Re: [asa] The Multiverse - Physics or Metaphysics?

Let's be careful to repeat calculations lest we understand how they
were derived and how they reflect current knowledge. Purely random
events are indeed very rare but I doubt that many scientists consider
the poof 200 small genes event to be a fully random event.

You are right, something else may be going on, so our ignorance should
not be sufficient to reject any particular scientific hypothesis so
far.

Otherwise we may very well accept the ridiculous protein formation
calculations by Dembski and state that ID is correct, when scientific
knowledge already shows how much of a strawman has been created by our
ID friends.

Yes, I am very aware of the controversies surrounding string theory,
luckily this is not something that stops science to look further here.
Is string theory 'meta physics'? Perhaps but it seems also to be quite
promising.

Rather than rely on some really irrelevant statements by individual
scientists, whether it be Dawkins or some physicist opposed to string
theory, one should attempt a larger view of science. Or we may very
well repeat the mistakes of our fellow creationists and mine for
quotes.

As to a place for God, I see sufficient places for a God to take a
role, however I see this not as much as scientific premise as we
cannot really do much with such a 'hypothesis' because we do not
really understand God's constraints, if any.

Koonin's recent one places the moment of selection at a particular
point, however what if pre-RNA was already under selective pressures,
what if necessity plays a role here as well? Koonin's arguments are
only as good as his model and assumptions. Koonin suggests the
solution may be found in multiverses, and he may very well be correct,
but I do not accept his probability calculations as particularly
relevant. Which of course, sadly enough does not prevent some
creationists (check Sal and others on Uncommon Descent for instance)
to draw t own flawed conclusions.

Why is it so hard for ID to do real science rather than desperately
tag along with bits and pieces which they find particularly relevant
while ignoring the big picture.

On 9/8/07, rpaulmason@juno.com <rpaulmason@juno.com> wrote:
> Fred Hoyle came up with 10 to the -40,000th, I came up with 10 to the -6,000th for a minimal cell (200 small genes) but 10 to the -1000th is still way beyond what could happen in a universe that's not set up somehow. The total number of chemical events/collisions (need these to have a chemical reaction to make or break a molecule) is the total number of vibrations of every atom in the universe over 15 billion years. it come out to less than 10 to the 150th. Thus the FACTS are - life is statistically and chemically impossible in a normal "natural" universe. Thus something else is going on.
>
> Paul Mason
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 8 13:54:21 2007