Conversation with a Statistician

James A. Choury of Haven Ministries

April of 2009

I recently read Richard Dawkins’ book “River Out of Eden”, (BasicBooks, a Division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1995). On pages 79 through 83 Dawkins uses a computer simulation experiment of the evolution of an eye (a vertebrate eye) published by two Swedish scientists to demonstrate how easy it was for evolution to produce over 40 different types of eyes within the 600 million years normally given for such a task. I had some real questions.

My undergraduate degree is in Mathematics and Physics and I did study Statistics as well. Dawkins states that it took the computer “only” 400,000 generations to produce the eye by random mutations, each of which brought about a small improvement. It seemed to me Dawkins was talking about independent, joint occurrences (like flipping a single coin four hundred thousand times and always getting heads). It seemed so preposterous that anyone would propose such a thing (400,000 continuous successful mutations in a row) or that anyone would accept such an idea that I thought I would consult an expert.

I made an appointment to talk to someone in the Statistics department at Colorado State University here in Fort Collins. We had a half hour conversation in which I got directly to the point. My question was: “Am I interpreting Dawkins correctly?” “Is he talking about independent joint occurrences and am I using the proper formulas to calculate the probability?” The Ph.D. in probability looked it over, got out his scratch pad, did some figuring and to my happy surprise said “yes”. Dawkins is talking about 400,000 tosses of the natural selection “coin” and coming up with 400,000 heads in a row*. Amazing! I mentioned to the statistician that the Swedish scientists who set up the computer simulation 1) began the simulation with an already existing photosensitive cell, 2) only allowed for favorable outcomes (albeit, small improvements) and 3) didn’t take into consideration that vision requires much more than just a functioning eye. Vision also depends on a very complicated (more complicated than the actual eye), well developed and properly functioning cerebral cortex (part of the brain). This very amiable and, I believe, competent man agreed with what I was saying and my time was up.

The back cover of Dawkins’ book has a quote from the A.L.A. Booklist that says the following about the “Science Masters” series of which Dawkins’ book is a member: “Aimed at busy, nonmathematical readers, this precise series evinces solid quality control and begins under highly favorable auspices.” I believe many “nonmathematical” readers have been and will be persuaded by Dawkin’s books. The math needed to see through Dawkins is not “rocket science” but few people take the time to understand probability. Of course, they are too busy and they are “nonmathematical”.

Many Christians are also quite nonmathematical and busy doing many things. Being prepared to give an answer for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15) may demand more from us than we have grown accustomed to do and to be.

*The probability of tossing a coin and getting a heads is ½ or 50%. The odds in Dawkins’ example were actually much smaller, around 1/200 or about 0.5%.

Haven Ministries, Box 460366, Aurora, CO jamesachoury@yahoo.com

Li em 2008

• The One Year Bible - NIV (DEZEMBRO)
• The Highest for His Utmost - Oswald Chambers (DEZEMBRO)
• What's Darwin Got to Do With It? - Newman & Wiester (DEZEMBRO)
  
• Mente: Conceitos-chave em filosofia - Eric Matthews (NOVEMBRO)
• Fallacy, the counterfeit of argument - Fearnside & Holther (SETEMBRO)
• No Princípio... - E. H. Andrews (SETEMBRO)
• O universo ao lado - James W. Sire (SETEMBRO)
• Lógica : Conceitos-chave em filosofia - Goldstein, Brennan, Deutsch & Lau (AGOSTO)
• Sola Gratia - R.C. Sproul (JULHO)
• A alma do homem sob o socialismo - Oscar Wilde (JUNHO)
• A falência dos Deuses - Vinoth Ramachandra (JUNHO)
• O Mistério dos Dinossauros - Norma Whitcomb (MAIO)
• Fale a Verdade Consigo Mesmo - William Backus & Marie Chapian (ABRIL)
• Ética nas Pequenas Coisas - Elizabeth C. Gomes (MARÇO)
• The Books of the Bible - Hight C. Moore (MARÇO)
• Dando um Jeito no Jeitinho Brasileiro - Lourenço Stelio Rega (MARÇO)
• Hipnose, Marketing das Religiões - Fabio Puentes (MARÇO)
• Os Ensinos Secretos da Maçonaria - Ankerberg & Weldon (FEVEREIRO)
• 10 dias que abalaram o mundo - John Reed (FEVEREIRO)
• Como Você Explica Sua Fé? - Paul E. Little (JANEIRO)
• A survey of the New Testament - Gundry (JANEIRO)
• Porque abandonei as Testemunhas de Jeová - Aldo Menezes (JANEIRO)

Bible Study: Mark 16

July 12, 2002

[Leia este artigo em português]

We began with discussion concerning the last part of the chapter, where the note "the earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20" or a similar notice is given. It was shared that some did not include the last part because they felt this passage was not Mark's original text. Other scholars felt that Mark could have written this part years later, thus explaining an apparent conflicting writing style.
Was the original ending lost? We don't know -- but the account obviously shouldn't end at verse 8! As to the authenticity of verses 9 to 20, we could see that nothing in this passage contradicts the ending in the other gospels. Therefore these should be trustworthy words to us also.
The angel said in verse 7, "But go, tell His disciples and Peter". Why was Peter mentioned separately? We recall that Peter went back to fishing after Jesus' death, ashamed at himself for denying the Lord. Here, it was as if the angel was saying, 'make sure you include Peter!'. It is comforting to know of God's infinite mercy and His willingness to forgive.
After His resurrection, our Lord Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene (v.9). Of all the people He could have appeared first -- His disciples, His mother and father -- He chose Mary the sinner, the one possessed by seven demons until the Lord casted them out of her. Why Mary?
Maybe because Mary Magdalene loved the Lord more than any other at the time. She was the woman who poured the expensive perfume over the Lord's head (14:3-9), she looked on helplessly as Jesus was hung on the cross (15:40), and she was the first one to be at the tomb (John 20:1). In fact, she was there while it was still dark, looking to do something for the Lord, even if there was only His body.
How sad she was when she found the tomb empty! "But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping;" (John 20:11). This truly showed her love for Jesus. And the Lord knew; He appeared first to her, called her name and instructed her to spread the news of His resurrection.
In this we see some lessons. In her deliverance, Mary felt more love and more forgiveness from the Lord, and she responded as best she could. What about ourselves? Often time we feel we are "not that bad" -- does it make us less appreciative of His love? We need to remember that a sinner is a sinner -- no one's a 'bigger' sinner than the other. The other point is that those who pursues the Lord will find Him -- just as Mary did. This means keeping watch, and keep pursuing even if the time spent on the Bible seem to be dry or empty.
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." -- Matthew 7:7
"And they went out and preached everywhere," (v.20). In effect, the end of Mark is the beginning of the book of Acts, a book still ongoing with us today. But we hardly go out to preach today, and we don't see signs like those in verses 17 and 18. Why is that?
A brother shared that when he was in Hong Kong years ago, his entire fellowship would go out on the streets on Chinese New Year to pass around evangelical tracts and share with passerbys who would listen. The geography settings and attitudes in Asia did make such 'street preaching' more viable, compared to North America.
'People will think you're crazy if you go out to the street corner and start preaching', someone else shared. The fact is, this North American society has little tolerance for God in the public place, while appearing to be tolerant to everything. This is a society pushed by science and technology, where everything can be calculated and explained scientifically. We are caught up in this attitude of unbelief, when we really need child-like faith.
In DeVern Fromke's book, "Stories that open God's Larger Window", there is an account of a believer being made to drink poison by his communist interrogators, because he refused to discount God's Word, specifically of Mark 16:18. The dog who drank the poison died almost immediately. But this believer got permission to pray for God's will to be done, then drank the entire glass. The officer and the doctor waited for the inevitable. And waited. But nothing happened after several minutes. Stunned, the doctor took his pulse, examined him, but couldn't find any symptoms. The doctor tore up his Party card and proclaimed his faith in the Bible on the spot.
So why don't we see these miracles today? Perhaps it is our purpose for demanding a miracle -- we want something done for ourselves, not for God's glory. We are not to test the Lord, but we are promised of His protection when we do go out to preach. God is always looking for those who are willing -- but do we know what He wants us to do? If we don't, shouldn't we find out?

http://www.tccyf.ca/Meetings/020712.htm