DNAunion: Mainly for morat, and I think mid, and possibly seebs too.
Some people, for some odd reason, can't accept the fact that my beliefs have evolved over the years to the point of my believing in evolution (here belief meaning more than just acceptance, but something one is willing to act upon). I will present a case to show that my views have changed, and this case, I feel, will be so convincing that any objective, rational person cannot reasonably reject it.
"Early years"
I was definitely hard-core anti-evolution when I started out posting on the net at "Creation/Evolution" sites.
One quote should be sufficient to show my old stance. Here is something I said back in 1998.
DNAunion: Pretty hardcore anti-evolutionist, right? Right.
But I have changed, and I can demonstrate this.
Recent times"
Well, I don't have the time or the posting space here to present a series of posts that chronologically shows every step of my "transformation", but I can point people to some RECENT posts of mine that they can contrast to the "early years" quote I presented above. I would ask people to go to the following link and read the last two posts on that page. They show what I said about evolution 6 months ago and 5 months ago.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/22374-5.html
HUGE DIFFERENCE!
No Difference?????
Can no one see the difference in beliefs I expressed between the "early years" and "recent times"? Can no one see that not only do my "recent times" posts -- made months ago -- demonstrate that my views have changed, but also explicitly state, themselves, that my views on evolution have changed over the years?
The straw that broke the camel's back
Here's one of the last little things that pushed me the last little inch into the evolutionist's camp.
For a while, I accepted common descent but still felt that probability was against nature's 'evolving humans from flatworms' without some assistance. If it had happened unassisted, then it was a huge probabilistic fluke (pun wasn't originally intended, but I'll leave it), otherwise, there was an intelligent source directing the process. I found it hard to swallow such highly improbable events occurring unassisted. But on the other hand, since my designer in ID was ETIs, and it is a very very large stretch of the imagination to believe that aliens would be directing the evolution of life here on Earth, if I accepted the "directed" solution I would have to accept that it was some God doing it. Neither fit well with my beliefs, so I remained skeptical of both (i.e., did not fully accept either - I suspended judgment).
But then something happened to remove this last barrier.
Just a few weeks ago, I had written a 10-page entry into my personal notes about how misleading and fraudulent Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" metaphor for solving evolutionary problems was. I had hinted about his method's being invalid a couple of times at ARN, all prepared to handle any argument someone would present: but no one wanted to debate it. Good thing for me. I was wrong!
I took another look at how the probabilities should be handled. I had been multiplying the probabilities of each step in the series together and coming up with infinitesimally small overall probabilities for making it through a 1829-step series (the number of steps a computer simulation took to "evolve an eye" ) . But after a week or two of making corrections to grammar and calculations, it dawned on me that maybe the probabilities should be added, not multiplied. So I thought about flipping coins.
Suppose the summit of Mount Improbable represents the obtaining of 100 coins all facing heads up. Doing so in a single flip, you DO multiply together the individual coin's probabilities of landing heads, coming up with ½ * ½ * ½ * ½ ..., or simply 2^-100, which is about 10^-30. Leaping from base to summit in a single bound is something that only Superman or Goku could be expected to achieve.
But that is NOT how Dawkin's "Climbing Mount Improbable" works. It uses cumulative selection and smears out the luck. If you break up that single small probability event into a linear series of many much more probable events then the probabilities are handled differently. With the first coin, there are two possible outcomes: heads or tails. Since over the long run, these will appear about the same number of times, we can conclude that on the AVERAGE, we will succeed in getting heads after 2 flips. We then move on to the second coin. It too -- ON AVERAGE -- will require only 2 flips to land heads. And so on, and so on. Anytime it takes 10 flips to hit heads, then, ON AVERAGE, there will be about 10 instances of hitting heads in a single flip. The probabilistic fluctuations average out over the long run. So ON AVERAGE, it would take only 200 flips -- not 10^30 -- to end up with all 100 coins showing heads if we use the "Climbing Mount Improbable" method.
One can also think about it this way. Flip a coin 200 times and write down the result. Now how many heads do you have? Probably, nearly exactly 100. Now think about it -- in those 200 flips you got 100 heads: the series itself doesn't matter. If you walk through whatever series you got, one coin at a time, how many heads would you encounter? 100 (or roughly that many). And each time you encountered one, you'd set it aside in the heads area. So again, it takes, on average, only 200 flips to obtain 100 coins all facing heads up.
I was wrong. Way wrong.
And that means the probabilistic hurdle I thought existed did not. As such, I was no longer forced to choose between "the lesser of two evils" -- the probabilistic solution is no longer problematic and so wins.
And thus, the last barrier to my fully accepting -- and having a belief in -- undirected evolution has vanished.
Why refuse to believe me because of things I did in the past?
People seem to not believe that my views have changed and point to statements I have made in the past, many times, the very distant past.
But my "full conversion" is a very recent event: something like 2 weeks ago!
Even over the last couple years I have been slowly inching more and more towards/into the evolutionist camp. I always said I was not for teaching ID in schools; I stopped arguing that IC means that something CANNOT evolve and starting saying it means it is IMPROBABLE for it to evolve; I stopped arguing that Dembski's EF can be applied legitimately to biology/evolution; and for the anti-Creationists out there, I completely stopped offering God as a scientific explanation YEARS ago.
Claiming that I am lieing now about what I now believe because of what I said years ago is about as nonsensical as my saying morat is lieing when he says he doesn't "mess" his pants, because I know he did, many years ago. People do change!
Some people, for some odd reason, can't accept the fact that my beliefs have evolved over the years to the point of my believing in evolution (here belief meaning more than just acceptance, but something one is willing to act upon). I will present a case to show that my views have changed, and this case, I feel, will be so convincing that any objective, rational person cannot reasonably reject it.
"Early years"
I was definitely hard-core anti-evolution when I started out posting on the net at "Creation/Evolution" sites.
One quote should be sufficient to show my old stance. Here is something I said back in 1998.
DNAunion: Pretty hardcore anti-evolutionist, right? Right.
But I have changed, and I can demonstrate this.
Recent times"
Well, I don't have the time or the posting space here to present a series of posts that chronologically shows every step of my "transformation", but I can point people to some RECENT posts of mine that they can contrast to the "early years" quote I presented above. I would ask people to go to the following link and read the last two posts on that page. They show what I said about evolution 6 months ago and 5 months ago.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/22374-5.html
HUGE DIFFERENCE!
No Difference?????
Can no one see the difference in beliefs I expressed between the "early years" and "recent times"? Can no one see that not only do my "recent times" posts -- made months ago -- demonstrate that my views have changed, but also explicitly state, themselves, that my views on evolution have changed over the years?
The straw that broke the camel's back
Here's one of the last little things that pushed me the last little inch into the evolutionist's camp.
For a while, I accepted common descent but still felt that probability was against nature's 'evolving humans from flatworms' without some assistance. If it had happened unassisted, then it was a huge probabilistic fluke (pun wasn't originally intended, but I'll leave it), otherwise, there was an intelligent source directing the process. I found it hard to swallow such highly improbable events occurring unassisted. But on the other hand, since my designer in ID was ETIs, and it is a very very large stretch of the imagination to believe that aliens would be directing the evolution of life here on Earth, if I accepted the "directed" solution I would have to accept that it was some God doing it. Neither fit well with my beliefs, so I remained skeptical of both (i.e., did not fully accept either - I suspended judgment).
But then something happened to remove this last barrier.
Just a few weeks ago, I had written a 10-page entry into my personal notes about how misleading and fraudulent Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" metaphor for solving evolutionary problems was. I had hinted about his method's being invalid a couple of times at ARN, all prepared to handle any argument someone would present: but no one wanted to debate it. Good thing for me. I was wrong!
I took another look at how the probabilities should be handled. I had been multiplying the probabilities of each step in the series together and coming up with infinitesimally small overall probabilities for making it through a 1829-step series (the number of steps a computer simulation took to "evolve an eye" ) . But after a week or two of making corrections to grammar and calculations, it dawned on me that maybe the probabilities should be added, not multiplied. So I thought about flipping coins.
Suppose the summit of Mount Improbable represents the obtaining of 100 coins all facing heads up. Doing so in a single flip, you DO multiply together the individual coin's probabilities of landing heads, coming up with ½ * ½ * ½ * ½ ..., or simply 2^-100, which is about 10^-30. Leaping from base to summit in a single bound is something that only Superman or Goku could be expected to achieve.
But that is NOT how Dawkin's "Climbing Mount Improbable" works. It uses cumulative selection and smears out the luck. If you break up that single small probability event into a linear series of many much more probable events then the probabilities are handled differently. With the first coin, there are two possible outcomes: heads or tails. Since over the long run, these will appear about the same number of times, we can conclude that on the AVERAGE, we will succeed in getting heads after 2 flips. We then move on to the second coin. It too -- ON AVERAGE -- will require only 2 flips to land heads. And so on, and so on. Anytime it takes 10 flips to hit heads, then, ON AVERAGE, there will be about 10 instances of hitting heads in a single flip. The probabilistic fluctuations average out over the long run. So ON AVERAGE, it would take only 200 flips -- not 10^30 -- to end up with all 100 coins showing heads if we use the "Climbing Mount Improbable" method.
One can also think about it this way. Flip a coin 200 times and write down the result. Now how many heads do you have? Probably, nearly exactly 100. Now think about it -- in those 200 flips you got 100 heads: the series itself doesn't matter. If you walk through whatever series you got, one coin at a time, how many heads would you encounter? 100 (or roughly that many). And each time you encountered one, you'd set it aside in the heads area. So again, it takes, on average, only 200 flips to obtain 100 coins all facing heads up.
I was wrong. Way wrong.
And that means the probabilistic hurdle I thought existed did not. As such, I was no longer forced to choose between "the lesser of two evils" -- the probabilistic solution is no longer problematic and so wins.
And thus, the last barrier to my fully accepting -- and having a belief in -- undirected evolution has vanished.
Why refuse to believe me because of things I did in the past?
People seem to not believe that my views have changed and point to statements I have made in the past, many times, the very distant past.
But my "full conversion" is a very recent event: something like 2 weeks ago!
Even over the last couple years I have been slowly inching more and more towards/into the evolutionist camp. I always said I was not for teaching ID in schools; I stopped arguing that IC means that something CANNOT evolve and starting saying it means it is IMPROBABLE for it to evolve; I stopped arguing that Dembski's EF can be applied legitimately to biology/evolution; and for the anti-Creationists out there, I completely stopped offering God as a scientific explanation YEARS ago.
Claiming that I am lieing now about what I now believe because of what I said years ago is about as nonsensical as my saying morat is lieing when he says he doesn't "mess" his pants, because I know he did, many years ago. People do change!
