The Truth About Evolution and Religion

I'm sorry, did you just claim that an even division of the 4 suits in bridge was more statistically unlikely than any other arrangement? And in fact, impossible?I wish to gamble with you, sir.

Take a box of letters and dump them out somewhere (level 0). Pick out any words you see and stick them somewhere else (level 1) in the order that you found them. When you can't find anymore words, move to Level 1. Pick out any sentences you see, and stick them yet another place (level 2) in the order that you found them. When you can't find anymore sentences, move to Level 2. Take any paragraphs that you notice and move them along sequentially (level 3). Separate paragraphs ought to be good enough, you ran out of tiles in just one box before you get to chapters.So fine, now work your way through again. Take everything still at level 0, non-words, and slide it back into the box and dump it out again. Letters to words, words to sentences, sentences to paragraphs. Fill in empty spaces in order. When you are stumped at a level, nowhere to start. take the last entity involved, count the number of sub-entities, and move it forward that far in the rotation before skipping ahead. Keep going, round and round. It won't take a billion years, it won't take a million years. It will happen fast.Natural selection, arbitrary mutation. Seriously, do you play poker? Would you like to? Seriously.

Got it, finally."Facilitated Variation" is the new black. It recognizes the crippling methodology faults in "Intelligent Design", which was itself an attempt to correct merely the terminology faults in "Creation Science." Unlike these. it wishes to do actual science, piggy-backing off the work of Kirschner & Gerhart, and yet can be seen as giving some credence to the idea of a transcendent Facilitator or somesuch. As such, it ought to be a prime candidate to get out in front of the money being thrown around by abominations like the ICR.Unfortunately, the potential paradigm it represents isn't actually a tool in the hands of real biologists just yet, in this form or in this forum at least, so you are stuck fronting for it and with your physics background it somehow seems like a good idea to use 2LOT as an analogy for stacked improbabilities inherent in emergent processes in biochemistry.But, DANGER WILL ROBINSON, it isn't. The ID people have already totally spoiled that approach for you, even if you did have the depth background in genetics that would be absolutely necessary to keep your heels off your dong. You are going to need a different approachStart by thoroughly smiting Intelligent Design as pseudo-science. Just a paragraph or so to show that irreducible complexity fails, overall philosophy produces no experiments, already lost in court, like that. Then immediately another paragraph or two showing how it fails as theology as well. God of the gaps, insulting and dangerous, compare it to other forms of idolatry.This is the point where your Bible and Koran group hug will fit, a couple verses and a sura showing God working through natural forces but adding something unquantifiable to them, like the Exodus or a soft view of the Flood ought to be perfect. This will set you up with analogies suitable to begin discussing emergent properties as, the sort of thing one might expect to find from the uh, Facilitator.Now your bridge hand is ready. Not as, some impossible thing that makes me want to play draw poker with you, but rather as, the sort of thing that gives you clues that someone is cheating or interfering with normal probability. Follow these lines and you may be able to put together a very nice marketing post. Somewhere else of course, not here. You are done here