Inaccuracies in the book God Plays Dice

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

“How many different genetic combinations of three hundred nucleotides are there?… The result is about 1039010^{390} 10390… The conclusion from this rough calculation is that the probability of life arising randomly, by a blind process, is zero.”
The calculations presented refer to the formation of a complex molecule randomly in a single step, without considering the chemical and biological processes that allow for the gradual formation of complex structures. Evolution and abiogenesis suggest cumulative processes in which simpler molecules combine to form more complex molecules. Considering 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, according to which 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’ and 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 for the creation of local order (such as life) while the overall entropy in the universe increases. Therefore, the development of life and biological complexity does not contradict this law.

3. Recent research in abiogenesis

“What we have seen so far is that the second step is probabilistically impossible, meaning that life could not have arisen by chance… How does Dawkins propose to explain this astonishing event without planning and without the assumption of a guiding hand?”
Scientific research in the field of abiogenesis is advancing and suggests several possible mechanisms for the formation of life from inanimate matter. Theories such as the “RNA world” suggest 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 many, many planets, and life could only have arisen on a planet with the right conditions for the formation of life. Therefore, we are necessarily on the planet that is suitable for life, otherwise we would not be here to think and discuss this matter.”
It seems that your explanation of the anthropic principle is inaccurate. The anthropic principle is divided into two main types – the weak and the strong. The weak anthropic principle claims only that our observation is limited to a universe where the physical conditions allow our existence, while the strong one claims that the universe is designedly adapted to support intelligent life.
Additionally, your comparison to a person who won the lottery five times in a row is not appropriate for conveying the scientific message of the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is not intended to explain probabilities of rare events, but to emphasize the conditions necessary for our existence in the universe.
The anthropic principle does not provide an explanation for why the universe is adapted to life, but only states that we exist in an environment that allows for our existence. The combination of the weak and strong anthropic principles in your book leads to 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 step is probabilistically impossible, meaning that life cannot have arisen by chance… How does Dawkins explain this amazing event without planning and without deliberate intervention?”
Your explanation seems to ignore the important role of simulations and laboratory experiments that present possibilities for the formation of organic molecules under conditions that resemble those of the early Earth. Experiments such as the Miller-Eyre experiment have shown that amino acids and other organics can form naturally under certain chemical conditions, suggesting that chemical rather than random processes can lead to the formation of the basic molecules of life. In addition, recent research in the field of abiogenesis suggests various mechanisms by which simple molecules organize themselves into more complex forms, such as volcanic activity or ecological influences. Ignoring these experiments gives an incomplete picture of the probability of the formation of life, as it does not take into account the cumulative and gradual processes that allow for the development of biological complexity over time.