Tags
agnosticism, Anthony Flew, Atheism, books, Darwin, evolution, God, Intelligent Design, quotes, truth claims
I thought you might appreciate the following anecdote from There Is No A God, by Anthony Flew. You may agree or disagree or even think it is a little too overused but it is still worth reading.
“I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the ‘monkey theorem.’ This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away at computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet. Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages–but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. It we take that the keyboard has thirty characters (the twenty-six letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a 0ne-letter word is 30 times 30 times 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one-letter word is one chance out of 27,000.
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy, “What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?” he asked. He continued:
All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times–or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.
[Now] the number of particles in the universe–not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons–is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeroes after it. Ten to the 690th is 1 with 690 zeroes after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials: you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.
If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips–forget the monkeys–each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would still be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just thinks the monkeys can do it every time. (“Has Science Discovered God?” http://science.lenicam.com.)
It says something for the argument from design, does it not? Hmmm.
Pastor Jeff
The analogy is flawed because the current state of the known universe didn’t pop into existence. It was a long (longer than you or I can probably comprehend), arduous process, with very little ‘success’.
The analogy also starts with the assumption that the universe, or human biology, or any biology, is this perfectly crafted thing like one of Shakespeare’s sonnets. This is false. The ‘bad design’ in both biological systems and cosmological ones strikes me as closer to “Shall I cmphoraerinai tiebnnop a summmmmnreeees ayy.” Certainly some bits in there work, enough to keep us going forward. But it is a long way from perfect.
There are three things that come to mind immediately (therefore, not tremendously well thought out):
#1–I will grant that the analogy is possibly flawed simply because just about any analogy is at some level
#2–It appears quite often that “time” serves as a bit of a magic wand in these discussions–anything is possible (even probable) if given enough time.
#3–I’m not sure that the astronomically (pardon the pun) precise fine tuning of the universe or amazing detail of the human genome is accurately being considered.
I will get back to you on your other very important comment (regarding A.N. Wilson) because I want to give a response worthy of the question
1. A fair response.
2. Time is not the magic wand. Time is merely what is there. And what has arisen from the universe in the time since the big bang is not as impressive as we like to think.
3. The astronomical fine tuning is not actually astronomical (unless we’re talking about the scale of the things involved, of course) or terribly fine.
The simplest contradictory example would be considering that we live on a planet that is 75% water, and of the remaining 25% most is either too cold or too hot for humans to live without relatively advanced technology of some kind. If we are to believe the universe is fine tuned for the existence of specific species, it seems much more likely that the species involved would be aquatic in nature.
I don’t understand your comment about the universe not being that finely tuned:
1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal “Scientific American”, reflects on how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values. Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues: One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning — The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile: The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.
3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues, Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universe — and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure — we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same. “The Fine Tuning of the Universe”
Richard Dawkins even understands the problem this presents. It is what has led to his idea of multiple universes (so much for observable, measurable, testable hypotheses). The idea being that if there are a sufficiently large number of universes then the chances are greatly improved that one as finely tuned as ours could have randomly evolved.
I think a key thing you need to do is define what you mean by ‘fine-tuning’. Because it seems to fluctuate. On one hand, it seems to mean that life is so incredibly improbable. On the other hand, it seems to mean that everything is perfectly made for us. Which is it?
If some sort of cosmic being created the universe specifically for us, why would that being put us on this virtual knife’s edge, where an inch in either direction would destroy us? If this were a fine-tuned universe, why is it so vast and seemingly empty of life (at least what we would arrogantly call ‘intelligent life’)? Why isn’t the universe peppered with planets of lifeforms like us, all worshiping the same deity? (Or at least given the opportunity to do so.)
As I said before, the circumstances on our planet allow for life, but they seem ‘finely tuned’ for a fish or microbe of some kind. Not us.
Your quotes, so it seems to my mostly ignorant self, appear to stress how unlikely a number of events were. And that’s fine. I agree that a lot of unlikely and improbably things needed to have happened. But improbable is not impossible. And I don’t see how something being improbably points to a fine tuning.
Since your identification is “my mostly ignorant self” and I am probably even less informed I guess we are just pooling our ignorance, yet it is rather enjoyable so let us continue. There is arguably not a reputable scientist of any field that does not understand and even admit the strong appearance of design. This is true whether we are gazing into the universe or peering into the sub-atomic world. That is what science tells us. The worldview now takes over. If one operates with a naturalistic perspective then only a naturalistic perspective is offered. If one is open to super-naturalism then other possibilities emerge. What everybody is realizing is that there are innumerable measurements that if they are not exactly as their are then earth will not support life–at least none that could be having this discussion.
I find most of your questions not scientific, but philosophical in nature (or maybe even theological)–or to put it another way, dealing not with the what, but with the why. For instance, what I find most prevalent in the naturalistic evolution vs. ID discussion does not center on “is it true?”, but “that is not acceptable because it potentially brings a religious perspective in the discussion, therefore it is out of place.” My answer to your “why” questions is “I have no idea.” However, that does not void the reality that all evidence seems to point to a “design” conclusion.
My only response to one of your questions will put us on opposing sides of the equation–the fact that we are on a “virtual knife’s edge” moves us closer to the conclusion of an intelligence that either designed laws that holds us in that position, or personally maintains us in that safe, albeit, precarious position.
I’ll go through your entire response and give it the response it deserves when I have a second to do so.
But until then, I just want to respond to one thing really quick.
“Life as we know it”
Correct…life as we know it wouldn’t exist if things were different. Life, however, could very well exist. Just in a different form.
To put it simplistically, think of a puddle of water. The water conforms itself to the contours of the hole in the ground, thus creating a puddle. If any of the contours or dimensions of the hole was different, or altered, then the puddle as we know it would no longer exist. But the water would flow into a new formation, thus creating an entirely different kind of puddle.
Obviously the universe is much more complex than a puddle of water. But I think the comparison is sound.
“That is what science tells us.”
Here you are incorrect. But it’s an honest mistake.
Many scientists, and most lay-people, will make the statement that there is an appearance of design. But that is not what science says. That’s why people say based only on appearance. There is no additional evidence to back up that appearance.
It’s the same with the sun. It appears as if the sun is smaller than the Earth, and the sun revolves around us. No scientist would deny that appearance. But that isn’t the truth, and it isn’t what science tells us.
Do you see the difference?
“If one is open to super-naturalism then other possibilities emerge.”
Certainly. But without good, empirical evidence, ANY possibility is tenable. Which is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created in the first place…to demonstrate that if you start basing what you want science to be on non-scientific processes (like faith), then there’s no reason to assume one (the Christian deity) over another (a deity made of pasta).
“For instance, what I find most prevalent in the naturalistic evolution vs. ID discussion does not center on “is it true?””
Actually, it centers on “is there any scientific evidence for ID?” And there is not.
“but “that is not acceptable because it potentially brings a religious perspective in the discussion, therefore it is out of place.””
If we’re talking about a science class in a public school, then that is the appropriate response.
“the fact that we are on a “virtual knife’s edge” moves us closer to the conclusion of an intelligence that either designed laws that holds us in that position”
As you guessed, I disagree. The fact we are so precarious either indicates a God who doesn’t particularly care about us, or does not exist.
Good morning. First, regarding the big questions–I listed a number of those in my blog post–the very oft-mused wonderings of origin (Where did I come from?), meaning (Why am I here?) purpose (What is my purpose?), destiny (where am I going?), why is there music, love, curiosity? Where did morality come from? And questions along those lines. Let’s understand what is meant by “the appearance of design.” I do not mean that the orb we are standing onobviously looks bigger than the much larger orb that is 93 million miles away (which would be an astoundingly elementary question). I mean the fine-tuning of the universe, the staggering intricacies of DNA and the in workings of the cell, etc. And you are right when you say “many scientists” make that claim–I am thinking of people like Dawkins, Crick, Hawking, etc.
I am going to have to suggest that the “faith vs. religion” (which you use here-and is so amazingly over used) concept is nothing except a brushing aside which attempts to accomplish the result of “since I have said this then there is nothing to talk about.” Example–naturalistic science for a very long time (and some continue) purported that matter was eternal. Einstein and the big-bang cosmology untenable. It makes very good sense why the dominant scientific enterprise wanted to hold on to that–if matter is not eternal they are put in the unenviable position of having to explain the origin of matter. What that has done is leveled the playing field. So now one person says “matter has always existed (no empirical data) and the other person says the designer has always existed (no empirical data)–they are both faith assumptions.
When you mentioned bringing “religion” into the public school classroom–no that is not what I am talking about–I am talking about the public debate period. However, you have brought up an interesting point. There is a crusade (oops, religious term again) of even having the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution addressed in the classroom. Of course, here it is once again, if you are able to label anybody that disagrees with this particular way of viewing the world as religious–eureka–no debate. But we see the very same thing in the scientific journals, university research facilities, science centers, etc.
Question–you stated a rather absolute, blanket, all-encompassing statement that there is no scientific evidence for Intelligent Design. I would be very curious how you justify that statement–especially in light of the common assertion (often made with some form of humility) that science is a self-correcting field, that changes as the evidence warrants. And realizing that there certainly is the appearance of design. I would even go as far as to say that an absolute statement smacks more of “religious dogma” than “scientific proposition.”