Mt Improbable.mov

Richard Dawkins speaks of Mt Improbable in his book "The God Delusion" - he gets it wrong . . . both creation and evolution have the same degree of improbability.

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

That's in the book . . . using reason to deconstruct sola ratio. Thank you for your open-mindedness to agree.

[troyboulay]

Think of it this way. There's a massive cliff. On the top of it is a huge statue. Two people are looking at it from the bottom and asking how the statue got up there. One says I think that it either leaped or was thrown from the bottom, hundreds of feet in the air and landed at the top. The other says; well there's a road on the other side with a gentile incline, I think it was brought up the ramp, gradually.. Which is more likely? That's all the analogy is trying to get across.

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

@MsCoralline The hope of Dawkins' analogy (analogies are not simplistic, and they can be examined and scrutinized), is to show the beauty of how evolution gradually ascends the grade of improbability. From an open-minded perspective, there is no difference between admiring that beauty and the person who admires the beauty of a single creative event. Both are, epistemologically, on the exact same ground. Sanches and Bacon would have said the same thing; science and faith are fraternal twins.

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

@MsCoralline Thanks for responding. Help me understand what the point of the analogy is, then. This is what I take it to mean:

1. The leap from the base to the top is improbable
2. A more likely route would be the slow ascent along a gradual rise
3. Evolution fits this more likely manner of overcoming the steep ascent

If that is the point of the idea (and I could be wrong), then it appeals to my sense of 'gradual' rather than the fact a jump and a slow ramp are equally unlikely (my point).

[Vincentaneous]

Here's your problem: Ask a mountain climber whether it's possible to step from the base of a mountain to the summit. Then ask him if it's possible to climb slowly up a slope of the mountain to get to the summit. I suspect the climber will tell you only climbing slowly up a slope is possible. So, although it takes the same amount of energy, that energy is broken down into smaller steps.

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

@TETSUno1 TETSU - thanks for the response - what makes it so hard to see that if leaping was improbable and "absurd" than rolling up the hill on its own (blind evolution) is just as absurd? That was my point - you are right, my explanation was not about probability. It had to do with both evolution and creation being equally 'absurd.'

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

The point about the analogy and the point about evolution are the same. Analogy: Nothing rolls up hill without an agent acting on it. Science: Nothing increases in complexity without an agent acting on it.

[EssentialPedagogy]

I'll tell you what, we'll choose a tall building and you climb the outside and I'll use the stairs and we'll see who makes it to the top and who falls to their death.

[MegR]

I just wonder if those that support evolution realize that in his last days Darwin said he wasn't even certain about his claims for evolution in the first place. Hmmm. Honestly, my family believes that Science and Fatih, Creation and even some elements of evolution can go hand in hand. To us, there is no argument.

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

@Vincentaneous Again - you have weighted the argument in your favor. Try this instead:
Ask a mountain climber whether it is more probable that she could take one step to the summit and put her flag on top or whether no one (meaning nothing) other than gravity and maybe wind currents could conduct the flag up to the top and place it in the ground. Which seems more probable? They are both equally ridiculous. My point.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@JohnWilkinsonIII

The ease of getting to the top.

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

@Vincentaneous Kidding, right? Q#1 - Yes - Dawkins' idea, complex structures rolled uphill (like eyeballs) via evolution. #2 - "Forces" of evolution, yes - mutation, adaptation, survival of the fittest #3 - Yes, Wind/gravity are very complex systems (I'm assuming you are joking with intelligence part) #4 - Original analogy? Maybe you're seeing it for the 1st time: Simple life forms 'rolled' their way up a mountain (gravity?inertia?2nd law thermodynamics?ha!). The entire thing is ridiculous.

[Vincentaneous]

@JohnWilkinsonIII But wind currents and gravity are random - of course chaotic forces like these couldn't get that flag planted on the summit. Evolution by natural selection is not random. So, if you take the mountain climber out of the analogy, the analogy no longer fits evolution.

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

@troyboulay Actually, you have weighted the example . . . Try this - a backpack sits on top of the mountain. Two guys look at it and theorize how it got there. One says God put it there and the other says nothing but a vague impersonal force that governs the ways of the universe put it on its back and carried it up the hill.

Both are equally ridiculous.

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

@Vincentaneous Who ever said wind currents and gravity are random? You are assuming a lot in that statement. The forces of wind and gravity are very analogous to the ''forces' of evolution. The mountain climber is a sentient being that willfully carries it to the top. Unless you are arguing for guided evolution, you can't have a sentient being carrying anything to the top. That is why it is ridiculous to argue that something as complex as an eyeball rolled to the top of a mountain.

[Vincentaneous]

@JohnWilkinsonIII So now an eyeball rolled to the top of the mountain? Now there is a "force" of evolution? Now wind currents and gravity are directed by an intelligence? The original analogy is getting twisted out of all recognition to prove your point.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@JohnWilkinsonIII

You completely missed the point.

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

@EssentialPedagogy Alright, I thought I was just clearing up what I was saying . . . but fill me in, what's the point?

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

@EssentialPedagogy Your example takes into account two humans using directed (creative) intent. Try making your version closer to the actual debate: We chose a tall building. I say the person gets to the top by created design. You say a person gets to the top by nothing bringing the person on its shoulders (though it has none) up the stairs over millions of years. You forgot the essential ingredient in an evolutionary path - it comes from nothing, with no guidance. Both are equally absurd.

[JohnWilkinsonIII]

MJV, this is ironic (again) - you are the one who misunderstands. Look at Dawkins' video again. You're incorrect in saying that he compared creation as a step-by-step process. He argues creation was a fantastic jump. And I understand the analogy just fine - my critique was in how he says evolution rolls upward. Upward. Think about it. It defies natural laws. Things don't roll upward. So it is a bad analogy for evolution unless there is someone rolling it. He makes my point.