Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

If I understand correctly you are suggesting that QM renders the creationst claims in question only virtual impossibilities rather than absolute impossibilities.From a scientific point of view ignoring the evidence on the grounds of a vanishingly small possibility that it might be drastically misleading is a non-starter.I suppose the real question is not whether this would make creationism scientific - obviously it would not - but whether creationists are desperate enough to use it as an apologetic rather than simply inventing convenient miracles. I would say not, not only because of the weakness of the argument but because it would mean that they would have to give up all improbability based arguments - or be subject to ridicule from everyone who notices the obvious inconsistency.

quote:

---

I propose that we represent quantum creationism and the theory of evolution with a mathematical model of each

---

Since that can't be done it seems pointless.

quote:

---

The unimaginable improbability of random molecules just magically assembling themselves into a great variety of living things in, let's say, 3 days, could be represented by an unimaginably large 2-dimensional canvas with pixels of various colors rapidly being added to form an breathtakingly beautiful panoramic mural of exquisite detail. As for the evolutionists, their canvas would be equally large, and their pixels would appear sporadically, in fits and starts, and ultimately take 4x10^11 times longer to fill the canvas.

---

However the "evolutionist" model does not rely on the ridiculously improbable events that your model requires.

quote:

---

If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me, from the 5 quarters of probability theory--including 1 graduate course in applied probability theory--that I took at UCSD, that the probability of these two miracles happening is exactly the same fantastically small number

---

Ask for your money back. Even if the only difference were the time factor you would still be completely wrong. And if you understood probability theory you would know that.

quote:

---

Then from the mathematicians' perspective, the theory of evolution isn't science.

---

You have an odd idea of what mathematicians consider science.

quote:

---

At least I know that quantum creation is ridiculously improbable. The fact that evolutionists are unable to estimate the probability for evolution doesn't make their view more scientific.

---

And the fact that physicists can't estimate the probability of every particle in our solar system ending up where it did doesn't make physics any less scientific.

quote:

---

The first mathematical model I thought of assumed Poisson processes and a fantastically small probability p that some inanimate material on this planet could assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. For p being fantastically small I concluded that the probability for evolution was indeed 4x10^11 times greater. The problem for evolutionists is that 4x10^11 times an infinitesimal is still infinitesimal.

---

The problem for you is that the real probability would be finitely small, so the probability would still be 11 orders of magnitude higher. And since your estimate assumes Quantum Creationism, simply given a longer time scale all you are saying is that Old Earth Quantum Creationism is hopelessly bad at accounting for the diversity of life - and Young Earth Quantum Creationism is so improbable that even an improvement of 11 orders of magnitude doesn't help it.And YECQ needs a whole lot more virtual impossibilities to account for the evidence, so it's even worse than that.So thanks for proving my point. Your Quantum Creationism is useless even by the low, low standard of creationist apologetics. YECs would have to be completely nuts to waste their time on it.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.