Casting Lots

Proverbs 16:33 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

33 The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD.

When I got up this morning, my older son was in
front of the TV, watching a show about snakes.
The dialog of the program was to demonstrate
evolution, in snakes. Did you ever have a moment
when you thought that everyone was in on some
big thing and you were the last to figure it out.
Well, I'm often the last to figure things out. I'm
wondering sometimes if I'm the only one off the
reservation on this one. Everyone already knows
it's a hoax, they just don't pay any attention,
just like much of the advertising on TV. But then,
you turn on the tube and there they are, preaching
the doctrine of evolution again. Funny, in this
instance, that just because a snake has a different
color pattern and a more lethal venom, it *proves*
evolution. Looks like a wild goose chase to me.
In other words, variation within 'kinds' is not
evolution. It's still a snake. It'll never turn
into a bird.

There is the idea of chance mentioned in scripture.
Look at the verse above. It implies that what
appears to us as probabilities, is directed by
the Lord. In other words, there is no such thing
as chance. Using probability theory, is one way
to study the possible outcomes of an event. It
seems to work out OK, but requires a little input
of what we call common sense or experience. This
has been illustrated recently in the current
mortgage finance fiasco. The probability was that
people would pay their mortgage notes, no matter
what. The reality, proves to be quite different.
'...its every decision is from the Lord.' The
common expression is 'G-d only knows'. In the
case of AAA rated bonds you would think that
anything derived from a Monte carlo simulation
would instantly raise eyebrows. It's an implied
gamble. But slicing through the baloney is often
easier said than done. The focus has to be drawn
on the more powerful influences at play. In the
case of money, the powerful force is human greed.
In the case of molecular modeling I'd expect that
the most powerful force is entropy. That would
imply that the overall tendency is strongly in
favor of increasing disorder rather than increased
organization. It's an assumption, but it seems to
be the way things work.

Of course, the easy way to dismiss the principle of
entropy is to assume that things were different at
some time in the past. They would have to be very
different to randomly assemble amino acids. The
Miller-Urey experiments are a good example. To
get the simple products that they did, they had
to remove oxygen from the atmosphere. I'd say
that's a reach, given that most organisms require
oxygen for respiration.

Experience shows that application of probability
theory is as much an art as a science. That doesn't
mean that it has no use, just that it has
limitations. Of course, that's where the conflict
begins, in the creation vs evolution controversy.
Who chooses where the limitations will be set.
To begin with, I want to follow ReMine and use a
conservative approach. We can try it.

" *Why do we seem so singularly unable to grasp
probability?(Gould, 1991d, p21)*

Evolutionists commonly overlook or distort
probability science. This practice is now second-
nature in genetics, cosmology, and the origin of
life.

They overlook probability by automatically *assuming*
there is enough time available to overcome any
problem. They underestimate how quickly probability
can become an obstacle, even on a cosmic time scale."
(ReMine, 1993, p74)

I would point out right here that, once you throw in
the overall tendency toward increased entropy, longer
time scales will only work against evolution, not
in its favor. The tendency is that over time,
entropy will dismantle amino acids more quickly
than it will assemble them. That's the direction
that entropy favors. That's a fact, not an
assumption. Entropy always tends toward the lower
energy state. You will see that in the lab every
day.

"For example, the college-level introductory biology
text by Gould, Luria, and Singer states:

*[I]s life ... a product of chance -- some fundamentally
'lucky' event that happened only because so much time
was available? (Given enough time, you will eventually
flip 100 heads in a row, however improbable it might
be in any one trial.)(Gould, Luria, and Singer, 1981,
p689, their parenthesis)*

Their statement is no accidental slip of the pen. They
emphasize it three times in their book. Yet it is so
misleading we must conclude they failed to seriously
think about the matter. They are uncritically reciting
the evolutionary anthem: give chance enough time and it
can do anything." (ReMine, 1993, p75)

My comment is only to point out the obvious. There is
a difference between flipping a coin and assembling an
amino acid. I'd say a more accurate way of putting
it is to say, give chance enough time and it will
destroy everything that it makes, and then some.
--->
Entropy is very greedy. All of the discussion above
is to illustrate the fact that there has to be a
reasonable context for any discussion of probability.
Without some ability to recognize that there is a
contextual setup, having a look at probability will
get you nowhere.

Looking back at the coin flipping exercise, it's obvious
that there are only two reasonable outcomes. It's one
or the other. There may be an off chance that the coin
will come to rest exactly on its edge, and that's a
better analogy of the assembly of amino acids. Betting
on the most unlikely outcome, that the coin lands 100
times in a row on its edge. Based on that analogy,
it becomes fairly obvious that it'll never happen once
let alone thousands of times, within a timeframe that
prevents entropy from acting in the reverse direction.
I suppose, just like with the AAA mortgage bonds, you
could write a couple thousand pages refuting my
position. However, the outcome wouldn't be any
different. Probabilities are always going to be
directed by the overall context. And very small
probabilities in a very unlikely context imply only
one conclusion. It ain't gonna' happen. The odds
are much better on a lotto ticket.

Here's how ReMine puts it:

" One example is from Robert Steiner's vociferous
anti-creation article in *Reason* magazine. A
creationist had argued that the odds against forming
even the simplest protein molecule by random chance
were far greater than 10^67 to one. Steiner responded:

*"So what? Think of anything that has in fact occured;
if you look back far enough, the probability of the
occurrence of the sequence of events necessary for that
event to have occurred is infinitesimal.

Shuffle a normal pack of playing cards. The probability
of arriving at the precise arrangement of cards at which
you in fact have arrived is one in 8-followed-by-67-
zeros. That is, the occurrence of [the random origination
of a simple protein molecule] is eight times more likely
than the arrangement of cards you have arrived at by one
simple shuffle of the pack.

Imagine your four grandparents at their time of birth.
With all the choices and chances in life, not the least
of which is the number of live sperm that never fertilized
an egg, what is the probability that two generations later
you would at this exact moment be reading this article?
And yet, here you are.* (Steiner, 1981, p31)

In his effort to get around the creationists' argument,
Steiner attempts to cast doubt on the validity of
probability science. His argument is built on errors.

- Given that something has in fact occurred, what is the
probability of the occurrence of the sequence of events
necessary for that event to have occurred? It is exactly
1 -- absolute certainty -- not "infinitesimal" as
suggested by Steiner.

- Shuffle a deck of cards. What is the probability of
arriving at the precise arrangement of cards at which you
in fact arrive? It is exactly 1 -- absolute certainty.
You will always arrive at the arrangement at which you
in fact arrive -- it is impossible to do otherwise. The
probability is not one in 8X10^67 as suggested by Steiner.

- Given your four grandparents, what is the probability
that two generations later they would give rise to you?
It is 1. If it were not so then they would not have
been your four grandparents, thereby breaking the
starting assumption. The probability is not infinitesimally
small as suggested by Steiner.

- What is the probability that you would at this exact
moment be reading these words? Again it is 1 -- absolute
certainty -- not infinitesimal as suggested by Steiner.

Steiner argues that highly improbable outcomes can often
occur, but in each of his examples that outcome is
*guaranteed* by his premises. The outcomes are already
present within his starting assumptions, yet he
erroneously calculates extremely low probabilities. This
creates the confusion on which his argument thrives. By
misapplying probability theory he attempts to discredit
its validity...

The universe has an infinitude of 'possibilites' that
never occur.

...Steiner wants to convince you that most anything will
occur given time.

Imagine there were 10 billion people on earth, each
shuffling a deck [of cards] once a second around the clock.
Imagine they are being helped by one billion-billion
(1X10^18) similarly sized extra-terrestrial civilizations.
Imagine this activity is occurring continuously over the
maximum estimated age of the universe (20 billion years).
All this mad shuffling is done by beings slavishly
devoting their lives to the task. Yet it would require
over 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
( = ten thousand billion-billion = 10^22 )
such universes before we could expect your card sequence
to be duplicated by chance." (ReMine, 1993, p77-8)

Pat attention to those last two words, 'by chance'.
ReMine's illustration fits the context of the problem
at hand. *Duplication* of a sequence is the next
problem after assembly of a sequence. DNA consists
of a duplicate sequence. That's how reproduction
takes place. I like the analogy of a molecular
XEROX copier.

This is for only ONE sequence of 52. A very small sequence
in the scheme of things biological. DNA sequences are
much larger than 52 units.

Enough numbers for today. From this short take on some
of the background information related to probability
theory, it becomes apparent that the situation presented
by evolutionistas is not so easy to dismiss with a wave of
the arm. Not once you get a feel for the problems of context
and likelihood. Are you seeing that their position looks a
little weak as soon as you begin to fill in some of the
relevant detail? No wonder Crick settled on a preference
for directed panspermia. It's a more hopeful theory. He
began to see that they need at least a minor miracle, in
order to get the whole evolutionary scenario into the
starting gate.

I'm hoping that we can dwell on this topic in the days
ahead without making it too monotonous, because I believe
it gets right at the failure point of the RAMWOL model.

Pro. 16:4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends—
even the wicked for a day of disaster.