Jonathan Ichikawa of There's Some Truth In That is troubled by Intelligent Design arguments that rely on probability:
One motivation for creationist theories often goes something like this: "Look at the amount of complexity in the human and natural world. The probability of something this complicated happening by random chance is [insert fantastically small number here]. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that life/the universe did not occur by chance, but rather by design."
While the conclusion could be considered "creationist", the premise of this theory is beyond dispute. The premise is nothing more than a restatement of the weak anthropic principle. Simply put, it means that any theory about the universe must be consistent with the appearance of carbon-based human beings on earth at this period in the universe's history. The existence of humans requires certain conditions. Obviously, since humans exist these conditions occur.
There are 55 parameters that are necessary for human life to develop on a planet. These elements consist of such parameters as the size of our galaxy to the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. To complicate matters, each parameter has a very limited range. For example, if the age of our planet was too young it would rotate too slowly to sustain life; any older and it would rotate to rapidly. Like the porridge in the tale of Goldilocks, the universe has to be "just right" in order for humans to exist.
While the universe could have developed in an almost infinite number of ways, the requirements for human life are much more limited. Therefore we can measure the probability of all 55 of these parameters falling in the range of "just right." The possibility that one planet like ours would meet all of these conditions is less than 1 in one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion.
I don't know about you, but I consider that a fairly "low probability."
Jonathan, however, appears to be confused about what is at issue:
I've always been troubled by arguments of this type. The probability of an event's occurrence is relative to a state of affairs. We know that the probability of a coin landing heads up is .5, given that I flip it. Since we know that Tom is a professor, we can estimate a high probability of his being a liberal. But what presupposed states of affairs are relevant for our theory of the formation of the universe? From our point of view now, we already know that the universe happened, so it's just false to say there's a low probability of its having occurred. That would be as if I flipped a coin, observed it as having landed heads, and then said that there's a 50% chance that the coin landed tails.
Let's take the coin example first. The outcome of the coin flip is 100% only after the coin was flipped. The outcome, however, had no bearing on the probability of the coin landing tails before it was flipped. Before you flip the coin there is a 50% probability that it will land tails. Like the universe, the coin has specific parameters or "boundary conditions" that limit the outcome of the coin toss. It will either come up heads or tails.
Even if we did not witness the coin being flipped but were only told the outcome it would not matter. Since we know the boundary conditions we can deduce what the probability of the coin toss was before it was flipped -- 50% chance of heads, 50% chance of tails.
Now let's go back and tackle the crux of his argument: "From our point of view now, we already know that the universe happened, so it's just false to say there's a low probability of its having occurred."
Like our example with the coin, the fact that the event has occurred (the universe happened) has no bearing on the probability of it occurring as it did. The underlying assumption is that if something happened then it had to happen in just that way, which, naturally, is a fallacious assumption.
1
If a book exists which has in it 31,102 statements and none of the statements have been "proven" inaccurate since it's conception by two or more witnesses (i.e. The same criteria used to judge accused criminals of guilt) -- and many, if not most, of the statements have been testified as accurate by many witnesses (most of whom were subject to stoning if caught in a lie), then what is the probabily of the following statement being true:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Answer: (pick one)
1. 100%
2. 50%
3. 0%
Correct Answer:
It depends.
If you are God, then the answer is 1
If you are a human, then the answer is 2
If you are a liberal professor, then the answer is 3
2
We have here an example of the fallacious way some opponents of ID use probability. It is not simply a matter of low probability that points towards design. Look out at your parking lot at work... what are the chances that the cars there would be parked exactly like they are today? Miniscule. Yet... there they are - see! - events with low probability can occur!
The problem with that reasoning is that, even though the even is highly improbable, there is no information being communicated by it. Give me an event with low probability AND high information, and I'll give you an intelligently designed activity. Bill Dembski defines this as CSI (pre-TV show days) - Complex Specified Information.
As to the Universe just happening... the fact that the universe happened isn't what's so amazing. The uniqueness is in the amount of finely tuned aspects of the universe needed to allow the building blocks of life to aggregate.
posted on 01.02.2004 8:48 AM3
Here are two letters from the Lubavitcher Rebbe with scientific arguments as to why creation can be considered valid even in view of current scientific theories (and other related topics). It does not directly address the question of probabilities but I thought they were relevent.
They are a bit long but I thought that they would be interesting to some of you.
http://www.chabadnews.us/Old%20Letters/RA000014.htm
and
http://www.torahscience.org/torahsci/rebbeletter.html
posted on 01.02.2004 3:25 PM4
I don't really have much to add to this discussion, but I do want to say that I'm glad to see Reasons to Believe being used as a source. Hugh Ross is a genius, and it's a shame more people don't take him seriously.
posted on 01.02.2004 4:36 PM5
C.D.,
I've also been impressed with Dr. Ross. His books were the first to get me interested in the ID theory and I've always found his arguments rigorously compelling.
posted on 01.02.2004 4:41 PM6
What's more, Hugh Ross is integrity personified. I've spoken with him on several occasions and have heard him speak numerous times. If you are able to exhibit half the charity and patience that he does, consider yourself lucky.
posted on 01.02.2004 5:06 PM7
Ichikawa, of course, does not understand probability. That being so, how can he understand the Anthropic Principle, OR ID?
If a penny lands tails up, we are totally unimpressed - unless we needed to win with a "heads". If it lands tails up fifty times in a row, we are very impressed, precisely because it IS A VERY LOW PROBABILITY. Still, it happened, so it's obviously NOT an impossibility. That's his only valid point, and it doesn't change the extremely unlikely possibility, and the fact that we begin to SUSPECT CHEATING (read, "Intelligent Design). Give me a 1000 heads-up in a row, I KNOW SOMEONE IS CHEATING (read, "intelligently designed the coin or environment to produce a highly IMPROBABLE event). Give me 18 million heads-ups (about equal to one short DNA code) and only the most stupid, or biased (read "theologically opposed", say, atheistic) against recognizing reality.
By the way, I'm working my tail off (now there's a strange concept) getting my own blog up. I write about such things, much like Hugh Ross (he reviewed part of my book), but go further. Right now I'm giving a better paradigm than Big Bang (which I actually like, but it's just a mirror of what Scripture describes)... so, I shamelessly invite you to the cafe. Alcaide's Cafe.
Starbucks coffe is free!
Also, notice the "online casino" spam, just before me. Hit me my first week up! I do believe its illegal, now, so....
posted on 01.28.2004 5:01 PM