The creationist-cosmologists (they being the creator(s) of infinities of universes) require infinities in which to work their probabilistic arguments against the possibility of God creating the universe and life and everything, including every single thing that scientists can fit into a model of physical causation (though nothing they can do in that line of endeavor can explain the ultimate cause or any possible purpose in it).
When you're talking about even the universe of our experience, the only thing that can be treated scientifically, however, you aren't talking about theoretical probabilities working on things in an infinitely large, infinitely long time to be sorted out by random chance. THAT IS ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIFE IN WHICH IT HAS TO WORK TO PRODUCE LIVING ORGANISMS WHICH, AS LIVING ORGANISMS, WE MIGHT BE FORGIVEN FOR BEING RATHER INTERESTED IN. Oddly enough, the biologists who should understand those limits don't often seem to notice them, knowing that they are required to carry the banner of infinite probability into their field of very limited, time lapsing phenomena. I've gone over the absurd notion that DNA produces chains of amino acids which, then, fold themselves in just the right way to produce the needed biological action within cells when if it did that by some trial and error scheme under random chance, it would take the life of the universe and then some for all of the probabilities possible to be sorted out every time that happens. Clearly, something within the cellular chemistry "knows" how to do that to have the "desired" effect, something which, itself, is not coded in DNA which clearly doesn't seem to "know" how to do that, whatever that is, I doubt scientists have ever even considered.
To say "probability" or "random chance" when those wouldn't work in the limited number of organisms in the limited number of billions of years, of years, of months, of days, of seconds in which those things happen (all of them taking time to happen) is to say nothing. The illusion of probability being responsible for the phenomenon of life as it evolved on Earth, as it is sustained within any given organism is persuasive but only if you ignore the actual problems involved with that and only if your motive in doing that is ideological and not scientific. I have learned a lot from watching the ranting and raving of Jerry Coyne against his colleagues such as James Shapiro who is one of the rare scientists who admit that that old scheme of random chance and probability doesn't work in addressing the reality of life as it presents itself. Whether or not there is divine intention driving evolution (not to mention the plain day-to-day working of any given, surviving organism) it's clear that the old atheist stand by of attributing everything to probability whenever explanation fails is inadequate. Divine intention is something that science is not competent to take up as a question for the same reasons given by Hans Kung in that passage I typed out this morning. Atheists who try to fight about the existence of God using science ideologically make exactly the same errors of judgement that those using science to "prove" God only they pretend to know better than to do that.
Note: Coyne rants and raves about just about everything, sooner or later. He's a high functioning nutcase.
No comments:
Post a Comment