Question

Hello Rabbi,
I read your book God Plays Dice, and I noticed several inaccuracies that could undermine a number of your conclusions:
1. Incorrect use of probability calculations

“How many different genetic combinations of length three hundred nucleotides are there?… The result is approximately 10^390… The conclusion from this rough calculation is that the probability of life arising randomly, through a blind process, is negligible.”
The calculations presented refer to the random formation of a complex molecule in a single step, without taking into account the chemical and biological processes that allow for the gradual formation of complex structures. Evolution and abiogenesis propose cumulative processes in which simpler molecules combine into more complex ones. Referring to the probabilities of one-time events without considering these processes does not reflect scientific reality.

2. Reference to the second law of thermodynamics

“A popular description of the second law of thermodynamics is that the amount of disorder in any system without external intervention never decreases… The fact that our laws of nature lead to these phenomena is a description of the ‘miracle,’ not an explanation of it.”
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in a closed system always increases or remains constant. The Earth is not a closed system; it receives energy from the sun, which allows local order to be created (such as life) while overall entropy in the universe increases. Therefore, the development of life and biological complexity does not contradict this law.

3. Current research in abiogenesis

“What we have seen so far is that the second stage is probabilistically impossible, meaning that life could not have arisen by chance… How does Dawkins propose to explain this astonishing event without design and without assuming a guiding hand?”
Scientific research in the field of abiogenesis is advancing and proposes several possible mechanisms for the emergence of life from inanimate matter. Theories such as the “RNA world” point to the possibility that simple RNA molecules could have replicated themselves and developed more complex biochemical processes. Although there are still open questions, the claim that the process is impossible does not reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.

4. The anthropic principle

“The anthropic principle says something opposite: there are very many planets, and life could arise only on a planet in which the conditions suitable for the formation of life prevail. Therefore, we necessarily find ourselves on the planet suitable for life, because otherwise we would not be here to think and discuss this matter.”
It seems that your explanation of the anthropic principle is not accurate. The anthropic principle is divided into two main types—weak and strong. The weak anthropic principle claims only that our observation is limited to a universe in which physical conditions allow our existence, whereas the strong version claims that the universe is arranged in a way that allows the existence of intelligent life.
In addition, your comparison to a person who won the lottery five times in a row is not suitable for conveying the scientific meaning of the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is not meant to explain the probabilities of rare events, but rather to highlight the conditions necessary for our existence in the universe.
The anthropic principle does not provide an explanation of why the universe is suited to life; it only notes that we exist in an environment that makes our existence possible. The combination of the weak and strong anthropic principles in your book creates confusion in understanding the original scientific concept.

5. Ignoring the role of simulations and experiments

“What we have seen so far is that the second stage is probabilistically impossible, meaning that life could not have arisen by chance… How does Dawkins explain this amazing event without design and without assuming a guiding hand?”
It seems that your explanation ignores the important role of simulations and laboratory experiments that present possibilities for the formation of organic molecules under conditions simulating those of the early Earth. Experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment showed that amino acids and other organic compounds can form naturally under certain chemical conditions, indicating that chemical, non-random processes can lead to the creation of molecules basic to life. In addition, current research in abiogenesis proposes various mechanisms by which simple molecules organize into more complex forms, such as volcanic activity or ecological effects. Ignoring these experiments gives an incomplete picture of the probability of life’s emergence, since it does not take into account the cumulative and gradual processes that allow biological complexity to develop over time.