Science Forums 2

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Shubee

I don't mind anyone saying that the probability for creation through quantum creationism is infinitesimal. How much more probable could the theory of evolution be? Look at it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater.

Without evidence supporting these suppositions - for specific approximate numbers, specific calculations showing how they were arrived at – it strikes me as no more reasonable to suppose them than to suppose that a host of angels are physically sitting around my kitchen table offering firsthand testimony to the literal veracity of specific stories from the Bible book of Genesis.

I believe Buffy is correct in her assertion that Darwinian evolution is much more likely an explanation for present day observation than Biblical creationism. Shubee, do you have any evidence to support the suppositions you offer?

PS:

Originally Posted by Shubee

And you are probably aware that Hilbert's philosophy of mathematics has been summarized by the well-known attribution: "Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper."

IMHO, these sort of statements are some of the best brief summaries of formalism. I encountered one first in when I read GEB in 1980 – Hofstadter terms what they describe “typographical rules”, and uses the idea extensively throughout the book.