Monkeys and Typewriters

[jayceeii]

To set the record straight, infinite monkeys typing for infinite time will not generate even one sentence, let alone any of Shakespeare’s works (which are not that hot anyway, from the negativity involved). Computer algorithms may achieve this, but only algorithms that do not allow repetitions. This has been a very weak aspect of human logic, not to begin to see the limitations of total randomness, to substitute “vast time” as a productive cause. If you don’t see this right away, it may be helpful to consider the critical importance of the space bar. Each sentence actually has immense information content, just from the way the spaces are arranged, that cannot be duplicated by total randomness. You could say it this way too, once the possibility of repetition is allowed a truly blistering infinity sweeps away the chance of monkeys making a sentence, completely.

This has other consequences, namely that I’d regard the Intelligent Design researchers to be on the right track, and that eventually it will be possible to prove DNA and proteins could not have arisen from random processes, once the limitations of randomness are seen. Even one protein is probably beyond the possibilities of randomness, in eternity. The interesting thing is how brutally these researchers are being opposed by the rest of the scientific community. All these scientists have read about how Galileo and other early scientists were opposed, but replicate the same actions today. Something’s rotten in Denmark, in other words, or all is not bright within science. One might even say the irrationality of these scientists is a sign of the corrupted or sinful soul, Christians assert. This makes for an intriguing proof of the created soul in the lives of atheists who deny it.

[palewine]

I agree that scientists - and people in general - should not be too quick to stifle opposing hypotheses. In their defense, however, they probably view it as moving backwards into territory that was hard-fought to escape from (i.e., pre-evolutionary theories of God's direct intervention to specially create life on a young Earth).

Additionally, it can be in effect a "science stopper" to say "God made it that way." How did the bacteria's flagellum arise? We can say, "Well, God caused it to be that way." But if we don't have that as an answer, we are forced to look for alternative explanations. It is this drive to search in new places that can result in new discoveries.

[jayceeii]

I agree that scientists - and people in general - should not be too quick to stifle opposing hypotheses. In their defense, however, they probably view it as moving backwards into territory that was hard-fought to escape from (i.e., pre-evolutionary theories of God's direct intervention to specially create life on a young Earth).

Additionally, it can be in effect a "science stopper" to say "God made it that way." How did the bacteria's flagellum arise? We can say, "Well, God caused it to be that way." But if we don't have that as an answer, we are forced to look for alternative explanations. It is this drive to search in new places that can result in new discoveries.

The Intelligent Design people are careful to assert they are not relying on scripture but applying scientific principles to see whether natural processes could be responsible for life evolving on Earth. You are here admitting that scientists are in a knee-jerk reaction, believing they see creationists, their minds unable to process information to the contrary. In other words they are not fully rational, seeing what they want to see instead of what is really there. Intelligent Design isn’t saying, “God made it that way,” but that the alternative explanations scientists are finding could not succeed. In general the fault is to assume “vast time” can accomplish anything, where in fact that isn’t true about total randomness, as my post avers, something that an advanced science may one day prove.

[Tom Paine]

I agree that scientists - and people in general - should not be too quick to stifle opposing hypotheses. In their defense, however, they probably view it as moving backwards into territory that was hard-fought to escape from (i.e., pre-evolutionary theories of God's direct intervention to specially create life on a young Earth).

Additionally, it can be in effect a "science stopper" to say "God made it that way." How did the bacteria's flagellum arise? We can say, "Well, God caused it to be that way." But if we don't have that as an answer, we are forced to look for alternative explanations. It is this drive to search in new places that can result in new discoveries.

The Intelligent Design people are careful to assert they are not relying on scripture but applying scientific principles to see whether natural processes could be responsible for life evolving on Earth. You are here admitting that scientists are in a knee-jerk reaction, believing they see creationists, their minds unable to process information to the contrary. In other words they are not fully rational, seeing what they want to see instead of what is really there. Intelligent Design isn’t saying, “God made it that way,” but that the alternative explanations scientists are finding could not succeed. In general the fault is to assume “vast time” can accomplish anything, where in fact that isn’t true about total randomness, as my post avers, something that an advanced science may one day prove.

The thing is that Nature is not random and it very well may be that the laws of Nature favor cosmic evolution, make it inevitable. I would agree that this si a sort of teleology, but it does not necessarily mean that there is any design involved in the usual sense of that word. One might ask why should we be so lucky as that the universe would have a telos of cosmic evolution towards sentient life. However, the same question could be asked of God, i.e., why should we be so lucky as that God would wish to create human life? As such positing a Creator (an unknown entity inhabiting an unknown and very mysterious timeless/spaceless realm) is unparsimonious because it multiplies entities beyond necessity and appeals to mysteries in order to explain mysteries.

[jayceeii]

The thing is that Nature is not random and it very well may be that the laws of Nature favor cosmic evolution, make it inevitable. I would agree that this si a sort of teleology, but it does not necessarily mean that there is any design involved in the usual sense of that word. One might ask why should we be so lucky as that the universe would have a telos of cosmic evolution towards sentient life. However, the same question could be asked of God, i.e., why should we be so lucky as that God would wish to create human life? As such positing a Creator (an unknown entity inhabiting an unknown and very mysterious timeless/spaceless realm) is unparsimonious because it multiplies entities beyond necessity and appeals to mysteries in order to explain mysteries.

tp: The thing is that Nature is not random and it very well may be that the laws of Nature favor cosmic evolution, make it inevitable.

jc: The argument is circular, or at least you have not clarified specifically how “nature is not random” is expected to be related to, “it very well may be that the Laws of Nature favor cosmic evolution.” This is the question in point, whether nature is guiding itself, or required an external hand. Your “very well may be,” may very well be wrong. You here only assert that your mind is  not persuaded, not giving objective criteria to sway others. A theist may say, “It may very well be that God made everything, and nature is otherwise random when unassisted.” Science has not gone far enough to answer this question well.

tp: I would agree that this si a sort of teleology, but it does not necessarily mean that there is any design involved in the usual sense of that word.

jc: Yes, when you can cogently explain how the non-random aspect of nature can arise by itself, it would be more than arguing from the way things are, where the mechanisms are unknown. You haven’t spoken accurately, a sign of unclear thinking. Instead of saying, “it does not necessarily mean,” to be clear you should say, “it has not been shown that it means.” Because if God made the world, then its non-random aspect necessarily means He made it. Failing to make this distinction, you exhibit a closed-mindedness, unable to conceive that God made it. To say, “it does not necessarily mean,” presumes another mechanism is possible, but it may not be so. If none other is possible, then it’s necessary.

tp: One might ask why should we be so lucky as that the universe would have a telos of cosmic evolution towards sentient life. However, the same question could be asked of God, i.e., why should we be so lucky as that God would wish to create human life?

jc: In my experience people are not truly glad to be present on Earth in human bodies. So if you say you feel lucky, you’d be in the minority. Even if you listen to the Christians you hear they believe life to be a curse, that it is a “vale of sorrows.” You’d have to prove to me that “nature with a capital N” or God has succeeded in creating joyful entities. In particular explain why they make war between the nations, and fast destroy their habitat.

tp: As such positing a Creator (an unknown entity inhabiting an unknown and very mysterious timeless/spaceless realm) is unparsimonious because it multiplies entities beyond necessity and appeals to mysteries in order to explain mysteries.

jc: Again, you have not pointed to mechanisms, but appear to believe in “nature with a capital N” without any privilege compared to Christians, i.e. operating by faith, not knowledge. Occam’s razor does not apply everywhere, and it may not apply here. If you explain the mechanisms whereby you posit “nature with a capital N” has operated, you’d be ahead of the theists, who were given no mechanisms by any of the religious revelations. Are you witty enough to see this mystery, that God may have misled men?