Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

To summarize, creationists have offered math to suggest the overwhelming improbability of abiogenesis, a claim that individual creationists are happy to use in debate. The math is seriously flawed.In response to these flaws being pointed out, the individual creationist at hand (that's you, Faith) declares that the math doesn't matter since creationist probability is 100% (supported only by assertion, not by any evidence or mathematical model), and any degree of improbability for abiogenesis is trumped by creationist certitude.Either the math matters or it doesn't: this now-we-use-it, now-we-don't maneuver is like sleight of hand.It seems to me that this discussion epitomizes the difficulty with Intelligent Design or Creationist Science, i.e., religion, entering the scientific arena: arguments are presented with purported mathematical or scientific evidentiary claims as support, but when those claims are invalidated, the response is that math and science don't really matter, anyway.But what truly bears repeating is that evolutionists are not presented any problem even if a valid mathematical model suggests abiogenesis is wildly improbable--the theory of evolution does not address abiogenesis.The assertion that evolutionists have anything to concede here, even if we grant the contrary-to-reality claim that the creationist math is valid, is invalidated by irrelevance.One might validly say that a well-supported mathematical critique of abiogenesis would present a problem to those who support abiogenesis, but evolutionists truly do not have a dog in that fight, even if they may also consider abiogenesis the most likely source of life.I am inclined to believe that abiogenesis occurred, but I have no developed theory to support that belief, merely my observation that naturalistic phenomena eventually yield to naturalistic explanation. Evolution is another matter entirely, with a well-developed theoretical model and a plethora of evidence.Edit: typoEdit #2: another typo--I gotta start using a spell checker...This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-03-2005 09:01 AMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-03-2005 09:02 AM

---

IMHO

Then I misunderstood your earlier "It doesn't matter." Thanks for the clarification. Like the others above, I didn't read his assertion that way. If RAZD did intend what you suggest, then I agree that would beg the question. Emphasis added.Well, I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not pretending, and the suggestion of pretense is an ad hominem fallacy. I grant that you are sincere in your beliefs, Faith: there is no reason I can see to deny the same courtesy to me and other evolutionists. That is another implied ad hominem, but I think you misunderstood me as well. I do not object to anyone performing computations or empirically evaluating evidentiary claims: I would encourage everyone to do both, evolutionist and creationist alike. However, the frequency with which creationists present scientific evidence that turns out to be flawed, and the frequency with which the invalidation of that evidence is shrugged off, only underscores for me the irrelevance of science to faith (small f ): science cannnot falsify your faith; your faith cannot falsify science.The only valid ground of struggle between the two is where faith attempts to use bad science against good, esp. when faith so often fails to grasp authentic scientific methodology and thus presents flawed evidence, and even more esp. when faith attempts to use that flawed evidence to support changes in secular policy, e.g., teaching Intelligent Design.I do object to fallacious computations, especially when such computations continue to be presented as evidence once their errors are pointed out, and I do object to comparisons of subjective certainty to mathematical probability--apples and oranges, really, and the argument from intuition carries no more evidentiary weight than a personal preference for apples over oranges.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-03-2005 09:48 AMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-03-2005 10:51 AM

---

IMHO

Faith, I don't mind you not responding to the rest of my post (even though I worked hard on it) since the points I made have been echoed by others.But how about the following? It is difficult to see how our conversation can proceed productively while you insist that evolutionists are pretending to believe their own assertions.I'd appreciate a response.

Robin, I assume by the "OP" you do not mean Faith's opening salvo in this thread, but rather RAZD's post which provoked it. Just to refresh our context, here is what he said (emphasis added): But I think what riled Faith is RAZD drawing on the preceeding particulars to state a general principle: RAZD has just finished deconstructing a fallacious calculation of the probability of abiogenesis; the quotes around "improbability" reflect that larger context. But he does not address his remark about models and evidence to abiogenesis, he addresses it to the plain fact of extant life. However improbable one may intuit it to be, life exists; arguments for creationism based on the improbability of life must shoulder the heavy burden of demonstrating that improbability: RAZD rather handily demonstrated their failure to do so.If your point is that creationists need not calculate probabilities since they believe as a tenet of faith that God worked miraculously to create life, fine: but then who is begging the question?But other than that definitional pass, I don't understand what else you think Faith is right about. Where does RAZD beg the question?Please point out the specifics.Edit: Sorry, Nosy, I was typing while you posted.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-03-2005 10:08 PM

You must have remarkably acute hearing, Robin--I didn't hear that "under the breath" clause and still cannot.One more time into the fray, then I, too, will wish this thread a good day.This contretemps began with a creationist argument against abiogenesis wrapped in math, essentially saying abiogenesis is so improbable that divine creation is more likely.But that assertion profoundly begs the question since, as you point out below, there is no way to compute the probability of divine creation. RAZD pointed out that:1. The creationist computation of the probability of abiogenesis is deeply flawed. That calculation cannot be made without an exhaustive knowledge we do not possess.2. Life is here, whatever the origin: arguments from improbability are pointless in the face of that fact, whatever the origin.On the one hand we have odds that cannot be calculated due to insufficient data; on the other, we have a claim not amenable to probabilistic analysis (at least in a mathematical sense).As I noted above, if one asserts that naturalistic phenomena are addressable by probabilistic analysis, and supernatural events are not, fine: it is not a particularly productive observation, but I have no problem with it.But that differs from what Faith asserted which was that any calculation of odds for a naturalistic cause will be trumped by the likelihood of a divine cause.That odds cannot be calculated for the supernatural event does not mean that the odds are better for the supernatural than the natural. We would not be comparing x:1 to y:1 odds, but rather x:1 to {undefinable}: we would, in effect, be dividing by zero.Faith has claimed that means evolutionists/abiogenesis (mistakenly commingled) "loses"--and that is logical rubbish: only by assuming the correctness of her divine cause claims can she reach that conclusion; otherwise, she would be agreeing with RAZD that such probability calculations cannot address the issue.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-04-2005 09:42 AM

Hey, how 'bout those Yankees?!Well, we've both had our say.Have a beautiful autumn evening, Faith.

Faith, my apologies in advance for discussing you in the third person.That also seems valid, Robin, but my understanding of the fallacy has always been that an individual's incredulity is not a valid argument against any proposition: "I can't believe you ate the whole thing!" is purely subjective and merely describes your disbelief, not my ability to eat the whole thing.I have a schizophrenic brother. He is extraordinarily bright and verbally facile. If you reason against his delusions, and reason him into an apparent corner, he will look you in the eye and say, "I don't have to believe that." End of discussion.Faith's incredulity is likewise both monumental and armored (no, I am not suggesting Faith is mad ).But, like randman, she will not even grant that evolutionists actually believe their own assertions; at best, she hints darkly at some sort of Freudian repression or displacement; at worst, we are all engaged in deliberate bad faith. Like you, perhaps, I sense a lively intelligence that I am sure I can engage if I just...Much of her incredulity is rooted in ignorance of scientific methodology, but she shows little interest in making a focused effort to address that lack. Her beliefs are fixed and finished. The tentative nature of science is a sign of weakness to Faith, not a hallmark of open-mindedness."I can't believe you guys don't see this!"Sound familiar?

I guess I'm flat-out saying so, although there may be phenomena that none of us can conceive of--but how would we know?In the context of debate/discussion, if I can conceive of something or find it credible, and my interlocutor cannot, what else can these disparate states be but subjective?My ability to conceive of/imagine a proposition/phenomenon is not evidence for its truth/existence, nor is the interlocutor's inability to do so evidence against it.Let me turn your question around: How can mysteriousness be objective?The Hound of the Baskervilles is mysterious until we finish the story, so it is mysterious to some and not to others. Isn't mysteriousness really just ignorance wrapped in wonder?