Those sorts of statistical calculations tend to be pointless is the main problem. You could calculate the improbability of your own existence if you had enough data, but it's a futile exercise. Your average rock exists as a statistical improbability, as does the phone on my desk, as does every other object.remnant_phoenix said:Years ago I saw a documentary where a group of astrophysicists calculated a conservative statistical improbability that Earth would be a habitable planet. Something like 1 in 10 to the 128th power. I don't remember what the documentary was called though.Gorrath said:I'm not aware that anyone could calculate the statistical probability of life generating on Earth, we do not have another Earth to draw any comparison. I'm also not aware of any accepted theory that suggests that it happened spontaneously or from inorganic material. I don't see why they'd let him bring any of this up since it sounds like a great big straw-man.remnant_phoenix said:Eh, I say it depends on what he wants to say on the show.
If he wants to call attention to the great statistical improbabilities of life on earth being possible and then of life spontaneously-generating from inorganic matter, and then point out that this leads some scientists to infer the concept (note: I said "concept," not "hypothesis" or "theory") that there may be some intelligent design behind the processes, then that's fine, as long as its made clear that the science stops once you make the leap to the inferential concept; it's not a hypothesis or theory because it's not testable, and therefore, not science.
Think of it this way. If you blindfolded yourself and spun around before throwing a ball, you could calculate the probability of that ball travelling in any given direction. Every direction the ball might fly in is statistically improbable, and yet it's going to have to fly in some direction. So you throw the ball and check it's final flight path. Now someone comes along and tells you that the ball couldn't have been thrown in a random direction because it's simply too statistically improbable for it to have taken that exact path. No matter what path the ball took in its random flight, the person arguing with you can make the same useless statistical improbability argument.
Edit: I need to edit this because my analogy doesn't do the reality justice. There are some estimates that place the number of planets just in our galaxy in the trillions. Compare this with the ball analogy, and you're throwing the ball several trillion times, and the person is coming up to you, picking a single flight path out of those trillion tries, and claiming that that one specific flight path was too improbable to be random occurrence. At that point the improbability argument goes from being silly and useless to downright absurd.