TCE <strangebreed@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155401708.776480.110740@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
J Young wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html
A Mathematical Proof
of Intelligent Design In Nature
- by R. Totten - (c)1999
In looking at the creation, and thinking about evolution vs intelligent
design (ID)-- since the time of Charles Darwin's Evolution of the
Species,
many philosophically naturalist scientists assumed that the smallest
living
things were structurally very simple.
--But they were wrong.
Actually, the total DNA and mechanistic intricacy of a mere E-coli
bacterium
(and what fundamentally makes it "alive") is even beyond current
scientific
comprehension. In addition, even today it is often assumed that such
"simple" life-forms here on earth originated from non-life (abiogenesis)
by
natural chemical processes alone, apart from the creative work of any
intelligent "chemist," and that evolution --guided by natural
selection--
produced all the complexity of life today. Such speculation is even the
basis for assuming that there is most probably life on other planets
throughout the universe. However, in reality, is such a chemical scheme
for
the beginning of life even remotely probable? --- To address this issue,
we
will consider the structure of the DNA in living things, and analyze it
using Intelligent Design theory.
The High-Jacking of Intelligent Design (ID)
As we work on this issue, it is unfortunate that news of some
educational
and litigation argumentations concerning ID has given a false notion of
its
basic import, implying that is basically "biblical creationism" in
disguise --which it is not!
-- Rather, Intelligent Design should be seen as a scientific method of
analysis which can be applied to various lines of information --from
mathematical concepts, to writing, to DNA-- and any attempts at naming
the
source(s) of that information, goes beyond and outside the pure science
of
Intelligent Design theory and into a secondary area of
suppositional/philosophical implications or historical information and
testimony.
I addition --ID has virtually nothing to say about things such as the
age of
the earth, or "flood geology," or the biblical "days" of creation.
At any rate, testing for Intelligent Design depends first on the
existence
of significant "information," which must be strictly defined.
He has pages and pages of nice descriptions of everything, then the
very first page of math is hopelessly wrong. His first assumption is
that physical proximity has nothing to do with sub-atomic interaction,
(he also assumes all particles such as an atom of iron and a light
photon interact with other entities the same way).
So, forgetting this and using his definition of the universe his first
page of constants stating 10e84 particles x 10e20 interactions x 10e7
seconds should read:
10e+84^10e+84 x 10e+20^10e+20 x 10e+7
As more than a single particle can interact with any other particle,
and more than a single interaction can happen in any second. Using his
math that's a possible:
10e+(4.3597343682732552236027988140691e+161) x 10e+(1.048576e+26) x
10e+7
I don't think there's a calculator on the planet that can store
that number, which is very roughly a 4 with a trillion, trillion 0's
after it.
As we all know however, physical proximity is one of the most
fundamental constants in any chemical reaction, (a match in Alaska can
not light a candle in Zimbabwe), so any calculation of probability must
factor in the likelihood of any single particle in the universe of
interacting with any other due to physical location, velocity, electron
mass etc. etc. Any attempt to define such a model is fairly hopeless as
we don't actually know and understand fully every 'law' involving
entity collision, or the reactions that result. It's safe to assume
that the number of possible interactions is greatly reduced from 4
trillion, trillion, trillion, googolplex, quadrillion but how many
0's are removed is purely academic as there are so many of them.
Additionally, It seems to me that creationists most of the time confuse the
issue by lumping the ToE together with abiogenesis, without stating what
they actually are talking about. I guess it is serves well in fooling their
followers.
With resepct to the subject at hand, isn't it so that things like
autocatalytic processes, phase transitions and 'complexity' - the 'science
at the edge of order and chaos' are not yet researched to a level where we
can say with any certainty that we understand them to such a degree that
anything may be ruled out. I believe that instead we may be justified in
saying 'anything is possible, we don't know what the limits may be.' Or
something like that.
With respect to ID, it also should be pointed out that design is only the
intellectual stage, leaving no result or traces of it ever having been
performed. It takes quite a few additional stages to go from a theoretical
design to the finished product. And with respect to biology, a manufacturing
complexity lightyears beyond what it takes to make wristwatches.
But who am I to doubt that Dembski is right, I am an idiot when it comes to
mathematics.
Rolf
---
Strange
.
