Suppose that you have 2 coins with an equal probability of giving heads or
tails when you flip them. If you flip them both at the same time and
distinguish between the coins, there are a total of four possible outcomes:
A-H(eads)/B-H, A-H/B-T(ails), A-T/B-H, A-T/B-T each with a 25% probability
of occurring. I am going to call these outcomes *microstates*. If we don't
distinguish between coins, there are three possible outcomes with the
probability in parentheses: two H (25%), one H/one T (50%), two T (25%). I
am going to call these outcomes *macrostates*. Note that the one H/one T
macrostate contains two microstates, which is why it has the largest
probability of occurring.
Now, imagine you flip 10 coins all at once. There are 1024 equally possible
microstate unequally partitioned among 11 possible macrostates like this:
Macrostate
Macrostate #Microstates % Probability
10 H/0 T 1 0.01
9 H/1 T 10 0.98
8 H/2 T 45 4.39
7 H/3 T 120 11.71
6 H/4 T 210 20.51
5 H/5 T 252 24.61
4 H/6 T 210 20.51
3 H/7 T 120 11.71
2 H/8 T 45 4.39
1 H/9T 10 0.98
0 H/10 T 1 0.01
If we define all heads (or all tails) as order and 5 heads/5 tails as
disorder, it becomes readily apparent that ordered macrostates are much less
probable than disordered macrostates. This is basic idea behind the
statistical mechanical explanation of entropy. It's just as probable that
an ordered microstate will occur as a disordered microstate. But disorder
prevails because the number of possible disordered microstates dwarfs the
number of possible ordered microstates. It's not impossible for order to
spontaneously arise--it's just unlikely that it will occur. This is
especially true when you talk about large systems. I don't worry about
dying from the macrostate where all the oxygen molecules in this room
randomly localize in the trashcan because it is so unlikely. :-)
Notice that modern physics allows "violations" of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (entropy). If we watched for a long enough time span, at
some instant, all the oxygen molecules would be in the trashcan. Thus, it
is not impossible occurrence; it would just be an incredible coincidence if
it occurs right now (or even in my lifetime). Now let's apply this insight.
Consider the spontaneous organization of the first functional protein from
its constituent components. Let's say God establishes natural laws under
which you would expect this to occur on Earth only once every 30 gazillion
(or insert your favorite astronomical number) years or so. However, he
chooses to allow that extremely improbable event to occur in the first 2
billion years of the earth's history.
Thus, looking from a TE perspective, God worked through the natural laws
that he established to bring about His purposes--he only lets one such event
happen every 30 gazillion years and he didn't make any exceptions to the
rule. Yet, when viewed through a PC's eyes, it is a miraculous work of God
that such an improbable event occurred so early in time. (This turns the
tables on the classical definition of a miracle as "violation of the laws of
nature". In this view, the extraordinary quality of miracles is not their
occurrence, but their timing.) Both assertions are correct. In this case,
the TE/PC distinction is merely a difference of which aspect of God's action
that you choose to emphasize. I think a similar dynamic might exist in the
reductionist/ID debate. A die-hard reductionist will, like the TE, argue
that naturalistic laws are sufficient to explain life's complexity while the
ID advocates will rail on about how improbable it is that it occurred.
__________________________________________________________
"Looking back, there's a thread of love and grace
Connecting each line and space I've known" -David Meece
==========================================================
Eddie Gene Olmstead, Jr. Chemistry Department
Asst. Professor of Chemistry Gordon College
Email: olmstead@gordonc.edu 255 Grapevine Road
Phone: (508) 927-2300 Ext. 4393 Wenham, MA 01984