Crazy Australian (not verified) Says:
Sat, 2008-05-10 20:34
More and more refreshing the longer I stay! A gracious opponent!!! Thankyou for apologising, even when you weren't in the wrong!
And of course I understand that you want to stay within the scope of your site, go ahead. And besides, abstract philosophy needs to be applied to the concrete to be of any worth.
I'm not a creationist, though I am a Christian. I'm an evolutionist who sees evolution as being complementary to faith, not in opposition. (A la the position of Francis S. Collins) I actually don't mind if chance produces information or not, theologically, though I find it an interesting question.
Of course, you are right to say that if we could establish beyond doubt that chance cannot produce information and that any natural process is a form of chance (what else?), then we would need to look for a source of information.
Now, to the argument itself.
Maybe I'm missing something, but here is how I heard you answer the question:
Of course chance can produce information.
Or, as you put it: "Yes, chance can produce information, if there is such a thing as information. Chance can produce anything, given the right conditions. That's what chance means."
Forgive me for being unconvinced. As far as I can see, you have merely asserted that ability to do anything is covered by the definition of chance, and then followed on from there.
ie,
1. Chance can produce anything.
2. Information is something.
Therefore,
3. Chance can produce information.
Can you justify your particular definition of chance?
I would have thought that chance, used in this way (as apposed to something 'having a chance') refers to the process by which something with a probability occurs. That is, chance is the selection of one possible outcome from a number of possible outcomes. Chance, therefore, presumes only to deal with real possibilities - and therefore, using it to show possibility begs the question.
To adapt your example, "It's like rolling fifty dice and only picking out the fours, fives and sixes" - you cannot get an average of 7.
(As an aside, just a tip: if you want to show creationists that DNA can have arisen by chance, its probably best not to use it as an example of something that has arisen by chance.)
Sat, 2008-05-10 20:34
More and more refreshing the longer I stay! A gracious opponent!!! Thankyou for apologising, even when you weren't in the wrong!
And of course I understand that you want to stay within the scope of your site, go ahead. And besides, abstract philosophy needs to be applied to the concrete to be of any worth.
I'm not a creationist, though I am a Christian. I'm an evolutionist who sees evolution as being complementary to faith, not in opposition. (A la the position of Francis S. Collins) I actually don't mind if chance produces information or not, theologically, though I find it an interesting question.
Of course, you are right to say that if we could establish beyond doubt that chance cannot produce information and that any natural process is a form of chance (what else?), then we would need to look for a source of information.
Now, to the argument itself.
Maybe I'm missing something, but here is how I heard you answer the question:
Of course chance can produce information.
Or, as you put it: "Yes, chance can produce information, if there is such a thing as information. Chance can produce anything, given the right conditions. That's what chance means."
Forgive me for being unconvinced. As far as I can see, you have merely asserted that ability to do anything is covered by the definition of chance, and then followed on from there.
ie,
1. Chance can produce anything.
2. Information is something.
Therefore,
3. Chance can produce information.
Can you justify your particular definition of chance?
I would have thought that chance, used in this way (as apposed to something 'having a chance') refers to the process by which something with a probability occurs. That is, chance is the selection of one possible outcome from a number of possible outcomes. Chance, therefore, presumes only to deal with real possibilities - and therefore, using it to show possibility begs the question.
To adapt your example, "It's like rolling fifty dice and only picking out the fours, fives and sixes" - you cannot get an average of 7.
(As an aside, just a tip: if you want to show creationists that DNA can have arisen by chance, its probably best not to use it as an example of something that has arisen by chance.)
»