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.
Intelligent Creation (God) as opposed to Evolution
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
Correct, Thats reality for you, as "truth" is relative depending on area. But the most important thing you can do, is to question yourself. Else your opinion is worth nothing. If you believe something to be True, then you should, according to me, put it up to test, and question all its angles, does it hold, you can safely say, in the limited scope of humanity, thats its true.Some of what you are saying here seems to be contradictory. On the one hand, evolution is about finding the Truth, but on the other hand is about questioning itself and is only a theory about what might be true.
Well, then i wont use a capital T for truth then. Happy ?There is certainly room for a number of philosophies on this issue, but I think most scientists would agree that a scientific theory does not establish Truth with a capital T. Rather, it provides the best explanation possible which takes into account all of the data we have, and allows us to make testable predictions or hypotheses (as noted by CJO above).
We manage as good as we can, living the the reality we do, and give the explanations we can (excluding all Creationists here), and we eventually find what we define as truth, but remember, it can be wrong. Funny isnnt it ? Whiles Creationists, for example, Never, EVER are wrong. Wow.
Not really. ID is a new made up definition of religion, trying to get it in the american school system (i never heard of it in Europe, i thinks its solely in the U.S). You cant equate science with ID, as its apples and Bananas. And for that matter, dont forget that their answer is God did it, nothing else, thats pretty easy science in my eyes, cant be hard to get top grades in does kind of schools.Whether ID counts as a scientific theory is a legitimate question. It might be fair to say that at least some of the ID proponents have tried to make it into a theory, but as CJO has pointed out, it fails the 'falsifiability test', just as YEC did before it. To my knowledge, the ID proponents have not even come up with clear cut, non-subjective criterion by which a person could test whether something is irreducibly complex or not, designed or not. If we could be provided with some, and I emphasize, this would go a long way towards moving the discussion forward.non-subjective, criteria
Post #32
Are you serious jwu? I thought we already had this discussion in another thread and pointed out that rocks being IC and living creatures being IC were two completely different things.At the same time it also demonstrates that IC things can form gradually though.
Post #33
He seems to claim an absolute because it is an absolute. Without creation, there is no possibility that the universe came into existence. As stated by the first law of thermodynamics, "Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed". the big bang theory goes 100% against this law. And if the universe is constant and has been for all time....well nothing, this is impossible too as the universe would suffer "heat death".Once again, you seem to claim an absolute. without Creationism, the universe's origin has no possibility of beginning, what kind of comment is that? Extremely arrogant and ignorant comment, if i may say so myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death - "heat death"
Post #34
Energy suddenly popping into existence for a while has been observed in form of quantum fluctuations.As stated by the first law of thermodynamics, "Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed". the big bang theory goes 100% against this law. And if the universe is constant and has been for all time....well nothing, this is impossible too as the universe would suffer "heat death".
Alternatively, the energy could have always been there, just in a prolonged state of inactivity/equilibrium.
Re: Intelligent Creation (God) as opposed to Evolution
Post #35Hello foshizzle. I'd enjoy nothing more than a nice civil chat about your conclusions, although such debates always risk being spoilt by the existence of the Wedge Strategy. If this isn't your agenda, I would be more than happy to reply to each of your points from my own perspective:
Of course I have no right to any such expectations of divine timetables. However, what I do know is that aggregations of simple molecular structures have natural properties like stickiness. The fact that some 'stuff' naturally and readily adheres to other 'stuff' is all I need to know in order to imagine how the first assemblage or information might have come about. A relatively new insight which greatly assists with this view comes directly from quantum mechanics which operates at the atomic scale employed by living things. Recent successful applications of quantum computing indicate the potential for rapid searching through superimposed states which, in the case of molecular configuration could be consolidated by properties such as self-replication.
Whatever lies at the beginning of life, I would argue that we should all look past the distractions of fabulously developed animal species (each of which lies on a lineage traceable to pre Cambrian times) to concentrate on the real issue which is how the most remote organism came to be. If we do not, and we alight upon some marvelously complex device, then we are in danger of being influenced by our emotions in a highly inappropriate way. This results in the sort of logical discontinuity which has people proposing things like micro-evolution in order to account for the observed outcomes of human intervention in creating animal breeds.
Breeders seem able to turn-out unlimited variations of flora and fauna. A massive(and largely unsung) human effort has been going on for quite possibly millions of years into the adaptation of living forms to better serve our needs. No other designer was involved in this leg of the transformations so why would we need to consider one for prior development? The same process employed by breeders (selection) has a natural counterpart that is quite easily understood.
I think that there are just two things that stand in the way of a clear view of a designer-less world; our understandably poor grasp of the true meaning of 'billions of years' (and the potential number of material interactions that can take place in an environment far from equilibrium over that period of time) and the invention of a very poor argument called irreducible complexity.
The notion of Irreducible Complexity can be demonstrated to 'fail to do damage' to the evolution of engineering solutions that are evolved though processes directly modelled on evolution by natural selection. These modern engineering techniques discussed in this thread harness the practical power of their natural counterpart in order to provide us with optimal designs free from intelligent input. If evolution can be applied 'on the bench' and not suffer at the hands of irreducible complexity, then it is reasonable to assume that natures version is just as robust (most likely even more so, seeing as how our attempt is inevitably going to be a far less efficient implementation).
Well, for sure we know that the number of universes that have existed is a number greater or equal to one. Infinity is also within that set, so we must be careful what assumptions we make. The fact that our big bang event forms a horizon beyond which we cannot see does not mandate against anything materialistic existing beyond that horizon. This opens up the way for any number of 'transcendencies' as you might refer to them.foshizzle wrote:
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.
Again, until you can tell me how many previous universes might have existed none of the above applies. As smart as Hawking and Hoyle might be, they don't know the answer to this one either. This universe is one very fine example of the sort that can sustain life of the likes of you and me. But just what expectations should we deserve to have regarding what time is actually capable of doing when it puts its mind to it? Our perspectives are undoubtedly coloured by the estimated age of this universe and 13 Billion years could easily represent a puny number compared to the many powers of ten that might be involved.foshizzle wrote: 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.'
The parsimony of this solution is inevitably spoilt by the introduction of a new framework which becomes necessary to account for the 'fine tuner'. A simpler solution will always lie with a system involving no boundary conditions. Infinity cannot be ruled out, but Hawking has also described models possessing finite but unbounded conditions for time as well. Even if boundary conditions were to exist, our minds are ill-equipped to probe them. In this case why isn't god no more than a label applied to logical necessities such as mathematics or geometry? Should we not be wary of our cognitive compulsions to make a 'face' out of whatever structure we find before us?foshizzle wrote:
Perhaps it looks fine-tuned because it is?
Reading ahead I notice that you seem to be quite comfortable with the notion of a designer whos early works include the diverse animals of the Cambrian epoch. I am pleased that we both appreciate the existence of these half-billion year old wonders. Understanding that animal life exploded onto the planet at this time leaves us with some three billion years where most of the information stored on the planet was confined to bacteria. This timetable seems very much at odds with the type of designer you propose.foshizzle wrote:
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.
Of course I have no right to any such expectations of divine timetables. However, what I do know is that aggregations of simple molecular structures have natural properties like stickiness. The fact that some 'stuff' naturally and readily adheres to other 'stuff' is all I need to know in order to imagine how the first assemblage or information might have come about. A relatively new insight which greatly assists with this view comes directly from quantum mechanics which operates at the atomic scale employed by living things. Recent successful applications of quantum computing indicate the potential for rapid searching through superimposed states which, in the case of molecular configuration could be consolidated by properties such as self-replication.
Whatever lies at the beginning of life, I would argue that we should all look past the distractions of fabulously developed animal species (each of which lies on a lineage traceable to pre Cambrian times) to concentrate on the real issue which is how the most remote organism came to be. If we do not, and we alight upon some marvelously complex device, then we are in danger of being influenced by our emotions in a highly inappropriate way. This results in the sort of logical discontinuity which has people proposing things like micro-evolution in order to account for the observed outcomes of human intervention in creating animal breeds.
Breeders seem able to turn-out unlimited variations of flora and fauna. A massive(and largely unsung) human effort has been going on for quite possibly millions of years into the adaptation of living forms to better serve our needs. No other designer was involved in this leg of the transformations so why would we need to consider one for prior development? The same process employed by breeders (selection) has a natural counterpart that is quite easily understood.
I think that there are just two things that stand in the way of a clear view of a designer-less world; our understandably poor grasp of the true meaning of 'billions of years' (and the potential number of material interactions that can take place in an environment far from equilibrium over that period of time) and the invention of a very poor argument called irreducible complexity.
This subject has been amply addressed elsewhere, but I have my own addition to the argument against it:foshizzle wrote:
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.
The notion of Irreducible Complexity can be demonstrated to 'fail to do damage' to the evolution of engineering solutions that are evolved though processes directly modelled on evolution by natural selection. These modern engineering techniques discussed in this thread harness the practical power of their natural counterpart in order to provide us with optimal designs free from intelligent input. If evolution can be applied 'on the bench' and not suffer at the hands of irreducible complexity, then it is reasonable to assume that natures version is just as robust (most likely even more so, seeing as how our attempt is inevitably going to be a far less efficient implementation).
This deserves far more justice than I can do for it, but the very notion that a designer was twiddling his thumbs for three billion years then woke up one morning with a snazy new idea for life pales in comparison with the solution provided by this enormous biological clue: Life changed-up a gear once it evolved a critical morphology. The conclusions that can be drawn from the dramatic events unfolding in this epoch are massive pointers to natural selection taking its course. Gould follows the clues in a very compelling way in his book 'Wonderful Life'. The inevitable conclusion is that there is nothing inevitable about us, the usual depiction of the tree of life growing ever wider from the roots up is turned more-or-less upside-down leaving the current crop of life-forms more to chance than design.foshizzle wrote:
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.
It is crystal clear to me that our capacity for self-reflection, representational art, language and creativity are entirely responsible for the concept of god alone. God is an inevitable consequence of our ability to think. The concept 'is out there' for humans to claim as their own. And it is an highly enabling concept, for whoever is allowed to present it to his fellow men gains supreme authority -- which after all, is what man has always craved. This vicarious supremity has been powerful enough to fashion colossal structures around which most civilizations have camped from day-one. Man has lived in these shadows for most of his existence and only recently has the light of genuine understanding started to penetrate the darkness. The authors of the Wedge Strategy are uncomfortable with this development and are desperately trying to stuff the Genie back into the bottle. I hope they don't succeed because I'm keen to see what further light there is.foshizzle wrote:
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.
Post #36
Now i know where you get your info from. Kent Hovind. Universe would suffer "heat death", Really now. in what way? I assume you dont know what entropy means?He seems to claim an absolute because it is an absolute. Without creation, there is no possibility that the universe came into existence. As stated by the first law of thermodynamics, "Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed". the big bang theory goes 100% against this law. And if the universe is constant and has been for all time....well nothing, this is impossible too as the universe would suffer "heat death".
Perhaps the first law of thermodynamics is wrong? You need to put everything in consideration..
Post #39
entropy states that all things move from organization and complexity, to chaos and simplicity. it states that heat from a cold body cannot move to a hotter body.LillSnopp wrote:Well? Explain to me what it means with entropy, without quoting a scientific magazine, i want to hear it with your own words.You assume too much, kind sir.
Post #40
entropy states that all things move from organization and complexity, to chaos and simplicity. it states that heat from a cold body cannot move to a hotter body.
Tell me, how do you define what is organized and complex, compared to chaos and simplicity?
Personally, i like the word equilibrium when mentioning entropy...... And chaos and simplicity? i would not agree, and wonder what any scientist would use as a basis for it. But thats just me.
