the Anthropic Principle by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Design Evidences in the Cosmos Facts for Faith Issue 7 2001JunkyardTornado
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
ba77:" should probably note that the probability bound here is just an arbitrary number for our purpose for this calculation since it is not on the microscopic level that we are dealing with. The microscopic level is irrelevant. You still have to consider probabilistic resources for something. (#110): I'm looking down that original list and for probabilities I see: .01,.001,.0001,.4,.3,.3,.1 and so on. The YEC talk about Ross assigning without explanation an arbitrary probability of 10^138 to 13 Biblical Prophecies coming true by chance. I want to find one place where the calculation of a probability is explained.JunkyardTornado
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
I should probably note that the probability bound here is just an arbitrary number for our purpose for this calculation since it is not on the microscopic level that we are dealing with.bornagain77
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Junkyard, How The probabilities are calculated is as they are calculated in the video I cited, Each parameter is given a very conservative number for occurrence such as .1 = 10%, .5 = 50%, .01 = 1% and so on and so forth. Since each parameter is sufficiently unique in its demand to be met, it warrants consideration in the list. Though as you noted may be is some unseen overlap for underlying concerns, thus his 10^-96 dependency factors estimate, which is again very generous for the calculation (he effectively eliminated about 90 parameters from the calculation with that dependency factor adjustment) Yet even with such a very conservative and generous allowance for dependency, he still easily passes the probability bound of the universe. Hope it is clear for you now.bornagain77
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
ba77: My original question was the following: "Does The Priviledged Planet say that the conditions they identified that are necessary for life on a planet are so rare that those conditions could not happen by chance in the Universe? Haven’t read the book, so was wondering if you have a reference if they address this" So the question concerned probabilities. I do not deny that life requires certain parameters to exist. The question is, of those 322 parameters listed by Ross, is there anywhere he says, "Factor X is required for life and the probability of factor X is P and here is how that probability was determined." The tendency for Ross not to explain how probabilities were calculated was noted repeatedly in the YEC article I quoted, for example. Actually, after my last post i decided to bite the bullet and go through every article at ReasonToBelieve.org (Ross's site) that contains the word 'probability'. I am through about 28 of the 92 such articles, and so far, NOWHERE does he give an explanation as to how the probability for ANY factor necessary for life was calculated. That includes the article you just mentioned: http://www.reasons.org/resourc.....arth.shtml Undeniably here he gives a list of factors required for life, but he does not say how their probabilities were calculated (actually in that specific article he doesn't even give the probabilities.) So IOW, its just an even less detailed version of the list you originally posted. I'm thinking that other reference you copied from his footnotes will also not give any method that was used to determine probability. (#241 William B. McKinnon and Michael E. Zolensky, “Sulfate Content of Europa’s Ocean and Shell: Evolutionary Considerations and Some Geological and Astrobiological Implications,” Astrobiology, 3 (2003), pp. 879-897.) I certainly don't deny that even the mere conditions for life are highly improbable, but it would make a difference to say that it is highly unlikely they would arise more than once in the universe, as opposed to it exceeds the probability bounds for them to have arisen at all (the latter being what Ross says). But anyway, I should be finished going through these article in ninety minutes or so, but already I've found a lot of interesting quotes which I will list later (e.g. Ross explaining in detail why only carbon-based life-forms are possible.)JunkyardTornado
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Junkyard , Did you even bother to check out the 258 references besides the ones he has in his book: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200404_probabilities_for_life_on_earth.shtml #1 All the references in Fine-Tuning of Physical Life Support Body by Hugh Ross (Pasadena, CA: Reasons To Believe, 2002) apply. What follows are 257 references that are in addition to those. Here is just one reference (#241 on the list) that shows why life is improbable on Europa just because of improper sulfate content (thus why it is a parameter for probability life on earth): #241 William B. McKinnon and Michael E. Zolensky, “Sulfate Content of Europa’s Ocean and Shell: Evolutionary Considerations and Some Geological and Astrobiological Implications,” Astrobiology, 3 (2003), pp. 879-897. Here are another site with 226 references for a similar paper he has done: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml Yet Junkyard this apparently escaped your attention since you stated: But if I had read some of Ross’s work where he explained in detail maybe 10 or 12 of those in a very convincing way, maybe that would be enough for me to put my faith in the guy for the remainder, I am inclined to think that you do not even really care to learn when you pass up the footnotes, which are in plain sight, on his site, then cite an opinion piece, and then have the audacity to say he has not defended himself. If this indeed so, I think you would rather sidetrack the discussion with irreverent spin than to meaningfully contribute to any discussion.bornagain77
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Also my understanding is virtually everything he has written is contingent on a Big Bang Cosmology to which he is thoroughly and utterly committed. So the entire Bible is reinterpreted to make it to conform to such a view. Steady-state, plasma cosmology, etc. are completely ruled out. Seems like he has a lot of interesting observations, though. Not saying the guy is worthless.JunkyardTornado
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
ba77: I identified the source as YEC to let readers draw their own conclusion. I don't withhold information as a debating tactic. Regarding Ross' list - I think you've implied you personally vouch for the figures in it, and I was thinking if it were me what would it take for me to do the same. By no means would I have to see every single one of those 322 figures explained. But if I had read some of Ross's work where he explained in detail maybe 10 or 12 of those in a very convincing way, maybe that would be enough for me to put my faith in the guy for the remainder. But I have searched the web and I don't see anything were Ross is explaining any of these figures. (in case you are able to point me somewhere). After further reading, my understanding is that the Privileged Planet was in fact based around the 20 factors identified in the video. Now maybe the claims of Privileged Planet were quite a bit more conservative, by why would not the much more impressive list produced by Ross (who I believed was a consultant for the book in some capacity) have been utilized, if anyone was convinced at all of it validity. In searching the web, I did run across commentary somewhere to the effect that Ross merely looked at the attributes of earth, and assumed that since earth contains life, we would have to find another planet nearly identical to earth to find life. Maybe that's not what he did, but its as good a guess as any, because no methodology is supplied at all. also from that YEC article:
The first chapter of Genesis records the chronological order of events as they occurred during the creation week. Dr. Ross lists thirteen creation events and says the probability that Moses could have put all of them in the correct order, if he arranged them by chance and not by inspiration, is only one chance in six trillion (13 factorial = 6,227,020,800, or about six billion). But he says Moses did arrange them in the correct order. Except by faith, how is there any way of knowing whether Moses recorded the events in the right order or not? The only other basis for standardizing seems to be by comparing them with the order offered by "science," that is, using as a standard the order give by evolutionary scientists in their textbooks. Actually, this is putting the authority of the evolutionary scientists above the authority of the Bible. ... He tells that the chance of the law of gravity not working is one chance in 10 power of 200. Newton's law of gravitation, no doubt, is the most inclusive generalization ever made: Every object in the universe attracts every other object in the universe with a force proportional to its mass and inversely to the square of the distance between them. What would cause this not to work? However, gravity may appear not to work when a magnet lifts a paperclip from the top of a desk, but it is working. Gravity might even appear not to be working when a ball is thrown upward, but of course it is. Also gravity might appear not to work if a predominance of the randomly moving molecules in an object happened by chance to be moving upward in synchrony and the object levitates for a brief moment. But gravity still would be working. Furthermore, the probability of this happening would not be a definite number but would depend upon the size and weight of the object. It would not be the same for a grain of dust as for a freight locomotive.
-----------------JunkyardTornado
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Nice little opinion piece junkyard; And that is what it is exactly an opinion piece. The reason why YEC have such a beef with Dr. Ross is that he is able and does provide scientific evidence (not opinions mind you) that YEC is full of holes. Read his blog reasonstobelieve.org, you will see he does not play when it comes to establishing facts using the scientific method. As a sidelight, if you are going to use opinion pieces to try to hold on to your positions, I would just as soon respectfully agree to disagree with you and not debate you any longer.bornagain77
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
ba77: (#98,#99) A statement concerning the ministry of Dr. Hugh Ross by Borton Davidheiser: Ph.D., Zoology [Dr Davidheiser is a YEC creationist]:
...Here is what Dr. Ross tells his audience about the second law of thermodynamics: "... If I was concerned about the second law of thermodynamics, I'd be very much afraid of my blood boiling or freezing. But I'll tell you something. I don't lose any sleep over it." (Laughter from the audience.)He says that the probability of the second law not working is one chance in 10 power of 80. He does not say how he arrived at this but it would not be a fixed number. It would not be the same for water at room temperature rising one degree above room temperature as it would be for the same water causing blood to boil when ingested. But both would violate the second law. In the taped talk Dr. Ross tells the audience that the probability of thirteen Biblical prophecies, selected out of thirty-five hundred, coming true strictly by chance, is one chance in 10 power of 138. He does not explain on the tape how he arrived at this number, but it is by attributing very large odds against each one of these prophecies coming true, and the total number of prophecies from which the sample was selected is irrelevant. If the probability for each one of these thirteen prophecies coming true is taken as one chance in a million, the chance that all of them will happen is one chance in 10^78. If the probability for each happening is reduced to one chance in a billion, the probability for all of them coming to pass is one chance in 10^117. This is still short of his 10 power of 138 figure by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. With his figure of 10 power of 58 he concludes that this "means that the Bible, based on these thirteen predictions alone, is proved to be 10 times more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics"(10 power of 138/10 power of 80= 10^58). Flaunting figures like this impresses the naive, especially when the figures are used to uphold the Bible ... An especially competent scientist who is a creationist ...says the naive followers of Dr. Ross will forgive him readily for his scientific mistakes and there is no need to mention so many of them, for "his errors are innumerable, and you could spend the rest of your life recounting them."
JunkyardTornado
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply