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, I’d 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, I’d 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.
Intelligent Creation (God) as opposed to Evolution
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
Incorrect, Because God, is not an answer.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.
Once again, incorrect. You claim what i believe. I said nothing about how/when the Universe was created, or even, if i believe it to have begun at all. Perhaps it is constant? I said nothing about this, yet, you make assumtions that i believe certain things, just because i am an atheist.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.
Not only do you make incorrect assumtion here, you also insult me.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.
You say you dont have any evidence, yet you start a topic about ID compared to Evolution. Whats the point of it then? You also claim you dont even care about changing my mind, why do you bother then?
The only thing you have done here, is to take the lack of fact that evolution obviously have, and given the answer as "God". And once again, im sorry to tell you, God is not an answer. You could say Santa Claus instead, it means nothing, as it does not explain anything.
With Regards
Post #12
I'm pretty sure we already had this argument in another thread nyril, and I'm pretty sure me and hyperlitegirl proved to you that a giraffe heart (among other things) is irreducibly complex. The Avian Lung is irreducibly complex, and definately couldn't have evolved from the bidirectional reptile lung.No 'irreducibly complex' things exist in this Universe.
Post #14
I must have missed this one. Has anyone (axe, you), given any examples of such ?I'll have to side with axeplayer on this one insofar as that irreducibly complex things do exist.
However, if being irreducible complex means that something is unevolvable is an entirely different question.
Post #15
This, for instance, would be irreducibly complex as soon as a light earthquake causes some cracks across it wihtout tossing it over completely (which rather unquestionably can happen). Then you'd have a structure which is only sustained by itself, and no part (i.e. segment of the arch) can be removed without it collapsing.
At the same time it also demonstrates that IC things can form gradually though.
PS: Probably this image is even better, as such cracks already have formed
Of course, from the arch on that image a lot more of the already loose pieces can be removed, but at one time all remaining pieces will be essential for its structural integrity and it's irreducibly complex then.
Last edited by jwu on Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post #16
Understood, wonder how many thousands of years that one has been around. But, question is, why do you rank it as complex ? Its just stones that have been hollowed a bit for a a couple of hundreds of thousands of years,This, for instance, would be irreducibly complex as soon as a light earthquake causes some cracks across it wihtout tossing it over completely (which rather unquestionably can happen). Then you'd have a structure which is only sustained by itself, and no part (i.e. segment of the arch) can be removed without it collapsing.
At the same time it also demonstrates that IC things can form gradually though.
Post #17
It's complex in so far as there are several physically unconnected pieces supporting each other. Structurally it's the same as a man made arch such as that one:
This arch clearly is a complex structure - and the above examples are natural versions of it, consisting of several pieces which can't be removed seperately anymore without making the whole structure collapse.
This arch clearly is a complex structure - and the above examples are natural versions of it, consisting of several pieces which can't be removed seperately anymore without making the whole structure collapse.
Post #18
This one i accept as ´complex´ as such. But....It's complex in so far as there are several physically unconnected pieces supporting each other. Structurally it's the same as a man made arch such as that one:
Well, this is just random events. Nothing special, give it lots of time. And remember, this is according to us humans. We think its "oh ah, so cool", just pure subjective opinion.This arch clearly is a complex structure - and the above examples are natural versions of it, consisting of several pieces which can't be removed seperately anymore without making the whole structure collapse.
Post #19
Exactly that's the whole point! There is nothing special about irreducible complexity. It's just the result of the removal of previously existent supportive structures.Well, this is just random events. Nothing special, give it lots of time.
One person alone can build an archway, piece by piece, using supportive structures which later get removed again. Using these natural examples of archways merely prevents the "a man made it, that doesn't count" defense against them being used against the supposed unevolvability of biological IC structures.
Post #20
Oh, sorry, i hardly knew the reason we where talking about this (hence my elaborate questioningExactly that's the whole point! There is nothing special about irreducible complexity. It's just the result of the removal of previously existent supportive structures.
One person alone can build an archway, piece by piece, using supportive structures which later get removed again. Using these natural examples of archways merely prevents the "a man made it, that doesn't count" defense against them being used against the supposed unevolvability of biological IC structures.
) .But surely he knows that everything can evolve. Living, none-living, pink or blue. That the Statue of Liberty would pop up like a mushroom on the other hand... i doubt
ADDED: jwu, i bet you that the arch on the image will be in existence far longer then the marriage sitting on it
