Re: Mastropaolo's probabilities are science.
Joseph Mastropaolo (mastropaolo@net999.com)
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:20:13 -0700Mike:
Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, your assumptions are
predicated on God and creationism as opposed to science and
evolutionism. I say dismiss God from the argument. Now, let us talk
about all scientific observation.
Can you see anything being made de novo by random or chance processes?
Or from spontaneous generation or abiogenesis? I can't. Everything I see
in the biosphere comes from reproduction. All inorganic stuff being made
comes from blueprints in the living things making them.
What is the trend of the entire universe? Evolution? It is just the
opposite: devolution. In order for anything to happen anywhere, there
must be an energy conversion and after the conversion some of the energy
becomes unavailable. The entire universe, as well as the biosphere, is
running down, not up. Evolution is a mental construct from the Greek
Promethean myth because it is observed nowhere. And if it is observed
nowhere, then it is not science. And if it the child of the Greek
philosophers suggested to them by the Promethean myth, then it is
philosophy or metaphysics or religion but not science.
Scientists take speculations, do experiments, analyze the results
statistically to obtain a probability to decide whether the results
could be accounted for by chance or by the experimental factor. If the
results could occur by chance more than 5 times in 100, not attaining
the P<.05 standard, then the experimental factor is not believed.
Scientists don't believe speculations until put to the experimental test
and proven with statistical significance, at least P<.05.
Now, I'm for a single, not a double standard. If we dismiss God because
he can't be observed, then we must dismiss evolution because it can't be
observed either. And if all we can do is sit around and speculate about
God or some other intelligence or evolution, then let's do it on the
basis of probability like scientists do. If evolution works by chance
and random processes, we can calculate that, and if the chance of
evolving just one molecule of one protein is 2.3 x 10^-75, then that
misses the standard for a scientist by more than a vigintillion and I
can't believe it. If the opposite is speculated, that it can be made
from a blueprint, that can be observed, that satisfies the standard and
I can believe it.
I consider myself a scientist, not a creationist and not an
evolutionist. I go by the rules of science and I don't make them up to
support subjective beliefs.
I hope that explains why I can't go along with your analysis.
Best wishes.
Joseph Mastropaolo