The chance of evolution

In B”D

Hello,
Thank you very much for the quick response,
Could you please write the main argument of the inside and outside the laws here on the site, for my benefit and for the benefit of other interested readers? (I personally read the article before, it is not clear to me which section you are referring to there in order to search for it).

Best of luck.

I don't understand how hard it is to find this. The article has a special and explicit title that deals with this and is called exactly that, so it's impossible to miss it unless you're not looking at all.
Sorry for the scolding, but questions that I answered explicitly in the article keep coming up here. That's why I wrote it, and it's not without reason that I refer those who ask to it. People simply don't bother to read, and ask me over and over again the same things that I've already answered dozens of times and answered explicitly in the article. I run dozens of threads here on topics that I've answered and I'm already completely exhausted from all of this. I don't have any unnecessary time, and I expect people to respect that and only ask me about things that I haven't addressed or about things they disagree with what I wrote.

Here is the relevant passage:

The Physico-Theological Argument: Rephrased

Ironically, this silly experiment not only fails to undermine the Physico-Theological Argument, but also clearly demonstrates the problem with the atheistic challenge to it, and in fact constitutes evidence to the contrary, i.e., a demonstration in favor of the Physico-Theological Argument. Here is the explanation. The creationist claim is that the chance of a complex thing coming together by chance is zero. Neo-Darwinists, on the other hand, explain that if we adopt a few simple laws of nature, the process becomes reasonable (the slope of the unreasonable mountain is moderated). The laws of nature that underlie evolution (the laws of physics and chemistry, biology, and especially genetics) create a situation in which this process becomes more plausible, just as in the case of the aforementioned computer experiment.

So what does this experiment actually show us? It shows that spontaneous generation is clearly improbable (this is a simple probabilistic fact, of course). What it also shows is that if someone inserts laws into the computer system that ensure that the process is directed towards the desired goal, it becomes miraculously more efficient, and its probability increases accordingly. In other words, if there is a guiding hand, then improbable processes become possible and plausible. But this is the physico-theological argument in and of itself. The programmer, in the case of the computer experiment, plays the role of God in the cosmic context. He inserts laws into the computer that cause a clearly improbable chain or structure to appear very quickly with high probability. Therefore, if we were to see such a computer experiment, in which the chain “being and being” appears after 90 seconds, and there were If we were asked whether this happened spontaneously or by the intervention of a deliberate hand, we would certainly all answer that there was a deliberate hand. This is exactly what the physico-theological argument does in relation to the formation of life. Which would have to be proven.

Let us now continue the analogy, and take a not-so-long protein chain, about 300 codons. The number of possible combinations of such chains is 20,300 (since there are about twenty different types of protein that can appear at each of the places in the chain), a huge number by all accounts. Now the question arises as to how the “living” and replicating chains were created spontaneously? The answer is: because of the laws of nature (these are the “constraints” on the lottery that make it so efficient). But now we will return and ask: how were these laws created? And again we will come to an intelligent factor, or a deliberate hand, that is, we will prove the existence of a cosmic programmer.

How is it possible that intelligent people, leading researchers in their fields, fall into mistakes So trivial? In my opinion, this is a combination of philosophical incompetence with blatant bias that spoils the line, as I described above. The solution to this is not found in the field of science but in the field of psychology, which, as I said, I will not go into here.

In fact, this picture leads us to a reformulation of the physico-theological view. After the arguments of Hoyle and Paley, the appeals arose that the laws of nature (evolution) lead this improbable process safely to its goal. They use the laws of nature as an alternative explanation for the process instead of the creationist assumption about God. However, the question now moves to another level: instead of asking who causes the evolutionary process, we now ask what is the origin of the special laws of nature that cause it? In a system of other laws of nature, there would be no evolution. With slightly different values of the physical constants, there would be no chemistry or biology at all, and certainly no evolution and genetics (this is the argument known as fine tuning. See earlier versions of it In Chapter 1 of the Duties of the Hearts to Our Rabbi in My Life). So who is this and what is it that determined the values of the constants so that there would be an evolutionary process that moderates the slope of the improbable mountain? This entity, the cosmic programmer, is usually called “God.” This is the updated formulation of the physico-theological view.

Inside and outside the laws

The critical point here is the distinction between an argument within the laws and an argument outside them. There is a process whose a priori chance of occurrence is zero. Now we find that it nevertheless operates within the framework of laws, or constraints, that significantly improve this chance (freezing the correct letters, or the laws of nature). This is essentially an explanation through scientific theory for these seemingly spontaneous processes. The argument within the laws says that now the process is reasonable because the laws allow for the spontaneous formation of life with a reasonable chance. This is the meaning of the claim that we have found a scientific explanation for these occurrences. The explanation explains them, that is, makes them plausible. But the argument outside the laws takes us outside the laws. It essentially says that it is the uniqueness of the laws themselves (and of the events that these laws explain) that compels us to assume the intervention of an intelligent agent. In other words, the process is not as spontaneous as it seems. There is a hand directing it, through the laws that govern it.

Paley’s clock argument operates on the same logical basis. The chance that something as complex as a clock came into being by chance is zero. The world and life are much more complex, so the chance of their spontaneous formation must be zero. The existence of a clockmaker is the obvious explanation, and so is the existence of a creator for the universe. The common rejection of this argument is that our world is not like a clock (because living things evolve, unlike clocks).

The same is true of “Hoyle’s fallacy.” Hoyle likened the chance of life arising by chance to the chance that a storm passing over a junkyard would create A complete Boeing airplane. His critics argued against him that he did not understand the laws of evolution and their meaning, since they ensure that the process is not directionless, thereby greatly improving the chances of its occurrence. An airplane and its parts are inert, and therefore it is a momentary and clearly improbable occurrence (the probabilistic slope is too steep). The astute reader will surely notice that the logic of the argument is the same logic. Within the laws, the detractors are right, but Hoyle and Paley's arguments are completely correct outside the laws.

Thank you very much, and sorry.