> Reed Konsler wrote :-
>
> > Religion is obviously very successful at propagating. It's like saying:
> > what is the probability of life arising on Earth. Well, obviously, it's
> > pretty damn near unity: given that we are having this conversation.
>
> First of all I agree with you in principle that life on earth is a
> product of evolution, however, your logic in the above example is flawed
> since you've approached the problem using the anthropic principle. Let
> me illustrate :-
>
> Q: What is the probability of people being on Earth if a space-ship from
> Alpha Centauri got lost a million years ago on its way to Mars but
> crash-landed on Earth instead and the horny little green buggers
> cross-bred with the Neanderthals and then left when they fixed their
> ship?
>
> A: Well, obviously, it's pretty damn near unity: given that we are
> having this conversation.
>
> Now if we alter our argument as follows :-
>
> Q: What is the probability of life arising on Earth via evolution as
> opposed to simply being created by a Supreme Being?
>
> A: The probability of the former proposition is higher since there is
> abundant physical evidence to support it while the latter is
> "faith-based" meaning that it requires no proof other than blind
> acceptance.
Good point!
The second answer reduces to:
The question is meaningless, since the second option is not subject to a
probability calculation.
To fix the answer, I would replace "probability" with "plausibility".
This throws the answer's assumptions over into one's
philosophy/metaphysics, where it really belongs.
The anthropic principle can be used to rule out initial conditions fairly
well, but actual reconstruction of chain of events is fairly iffy.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////