|
Feedback archive →
Feedback 2010
Monkeying with probability
Published: 15 May 2010(GMT+10)
Photo stock.xchng
Russell Grigg’s article
Could monkeys type the 23rd Psalm? evoked some interesting comments,
both positive and negative. We present a selection below, along with comments from
our editors.
Tom W. of the UK thought that we had misunderstood the meaning of the term “eternity”.
He wrote:
Haven’t quite got the idea of ‘eternity’ here, have you? It means
infinite, for ever. No matter how unlikely an event is, given enough time/chances,
the probability of that event occurring approaches one.
Russell Grigg and
Dr Jonathan Sarfati reply:
Thank you for your comment on the article.
Haven’t quite got the idea of ‘eternity’ here, have you? It means
infinite, for ever.
The term “eternity” does indeed mean “infinite, for ever”, which is the very reason
why it cannot apply to our universe, because of the concept of heat death. This
is when the universe will have run down to a state of no thermodynamic free energy
to sustain motion or life, as a result of the operation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Other terms for it are maximum entropy or maximum disorganization or maximum randomness,
which is not a condition which promotes chemical reactions, let alone produces life.
Not only could monkeys not have typed the 23rd Psalm within our universe,
but evolution could not have occurred within our universe either.
For the monkeys to type something, they have to be somewhere, i.e. within our universe.
Likewise, if evolution has occurred, it has to have occurred somewhere, again within
our universe. If either process, i.e. typing or evolving, needs infinite time in
order to come to consummation, then because of the concept of heat death, not only
could monkeys not have typed the 23rd Psalm within our universe, but
evolution could not have occurred within our universe either.
No matter how unlikely an event is, given enough time/chances, the probability of
that event occurring approaches one.
You are saying in effect, “Given infinite time, everything will happen.” But something
that is logically impossible does not become possible, just because you have more
time.
Something that is logically impossible does not become possible, just because you
have more time.
This is really special pleading, i.e. an explanation atheists accept for the huge
improbabilities of chemical evolution, but would not tolerate for a second to explain
anything else. Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelled
your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it. Who
would think that wind and wave erosion somehow produced that pattern by chance,
even though there is an extremely tiny probability of this happening.
So if a person had an a priori bias that no one could have written your
name, he could argue that there has just been an infinite amount of time so that
this improbable erosion pattern arose naturally. If this sounds totally unreasonable,
then by the same logic, so is the atheistic preference for time and chance to produce
life from chemicals, over a Creator.
Also, the article undermines the “infinite time” argument, since the chemical reactions are
reversible. That is, because both forward and reverse reactions occur, the longer time periods mean more chance to reach equilibrium, which is far away from life.
In our second letter selected for presenting this week re Russell’s article,
Jordan K. of USA brought up the subject of natural selection:
Interesting article, but what about selection?
Sure, you can state in the article that selection doesn’t apply to the non-living
precursors to life, but that doesn’t mean it actually does. Selection very
well applies, in that certain molecules formed through “random” mixing are going
to be more stable than others. As these stable molecules interact and eventually
form a self-replicating molecule, it will be selected for by virtue of it’s
ability to "survive". Once other self-replicating molecules form (or variations
to the first class), selection will then select for stable replicators, efficient
replicators, or replicators resistant to being "eaten" by other replicators. Thus,
evolution starts. No appeals to magic, no ridiculous amounts of chance.
CMI’s Dr
Don Batten responds:
Selection appropriate to the origin of life cannot operate at any significant
level in an abiotic (i.e. lifeless) soup of chemicals (see also Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life). The scenario given is irrelevant
to the origin of life because many of the most important chemicals needed for a
reproducing living cell are highly unstable—cytosine and ribose,
for example. They are only relatively stable in the environment of the
cell, but even here they have to be recycled and remanufactured continually. Consequently,
this is further evidence against naturalistic origin of life hypotheses. See
Origin of life: instability of building blocks .
Our third email was from David G. of Australia, who wrote:
Your article came onto the site at just the right time. The question of the ‘chance’
of life occurring naturalistically came up in a discussion group at my church. I
was able to send the link to the article to the person who served the group (not
led, mind you; as the Holy Spirit leads!). I don’t think that she had come
across CMI literature before, and she was appreciative.
Russell Grigg replies:
Thank you, David, for this. Our aim is to provide materials that will equip Christians
to uphold and to spread the Word of God.
Russell Grigg
Related articles
| We support belief in an intelligent designer—the God of the Bible. This site was also ‘intelligently designed’. But rather than six days, it’s taken thousands of days. Help us design more information for this site.  | | |
|
