posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 04:41 PM
Slank, put me on Hard 8 for 10 bucks.
The 747 analogy is flawed because the function of a twister simply does not have what it takes to build one. You'd NEVER get one, no matter how many
twisters you had. Unlike the twister, evolution IS capable of assembling its "747" (life). However astronomical the odds may seem, it is
hypothetically possible, therefore the twister in a junkyard analogy is fundementally flawed. I prefer the monkeys on typewriters analogy.
Now we answer the analogy as a discussion of probability and not an illustration of absurdity. Probability does not govern what will happen or when it
will happen. It describes the relative likelihood of possibilities. When the event occurs, it does not violate probability, no matter how quickly it
happened. Just because the odds are a billion billion billion google to one doesn't mean that it wont happen on the very first try. In fact, it could
happen AGAIN on the second try without violating probability. If I roll a dice the odds are 1 in 36 that it will come up 12. If 12 comes up, that
doesn't shake the foundations of our math now does it? And what are the odds of it happening on the next roll? The odds remain 1 in 36. This is
because the "law" of probability is not enforced- it's more like guidelines than actual rules.
Sometimes the seemingly astronomical odds are deceptive as well, because some things are logically inevitable. What are the odds of life developing on
this planet? Well, only a living being could ask the question, and whatever planet they are one will be "this planet" so in truth there was a 100%
chance that life would develop on "this planet", from a certain point of view. People only talk about the time that the odds paid off- they never
talk, and may not even know, how many failures their were before, or how many failures there could have been.
The thust of this analogy, in my humble opinion, misses the point anyway. I say this because as has already been said (by myself and others) that
evolution only describes breeding statistics. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The real issue is with the origin of the universe. If
you want a religous fight, that's the place to have it.
NOBODY, religious or scientific, has an explanation for existence that humans can realy get their minds around. Everyone says "this did that and
created everything." then they are inevitably asked "what created this?" So ultimately the initial violation of thermodynamics that gave birth to
this world (getting something from nothing) stumps everyone; to the best of our understanding something was just always there, and created
This is where design really comes in. This is where the real evolution begins. Either a system was designed or order just randomly happened to take
shape. Either way, from there on out, the universe is pretty self explanatory, which poses no problem for me as a Christian (yes, that's a recent
development- actually a recent reoccurance) because the bible itself says that God is made evident in nature. To some this means that you just look
around and say "wow there must be a god" but to me this means that the study of the world (science) reveals a system and a consistency which
demonstrates God's design far more convincingly than just the sheer majesty of the universe itself.
Anyway, in so many words, I believe in Jesus and evolution. The first of those two can be difficult to see and I've gone back and forth on it- the
second speaks plainly for itself and is not contradicted by any higher law, scientific or religous. I don't know why we need a million cute little
illustrations about 747s in the junkyard and such to resist something that simply isn't a threat.