Probability in Relation to Evolution/Apologetic Arguments against Evolution

[ByFaithAlone]

1 minute ago, theInquirer said:

Oh, I didn't know that. . . everywhere I looked online and elsewhere, the consensus seemed to be the same: we just don't know whether the universe is infinite or not.  But now you mentioned that it is held that the universe finite; where could I find this information for myself? I'm rather intrigued to be honest.

Yes, I realize that evolution concerns the forming of life by and through random, unguided processes in certain conditions. . . but if the universe is infinite, then there must exist infinite variations of matter and infinite opportune and possible circumstances for evolution to take place, and therefore we couldn't say that evolution is impossible because, say, the probability of a cell forming is one out of 10^14191 or some other such argument.

And also, please don't get me wrong here: I don't believe evolution is true or possible.  I could think of other arguments against it that do not rely on probability; I'm just interested in bolstering my apologetics.

Based on the modern understanding of cosmology, our universe is inflationary (i.e. it expands). The rapid expansion of the early universe is known as the Big Bang. This modern model indicates that our universe is past-finite (i.e. began to exist) and therefore cannot be infinite in the amount of matter it contains. More recently, it was mathematically determined that any inflationary spacetime must not be past complete (another way of saying they must be past-finite). The relevant paper is Borde, Guth, Vilenkin 2008 and is titled "Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete."

Once again, regarding evolution that is not quite the definition of evolution. Evolutionary biology does not deal with the formation of life from non-life. That is abiogenesis and is another huge topic. Rather evolutionary biology only explains how and why changes occur in species and how speciation occurs. And although the universe is finite, probability arguments are still ineffective against evolution due to the vastness of the observable universe (some tens of billions of light years across).

As to your last point, I'm a theistic evolutionist so I would disagree with you regarding evolution. However, if you are trying to attempt to pose problems to evolutionary biology, I would suggest that other arguments besides probability might be a better try.   

[theInquirer]

2 minutes ago, ByFaithAlone said:

Based on the modern understanding of cosmology, our universe is inflationary (i.e. it expands). The rapid expansion of the early universe is known as the Big Bang. This modern model indicates that our universe is past-finite (i.e. began to exist) and therefore cannot be infinite in the amount of matter it contains. More recently, it was mathematically determined that any inflationary spacetime must not be past complete (another way of saying they must be past-finite). The relevant paper is Borde, Guth, Vilenkin 2008 and is titled "Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete."

Once again, regarding evolution that is not quite the definition of evolution. Evolutionary biology does not deal with the formation of life from non-life. That is abiogenesis and is another huge topic. Rather evolutionary biology only explains how and why changes occur in species and how speciation occurs. And although the universe is finite, probability arguments are still ineffective against evolution due to the vastness of the observable universe (some tens of billions of light years across).

As to your last point, I'm a theistic evolutionist so I would disagree with you regarding evolution. However, if you are trying to attempt to pose problems to evolutionary biology, I would suggest that other arguments besides probability might be a better try.   

Ohh whoops, sorry I misunderstood you on the definition of evolution the first time, but I gotcha now.

So I'm afraid I do not fully understand why a universe that began cannot contain infinite matter; could it not have simply been brought into existence in its infinite state from the very conception? Correct me if I am merely failing to comprehend what you were explaining.

Yes that's what I was thinking somewhat, on the probability versus non-probability arguments although I do think that if the universe is finite, the probability arguments do come into really big play as, the more I hear from sources on evolution, the more I am impressed with the sheer and utter improbability of life forming or changing (in the macroevolutionary sense, not the microevolutionary sense), the more I am forced to conclude that random processes could not have brought about our current state of life and existence. 

Although I suppose you'd point out that according to your view, since God was behind evolution and spontaneous generation, probability has no power.  But I guess that's where the other arguments for/against theistic evolution come into play, as you mentioned.

Also, I'd just like to say that while I do disagree with you on theistic evolution, I still respect your position and opinion.  

[ByFaithAlone]

9 minutes ago, theInquirer said:

Ohh whoops, sorry I misunderstood you on the definition of evolution the first time, but I gotcha now.

So I'm afraid I do not fully understand why a universe that began cannot contain infinite matter; could it not have simply been brought into existence in its infinite state from the very conception? Correct me if I am merely failing to comprehend what you were explaining.

Yes that's what I was thinking somewhat, on the probability versus non-probability arguments although I do think that if the universe is finite, the probability arguments do come into really big play as, the more I hear from sources on evolution, the more I am impressed with the sheer and utter improbability of life forming or changing (in the macroevolutionary sense, not the microevolutionary sense), the more I am forced to conclude that random processes could not have brought about our current state of life and existence. 

Although I suppose you'd point out that according to your view, since God was behind evolution and spontaneous generation, probability has no power.  But I guess that's where the other arguments for/against theistic evolution come into play, as you mentioned.

Also, I'd just like to say that while I do disagree with you on theistic evolution, I still respect your position and opinion.  

The problem I think would be that the universe is both past-finite and has a known size. Sorry if that was unclear before. Inflationary cosmology indicates that all matter was once condensed into a small area. This then expanded into our observable universe of finite size. Based on cosmic microwave background radiation, physicists attempt to determine something known as the curvature of the universe which is based on both the magnitude of "hot" and "cold" spots of radiation. Physicists have largely determined that the curvature is relatively flat from our perspective which means indicates that the universe is likely much largely than our observable part of it. Perhaps trillions of light years across by some estimates. However, it would still be finite and something of finite size cannot by definition contain an infinite amount of matter.

Although the universe is finite, just looking at our observable universe of around 43 billion light years across and even given the most wild improbabilities of life forming, it still seems highly likely that life could have formed given our current understanding of chemistry and biology. The universe is just so vast and light years are such massive distances as to dwarf the probability factors.

And yes, in my view God's creative work did ordain for life to come about so there is that as well. We would simply disagree on how he did so and that is fine.  

[The Barbarian]

The question comes down to:

"Is God capable of making a universe in which life could come forth from the Earth?"

I believe so.   On the other hand, evolutionary theory is indifferent to that.  It would work the same way if God just poofed life into existence, or if he used the air,earth, and waters to do so.  Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things.