That's unreal, rising to new levels of incompetence the Diving Preacher mistakes a science site debunking creationist claptrap for creationist claptrap; just because they print the creationist claptrap in its entirety.
Here's the rebuttal:
[SIZE=+2]
Critique of Baumgardner's Protein Argument by Marshall Berman
[/SIZE] The Sandia physicist mentioned by Baumgardner in his letter above is Dr. Marshall Berman. Here are two letters published in a lengthy debate in the pages of the Los Alamos Monitor in 1997 between John Baumgardner and several Los Alamos and Albuquerque writers. See if you think Marshall's arguments are science-based, or evidence of a "
tenacious commitment to atheism" instead. -
DT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published
May 7, 1997
To the Los Alamos Monitor:
John Baumgardner in his letter of April 3 attempts to give Llewellyn Jones a lesson in arithmetic. However, it is clear that Baumgardner needs lessons in probability and in how to submit technical papers on creation "science" to reputable scientific journals.
Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Baumgardner purports to calculate the probability of life arising due to random interactions over the life of the universe.
If true, Baumgardner would turn the scientific world upside down. But it is not true. Baumgardner uses statistics and probability theory improperly. He assumes randomness that doesn't exist. Indeed, by assuming randomness for non-random processes, one can show that almost any event is extremely improbable.
Let's run a scientific experiment. Go outside and pick up a small rock. The probability of that rock being on that spot on the earth *by chance alone* is roughly the area of the stone divided by the surface area of the earth, or about one chance in 10 to the 18th power (one followed by 18 zeros). If picking up the stone took one second, the probability of such an event occurring at this precise moment over the lifetime of the universe is now even smaller by another factor 10 to the 18th power! This simple event is so incredibly unlikely (essentially zero probability) that one wonders how it could be accomplished!
How can such an "unlikely" event occur? The problem is our initial false assumption of randomness. The rock and you arrived at that spot at that time by mechanistic processes. Probability theory fails when used improperly, as Baumgardner has done. Probability theory, like evolution theory, is valuable because it works under the appropriate conditions. Evolution theory explains the origin of species, but not the laws of gravity nor the origins of life. Probability theory works for random processes, but has no applicability to deterministic events.
Questioning the origin of life is indeed scientific, and a new science has arisen to address it: abiotic chemistry. Life did arise on earth about 3.5 billion years ago under the CONDITIONS prevailing at that time. The key science questions are: What were the initial conditions, and can these conditions be simulated and tested in the laboratory? No scientist is addressing the probability of life on this planet (but perhaps others). Nor does science address whether a creator created the necessary conditions for life to arise. These are questions outside science.
Baumgardner should present his arguments to the science community. Spouting such nonsense is an affront to the readers of the Monitor. By the way, check the April 17 issue of the respected science journal Nature, p. 638, where Baumgardner is mentioned. Baumgardner's views do not inspire respect for either Los Alamos National Laboratory or for the state of New Mexico.
Marshall Berman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published August 19, 1997
To the Los Alamos Monitor:
I define critical thinking as a three-part process for determining the truth of a proposition or belief: evidence, logic, and probability. Evidence represents the data and models we have. The best evidence is scientific, meaning that it arose as a result of empirical or historical studies in concert with validated hypotheses. Logic is simply the application of reason and common sense to determine what conclusions can be drawn from the data. Probability is of importance since real data are often incomplete, fragmentary, or in dispute. It is essential to carefully define terms throughout the critical reasoning process.
What conclusions can we draw when we apply critical reasoning to John Baumgardner's protein "probability" calculations (Los Alamos Monitor, 8/15/97)? He says there are 10 to the 260th power proteins that can be created from 20 possible amino acids, if each protein contains 200 amino acids.
Baumgardner assumes that half of the amino acids are of no importance. He computes a much smaller fraction of possible proteins constructed from only 100 amino acids. He then claims that this new number is an insignificantly small fraction of the number of possibilities when using 200 amino acids. But of course it is! Baumgardner has solved a hypothetical problem which has no relevance to real biological evolution.
Baumgardner employs the word "function" in a confusing way. He claims to seek "a single new protein type with some new cellular function." This protein must lie in the relatively tiny subspace of proteins composed of 100 "functioning" amino acids in the much larger sea of proteins composed of 200 amino acids, 100 of which are not "functional." But this is a natural consequence of the way in which the problem was formulated, not any fundamental observation of biochemistry or biological probabilities.
Consider a ten-card hand dealt to a gambler, out of which he is to pick the best 5-card poker hand (that is, 5 of the cards are non-functional, 5 are "functional.") The number of possible 10-card hands is about 15.8 billion. The number of possible "functional" 5-card poker hands is "only" about 2.6 million, a tiny island in the subspace of possible 10-card hands! Is the probability of a functional poker hand only 2.6 million divided by 15.8 billion or 0.00016 (about one chance in 6000)? Of course not! The probability is one. And don't bother to equate the gambler with an "Intelligent Designer." Every 10-card hand contains a "functional" 5-card poker hand, whether the gambler/designer exists or not! The probability of "winning" (another possible definition of functionality) would depend more on the number (and skill) of the players than on the probabilities of the hands.
The analogy of poker to evolution is even better. Less than a pair might only represent inanimate matter. A straight might allow an organism to just barely function in its environment. A flush or a full house could produce a very sturdy species, capable of adapting to a wide variety of environments. And in draw poker, like mutations and natural selection, the hand can get better or worse when you throw away some cards and draw others!
Marshall Berman
