Chance v. Design (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, June 04, 2009, 21:50 (5449 days ago) @ Matt S.

Matt recommended that I study Jason Rosenhouse's article on Probability Theory. - In your study of epistemology, you will perhaps have found out that the process of interpretation is constantly under the influence of our existing knowledge and beliefs. Whatever we interpret will contain gaps, and we fill those gaps in accordance with our own repertoire of experience. Interpretation entails an often unconscious process of selection. I'm bringing this up now because I've read the article on Probability Theory which you recommended, and I have a clearer idea of your approach and of how you and Jason Rosenhouse do your selecting. - Firstly, you stress that "improbable events happen all the time", no matter what the odds may be against them, and you relate this to the theory of abiogenesis. But of course the fact that improbable events happen does not provide the slightest jot of evidence that animate matter can arise spontaneously from inanimate, and there is a huge leap required from "improbable events happen" to "I believe". Somewhere along your probability/possibility line there has to be a point at which you say that belief goes beyond the borders of common sense (e.g. a billion monkeys with a billion typewriters could, in 400 million years, write the complete works of Shakespeare), but that point will be set subjectively. Well, I draw a line at unconscious bits of matter building a self-replicating machine that has the potential to adapt, develop etc. Yes, it's theoretically possible. But I shall need a lot more evidence than theoretical possibility before I believe it. - Jason Rosenhouse points out that "we have only one example of evolution to consider. We have no background experience that will allow us to say, 'Usually in the course of four billion years of evolution, we end up with nothing like the bacterial flagellum,'" etc. He stresses the uniqueness of this process, and says "there is no way of distinguishing the design-suggesting patterns from the 'something had to happen' patterns." Quite right. The argument applies to both theories, but Rosenhouse is interested only in its anti-design application. He goes on to assert that "the patterns we find in nature are precisely those we would expect from prolonged evolution by natural selection." I don't know how he can have such expectations when, by his own argument, he has nothing to compare evolution to, but since I also accept the basic theory, I agree that nature's patterns are those of evolution. So do many ID supporters. Evolution is not the problem. The problem, totally ignored by Rosenhouse, is how evolution got started in the first place. - This huge gap in his argument is then made blindingly obvious when he goes on to talk of computer simulations, programmes and algorithms: "It is routine in such experiments to observe the evolution of complex functionalities undreamed of by the human programmers who started the ball rolling." Exactly. Something has to start the ball rolling. There would be no simulation, programmes, algorithms or computers without the intelligence that created them. It is perhaps the best analogy you could find for ID: the programmer/designer/ God devised his programme. He/she/it may have been surprised by the results, or maybe not. Since we have no "background experience", how can we know what the programmer's patterns ought to be like?
 
However, don't get me wrong. This is not an expression of belief. I'm just trying to explain why I'm unconvinced by Jason Rosenhouse's selection of material to fill in the gaps.