Intelligent Creation (God) as opposed to Evolution

[foshizzle]

I have been told several times that religion and science are two different foundations of belief; that science leaves religion purposeless. I have come to the conviction that they actually coincide with one another. Science is not a means to disprove Theism, but rather, it is a foundation on which to find God. In the very clockwork and machinery of the universe we find evidence for a superior being.

To start, the new cosmology (Big Bang and it's accompanying theoretical underpinning in general relativity) points to a definite beginning of the universe. This is extremely antimaterialistic. You can invoke neither time nor space nor matter, energy or the laws of nature to explain the origin of the universe. General relativity points to the need for a cause that transcends those domains; namely, God.

Next, Id say 'anthropic fine-tuning'. This means, basically, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and our universe have precise numerical values that could have been otherwise. That is, there's no fundamental reason for these values to be the way they are. Take universe expansion. Fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. This means, if it were changed by one part in either direction (slower or faster) we could not have a universe capable of sustaining life; so says Stephen Hawking. Fred Hoyle said, 'A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellilect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.'

Perhaps it looks fine-tuned because it is?

Next, I would say the origin of life, and the origin of information necessary to bring life into existence, is an argument for the sake of theism. Life at all points requires information, which is stored in DNA and protein molecules in substantial amounts. Here, an idea for an Intelligent Creator isn't what is thought of as an 'argument from ignorance'. This infers design because all other theories fail at this point (natural evolution, etc.) and, the only possible creator of such substantial information at the point of origin for all known things is God.

Then, there's the evidence for design in molecular machines that defy explanation by natural selection. These integrative, complex systems in biological organisms (called 'irreducibly complex') include signal transduction circuits, sophisticated motors and all kinds of biological/chemical circuitry. All of these biological machines need all of their various parts in order to function, but how could it ever be built by a process of natural selection/evolution, acting on random variations? Evolution only preserves things that perform a function. In other words, they preserve things that help the organism to survive to the next generation.

The problem is, these micro-motors perform nothing unless all parts are present and working together in close coordination with each other. Evolution couldn't build a system like this, it can only preserve them, and it's virtually impossible for evolution to take such a huge leap and create the entire system as a whole.

I personally would see these biological systems as evidence for Intelligent Creation, seeing as every time we see such an 'irreducibly complex' system now, an intelligent being is behind it.

More evidence biologically, the Cambrian Explosion is another example. This "biological big bang" happened during a trivial amount of time (geologically, anyway). Here, around 35 completely unique body plans (skeletal structures) came into existence. You have a huge jump in complexity; it's sudden, and there are no transitional intermediates, no fossils to explain this sudden gap. In normal experience, information is the result of conscious activity, and here we have the geologically sudden explosion of massive amounts of biological data (needed for these body plans), far beyond what evolution can produce.

Finally, Id say human consciousness would definitely support theism. We're not a computer made of meat. We have the capacity for self-reflection, representational art, language, creativity...science can't account for this kind of consciousness coming merely from physical matter interacting in the brain. Where did it come from?

I find the only source to be an Intelligent Designer, and it doubles as the basis for my theistic beliefs.

[LillSnopp]

Finally, Id say human consciousness would definitely support theism. We're not a computer made of meat. We have the capacity for self-reflection, representational art, language, creativity...science can't account for this kind of consciousness coming merely from physical matter interacting in the brain. Where did it come from?

Are you saying that because we are ignorant of certain issues, a God obviously must exist?

Thats Logical--



As a side note, i do not put any faith in any of the explanations of the "creation of the world" theories. So you cant label me using it.

[foshizzle]

Are you saying that because we are ignorant of certain issues, a God obviously must exist?
Thats Logical--

No response for the other 5 points?

I posted this for the purpose of debate.

Nobody has complete, undoubtable evidence for there side. One can say they have absolute certainty, but it's impossible to have certain proof of either side. The only /logical/ thing to do would be: Find all possible evidence (done), find all possible counter-evidence (in the process), and make an informed decision.

As of now, based on previous arguments and evidence yet discovered (and science that we know /now/), i would tend to believe that Athiesm and a belief in evolution would actually take more faith than a Creationist point of view.

It seems stupid to believe in something based on the "possibility" that something else might be discovered. What we know now is, no amount of science or reasoning can explain our rational thought, emotions, representative art, etc.

If you can explain it, do so.

[LillSnopp]

Nobody has complete, undoubtable evidence for there side. One can say they have absolute certainty, but it's impossible to have certain proof of either side. The only /logical/ thing to do would be: Find all possible evidence (done), find all possible counter-evidence (in the process), and make an informed decision.

It seems stupid to believe in something based on the "possibility" that something else might be discovered. What we know now is, no amount of science or reasoning can explain our rational thought, emotions, representative art, etc.

You do not think its more stupid to believe in things without reason to believe in it ?

Tell me, why do you not believe in a Pink, Flying Rhinoceros? IT would be impossible to prove that no one exists. So why not believe in it?

For Obvious reasons, you dont, and for obvious reasons, i do not believe in a God. Just because someone claims something, and you cant prove its not true, does not make it True.

As of now, based on previous arguments and evidence yet discovered (and science that we know /now/), i would tend to believe that Athiesm and a belief in evolution would actually take more faith than a Creationist point of view.

In what way? Atheism is lack of belief in a God (or gods), there is no faith involved whatsoever. Simply lack of evidence for the contrary. But perhaps you have the evidence needed for convincing me?

[Corvus]

Welcome, foshizzle.

The rules state that every topic in a debate forum must have a clear question for debate. I must ask you to provide one otherwise the topic could be moved to a discussion forum, like Random Ramblings.

[foshizzle]

You do not think its more stupid to believe in things without reason to believe in it ?

Why would i not? I gave my reasons...I'm not sure of the problem, here. You seem to not be reading my reasons; I gave 6 of the most basic.

Tell me, why do you not believe in a Pink, Flying Rhinoceros? IT would be impossible to prove that no one exists. So why not believe in it?

Because every bit of evidence suggest otherwise. You seem to be ignoring my reasoning behind my belief. Please, if you're going to post, have a purpose. I said earlier in my article that this is not an "argument from ignorance". This is a point of view based on the fact that all others fall short when all 6 points are brought up, with the exception of God.

If you want, i can go into my reasoning behind my belief in God, but that wouldn't be as much evolution as it would be historical basis for Jesus Christ, and that's for another thread, another time.

In what way? Atheism is lack of belief in a God (or gods), there is no faith involved whatsoever. Simply lack of evidence for the contrary. But perhaps you have the evidence needed for convincing me?

A belief in no God would mean you believe the entire universe started from nothing. Seeing as this goes against any materialistic views, and cannot be explained (and every law of physics goes against it), you would have to believe that everything erupted from nothingness, believe the impossibility of anrthopic tuning to be chance, and the rest of what i said.

And i never said i had the evidence for convincing you. You make a wrong assumption that i care about you changing your mind. You won't, because you're set in your ways. I am not trying to change them, or your mind. I am simply finding all information i can find about the theories of evolution, and arguing them from alternative sides.

[foshizzle]

Welcome, foshizzle.

The rules state that every topic in a debate forum must have a clear question for debate. I must ask you to provide one otherwise the topic could be moved to a discussion forum, like Random Ramblings.

I guess just add this little bit to the first post...

"How can the following points be logically possible without an Intelligent Creator (God)"

[foshizzle]

I'll respond to anything beyond this post tomorrow.

Happy posting, and please don't post argumentatively, I just want a nice chat .

[Nyril]

In the very clockwork and machinery of the universe we find evidence for a superior being.

How so? I'd convert in a heartbeat if we'd had some.

General relativity points to the need for a cause that transcends those domains; namely, God.

No it doesn't. I'd like to know however, how you think it does.

Fred Hoyle said, 'A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellilect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.'

Life wasn't around to observe anything until the conditions were met. There could of easily been several trillion Universes before ours in which these conditions weren't met. In essence, as long as your probability statement isn't precisely 0, with an infinite number of dice rolling I am assured it will happen.

Life at all points requires information, which is stored in DNA and protein molecules in substantial amounts.

What in the name of Shiva is this information of which you speak?

These integrative, complex systems in biological organisms (called 'irreducibly complex')

No 'irreducibly complex' things exist in this Universe.

[Chem]

belief in no God would mean you believe the entire universe started from nothing. Seeing as this goes against any materialistic views, and cannot be explained (and every law of physics goes against it), you would have to believe that everything erupted from nothingness, believe the impossibility of anrthopic tuning to be chance, and the rest of what i said.

I think quantum physics may provide an indication of how something came from nothing. In one explanation for the origin of the universe, a quantum fluctuation occurred from which the universe was generated. What was there before the fluctuation is not of concern to the generation of the universe itself.

With regards to religion/science debate I'm wholly with them as two completely separate entities, religion deals with the supernatural and the basis of peoples beliefs etc (science can say nothing on this) while science deals (mostly) with the tangible (areas such as particle physics excepted) using models to try and explain what happens around us. If these models do not work, then they are discarded or modified. Science is evolving all the time as our knowledge expands.

Religion per se, does not evolve in the same manner as it depends on the interpretation of material written up to 2-3,000 years before today. This interpretation changes depending on whom you talk to (I know science is the same in this regard when people are discussing mechanisms etc). The point I'm making is that if the material (Talmud, Bible, Koran etc) is derived from a divine being, there should be no need for interpretation and hence separate religions.

There are some cross overs regarding interpretation (major religions accepting the premise of evolution) and the morality of some experiments (cloning for example) but as for the two being intimately entwined, I don't think so.