OLIVER Smith was right about the Dawkins experiment and I was wrong.

I do not believe that a completely artificial experiment can cast any light on events of millions of years ago of which we know nothing.

Dawkins’ basic idea – in this universe, given sufficient time anything can happen. This must be the most revolutionary statement of all time – he gives no explanation of it – is it true because he says so?

No event (a thing which actually occurs) can be described as improbable – since it has occurred it is absolutely certain.

Since life has arrived on Earth it cannot be described as improbable and if it boggles your mind, all that you can legitimately say is “I do not know”.

Dawkins and Oliver Smith confuse ignorance with improbability and Dawkins sets out to explain something which does not exist.

It is no wonder that he has to stoop to debasing language in order to suggest that there is no difference between a lifeless mechanical artefact and a living organism.

I mentioned Jessica Ennis Hill and a clapped out typewriter – I suggest that one difference is agency – Dawkins has none of this – Jessica is a robot driven by her genes.

Very illuminating!

Arrival of life on Earth.

All of the particles in a statue are vibrating in all possible directions. Dawkins has a friend (unnamed) who has been able to calculate the probability that at some time during a period of millions of years, they will all vibrate in the same direction the structure of the statue will loosen up and its arm will fall.

One would love to see that calculation as after a micro micro second normal vibrations would be resumed, normal structure will be resumed and the arm would rise.

It could happen claims Dawkins – and a cow could also jump over the moon.

These are his reasons for believing the emergence of life could just happen. In fact, he invokes chance. “One has to invoke a one-off chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself.”

According to Hume “What is called chance is but a secret and concealed cause!”. Furthermore to invoke chance is to undermine science itself.

I suggested that one cannot discuss the improbability of events which have never been observed.

“Can one discuss the probability of flying pigs, of the existence of unicorns or the existence of fairies in the garden which are visible but are clever enough to arrange to be never seen?”.

This is briefly Dawkins version of the improbability of the arrival of life on earth.

On page 166 of the Watchmaker Dawkins writes – “This chapter has had only the modest aim of explaining how it (spontaneous generation) must have happened. The present lack of a definitively acceptable account of the origin of life should not be taken as a stumbling block for the whole Darwinian view!”

This must is the must of supposition and has no evidential value.

Quite right, but there are seven differing versions of the origin of life without evidence for any one of them and the one most generally employed and on which the famous Miller experiment is based, is known to be, quite frankly, untrue.

It is the most popular version and has been repeated endlessly for the last 80 years.

If anyone doubts this I will prove it!

Finally, Mr Smith quotes the Lottery published probability figures as one chance in 45 million of an individual winning the jackpot.

Mr Martin’s use of the word yet suggests he is surprised anyone wins the jackpot, therefore one thing may have a very high improbability yet still happen.

Perhaps his problem is resolved by pointing out that umpteen million Lottery tickets are sold every week, which gives a much better chance of somebody winning the jackpot.

His suggestion that I should write to the Lottery and Gambling authorities is odd and how can anyone be mislead by anything which I have not said?

I put this fictional situation to Oliver. Jonnie goes home and says to his father, “We have a new biology teacher at school, a Doctor Dawkins. He told us this morning that a marble statue will from time to time wave its arm to you and that occasionally a cow will jump over the moon.”

I wonder what his father would say. I suggest biology teachers who believe Dawkins’ version of things try the above and discover what the response of pupils and parents is.

Cyril Govier

Stonehouse