Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

It IS what he said and I am not begging any questions. I didn't see any point in answering what is really not much more than what everybody else is saying, although thanks for acknowledging that it sort of sounds like he was begging the question. I believe someone else acknowledged that much, however.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-04-2005 07:28 AM

Evidence in favor of the event does not make the probabilities equal between random generation and creation.

Here is RAZD's follow-up. This is supposed to show that he was not assuming a naturalistic position for the origin of life beforehand, since if he was, he would be assuming what he's arguing for.But the hand of God doesn't apply when constructing mathematical models. Probabilities only apply when constructing naturalistic models. He is, in effect, saying that since life came about {under his breath, naturalistically}, there must be something wrong with the model, or rather that it does not matter how improbable it is, it happened (under his breath, naturalistically).There is the underlying assumption of a naturalistic explanation.

What you are trying to get away with is claiming that the probabilities are equal between random generation of life and the work of a Creator. It's like trying to claim the probabilities are equal between the spontaneous generation of a lawn or a rose garden and its being intentionally planted by a designer. Or pick an opposite kind of example, the cottonwoods growing along the creek -- are the odds equal that they seeded themselves versus that somebody planted them? No, the odds are far greater that they seeded themselves.A creationist says quite reasonably that the probabilities don't look too good for the spontaneous generation of life from non-life (leaving aside particular computations for the moment) and you answer basically, oh the probabilities are just fine, BECAUSE LIFE EXISTS AFTER ALL (the lawn exists, the rose garden exists, the cottonwoods exist). Sorry, that declares your conclusion in your premise, that spontaneous generation is how it happened, and eliminates a priori the other possibility of a Designer, begs the whole question under debate.Now, if you don't get this, that's fine, it will only be what I expect, and I wish you a good day.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-04-2005 07:55 AM

Yes, thank you. Very much what I've said in earlier posts. {More clearly put I think, I must admit}This message has been edited by Faith, 10-04-2005 07:50 AM

On the other hand, this whole practice of constructing models of probability doesn't work to advance either side of the argument. One might conclude that the odds of life arising naturalistically are one in a million.Then we have to compare that with the probability of life arising by the hand of God, which, of course, can't be done. What are the odds?It would, I suppose, be an "argument from incredulity" to conclude that life could not arise naturalistically because the odds against it are great, and therefore had to arise by the hand of God, unless we had other evidence in addition to our mathematical model of improbability.

quote:

---

Then we have to compare that with the probability of life arising by the hand of God, which, of course, can't be done. What are the odds?

---

Excellent point, robin. I hope you don't mind if I start using this myself.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

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

Who else developed an argument that you are begging the question, by assuming that models will have an effect on abio and evo theories?Oh wait, I see that Robin is starting to notice some problems and they should lead directly to that same assessment of your position. Not sounds like... is begging the question. You are right that what you wrote is begging the question.The problem is that your paraphrasing is not accurate, and that appears to stem directly from not understanding what he was saying, which involves understanding how models are made and tested and what they apply to. That is why people keep trying to discuss models. If you understood them, then you'd understand exactly what he meant, and that your paraphrase (while an example of begging the question) does not hold.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think you are making a mistake here. He was suggesting that even if the hand of God was the cause (and we account that a naturalistic explanation) probability calcs do not impact the theory.No matter how "improbable odds" you get from ANY model, until the model is known to be foolproof and involves everything needed for such a calculation, it suggests simply that the model is not complete, rather than that a theory is in question.You and Faith both seem to be missing that the assumption that a probability calculation on this topic could be correct in any way shape or form is begging the question.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well, I'm simply grateful to you for recognizing the specific point I'm making here about begging the question.Subjecting God to mathematics or to any facet of His own creation rather rubs me the wrong way so that's as far as I'm willing to take that discussion.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-04-2005 01:51 PM

Then why did RAZD indulge in it at all? Besides, how often are all the knowns available when probabilities are calculated about anything whatever?And about the model's not being complete, how nice it would be if the evolutionists would recognize that that is the case for creationism when they make their haughty demands for a complete theory from them and say it is not science until it exists.

Sorry if I missed that you said that in so many words. It simply sounded over and over like "Oh but that isn't what he meant" which is as good as saying it's not really begging the question, which makes your point rather academic and useless. Sorry, he himself computed the probabilities as if to do so were quite legitimate, then turned around and made this absurd self-serving generalization that undid the whole thing.

This is absolutely absurd. The whole debate is about HOW IT AROSE, and its being here cannot possibly be used as an argument in favor of abiogenesis. THAT's the question-begging going on. It's a simple observation that should be graciously chalked up to the creationist side of the argument without all this nitpicking. It's between naturalistic processes and a Designer. You don't compute the odds for a Designer, it's a given. The complexity of the naturalistic processes makes their random occurrence Highly Unlikely, and this contributes to the evidence for a Designer. And as I said, recompute it from time to time. There is no way ALL factors are present in ANY probability calculation anyway.And it's true I think the improbability of BOTH evolutionism/abiogenesis is off the charts on the face of it, I didn't "mistakenly commingle" them. This is a Coffee House thread.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-04-2005 02:13 PM

quote:

---

Sorry, he himself computed the probabilities as if to do so were quite legitimate, then turned around and made this absurd self-serving generalization that undid the whole thing.

---

That's not true. The calculation was NOT presented as legitimate.The first objection declared all such calculations illegitimate The calculation simply illustrated ANOTHER error.