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.

[otseng]

Nonetheless, the empirical knowledge that we orbit the centre of a galaxy from a position within an outer spiral arm be taken as a powerful hint about our true location in the cosmos.

The sun is about 26,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The size of the observable universe is estimated at 13.7 billion light years. Whether we use the earth or the center of the galaxy as the center of the universe would be only a 0.00019% difference. The point is not whether we are at the exact center of the universe, but from the observations of the data, we can conclude that we are at the center and not elsewhere.

I would be willing to take up further discussions on this in the other thread.

As for it taking faith to believe that the laws of physics have changed in the past, this is contradicted by high-energy experiments that demonstrate the changing nature of forces under unusual conditions.

Please present the finding.

Evolution is proven as a practical workable system as discussed in this topic so I would question the assertion that it is unprovable.

You didn't prove the theory of evolution in that thread.

However, once again the issue should not hinge on whether it is pure philosophy that dictates our conclusions, but rather that we should be looking carefully at the weight of evidence before us.

I would agree.

The anthropic principle is indeed a double-edged sword. The view can equally be that things are "just so" because if they weren't we wouldn't be having the conversation about them -- or the same can be seen as an intention by something or someone that we should be having the conversation.

The point is that just looking only at the "oldness-flatness" problem of the universe, the odds of us being here is at least 1 in 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016. That's pretty slim odds. So, the problem is if you believe we got here by chance alone, you are betting on those odds. If you believe we got here by divine intervention, you are betting against the odds. And I'd rather bet on the latter.

[QED]

As for it taking faith to believe that the laws of physics have changed in the past, this is contradicted by high-energy experiments that demonstrate the changing nature of forces under unusual conditions.

Please present the finding.

In 1967 Steven Weinberg, Abdus Salam, and Sheldon Glashow formulated a theory called electroweak theory that unifies the weak force and the electromagnetic force. According to this theory, the weak forces in atomic nuclei are mediated by three particles with even larger masses than the particles transmitting the strong force. The carriers of the weak force are the W+, W-1, and Z0 particles with charges, respectively, of +1, -1, and zero. Masses must be high because the force operates at short distances only. In the Weinberg-Salam-Glashow theory, however, at very high energies there is just one electroweak force; but at lower energies, the high-mass W and Z particles and the massless photons separate, becoming carriers of two different forces. Experimental verification of the existence of the high-mass particles eluded high-energy physicists until 1983, when scientists at CERN (Centre Europen de Recherche Nuclaire), near Geneva, Switzerland, under the direction of Carlo Rubbia, discovered the W and Z particles in head-on collisions in a huge proton-antiproton collider.

From answers.com

Evolution is proven as a practical workable system as discussed in this topic so I would question the assertion that it is unprovable.

You didn't prove the theory of evolution in that thread.

The principles behind evolution have been proven to work at a practical level, so the debate can only be one of "is this the way nature actually produces her designs". As I commented, it would be truly remarkable if we got the idea from nature (via Darwin) and made it work for us only to find out that Darwin had misunderstood nature after all. Perhaps you might like to debate this in a new topic I've started to discuss the proof of evolution.

The point is that just looking only at the "oldness-flatness" problem of the universe, the odds of us being here is at least 1 in 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016. That's pretty slim odds. So, the problem is if you believe we got here by chance alone, you are betting on those odds. If you believe we got here by divine intervention, you are betting against the odds. And I'd rather bet on the latter.

At least the odds are computable. What figure could we devise for the existence of a divinity? But this gambling analogy may well be flawed on several accounts. Hitting it head-on, I ask what rights of expectation should we have for the number of tries that might result in such a universe as ours? We certainly can't assume that this is the only universe that ever was. It is only stable universes like our own that will persist long enough for conscious life to emerge. Un-viable universes might turn over at much greater rates - but what limits are there on time anyway? Another prejudice that our impatient minds invent.

Even if there were pressing timescales the potential for nascent universes to exist in a state of quantum superpositions would also destroy the odds in a highly effective manner. Also (and you'll love this one) it is possible that universes are subject to evolution such that they are capable of passing on their laws to offspring universes:

An intriguing application of Darwinian reasoning outside of biology comes from cosmologist Lee Smolin. Seeking an explanation for the physical constants of the universe, Smolin speculated that universes themselves have undergone a form of natural selection and can in fact be considered replicators.

Smolin's idea was that universes "reproduce" by forming black holes, which some theorists (for example, Stephen Hawking) believe could spawn new universes connected to the parent by a wormhole. Smolin's hypothesis hinges on the speculation that, when a new universe is spawned, its properties can vary slightly from those of the parent, thus providing a source of mutations.

(From Thinkquest)

But I return to you, what are the odds against the existence of an osteng? You are as far as I know an extant entity yet your probability is fantastically small. I do not however conclude that the entire structure of the universe was erected to support you. Is this what you believe?

[otseng]

In 1967 Steven Weinberg, Abdus Salam, and Sheldon Glashow formulated a theory called electroweak theory that unifies the weak force and the electromagnetic force.

From
answers.com

I fail to see how this shows that physical laws were different in the past.

We certainly can't assume that this is the only universe that ever was.

What evidence do you have that other universes exist (or tried to exist)?

Even if there were pressing timescales the potential for nascent universes to exist in a state of quantum superpositions would also destroy the odds in a highly effective manner.

Could you rephrase that? I do not understand your point.

Also (and you'll love this one) it is possible that universes are subject to evolution such that they are capable of passing on their laws to offspring universes.

Believing in a "parent" universe would still require much faith to believe in. Again, what evidence suggests such?

But I return to you, what are the odds against the existence of an osteng?

osteng?? The odds are 0. However, otseng is another matter.

[QED]

In 1967 Steven Weinberg, Abdus Salam, and Sheldon Glashow formulated a theory called electroweak theory that unifies the weak force and the electromagnetic force.

From
answers.com

I fail to see how this shows that physical laws were different in the past.

Well the story of Weinberg and his colleagues in my quote really says it all. Having formulated the electroweak theory to unify the weak force and the electromagnetic force, the application of standard scientific practise was required to verify the theory. In this case the theory predicted the existence of high-mass particles that had never been encountered before. some sixteen years later these particles were detected at CERN in Geneva. This experiment represented the high energy levels that were prevalent at at a much earlier epoch in the universe, hence at earlier epochs the laws of physics were different.

We certainly can't assume that this is the only universe that ever was.

What evidence do you have that other universes exist (or tried to exist)?

Absolutely none of course. However there are no laws that we know of to prevent them, hence we cannot assume that other universes haven't existed. The fact that multiple universes appear as theoretical solutions in a good number of cosmological problems entitles them to be given serious consideration.

Even if there were pressing timescales the potential for nascent universes to exist in a state of quantum superpositions would also destroy the odds in a highly effective manner.

Could you rephrase that? I do not understand your point.

Certainly. I was making the point that we have no rights to any expectations of the amount of time available for the development of multiple universes. We have a rough estimate for the age of this universe and we humans tend to consider this to be the longest time span imaginable. But if we are considering a succession of universes in order to explain why we live in one that is just right for us, then we cannot resort to incredulity simply because the numbers of the odds (or tries at getting the 'perfect' universe) are so extraordinarily high.

Having said this, I added that even if there were some limit (pressing timescales) to the external environment from which our universe originated then the qualities of quantum superposition offer the potential to "search out" those universes with characteristics such as longevity. This is at the heart of modern Quantum Computing.

Also (and you'll love this one) it is possible that universes are subject to evolution such that they are capable of passing on their laws to offspring universes.

Believing in a "parent" universe would still require much faith to believe in. Again, what evidence suggests such?

Again, absolutely nothing. Faith, as you say, is required for such beliefs -- yet in principle there are many ingenious ways in which science and mathematics can probe such ideas. Even the apparent horizons of singularities are not entirely beyond the grasp of these disciplines. This provides us with the potential to keep such theories within the realm of empiricism.

Obviously we are talking about potentials here, but the reason cosmologists pursue such matters is because they are not inclined to give-up the quest and just declare "oh god must have done it". If something is not ruled-out in principle then it becomes a valid objective for investigation.

But I return to you, what are the odds against the existence of an osteng?

osteng?? The odds are 0. However, otseng is another matter.

Must add that one to the spell-checker!

[Chem]

The point is not whether we are at the exact center of the universe, but from the observations of the data, we can conclude that we are at the center and not elsewhere.

If you are on the surface of an expanding balloon, you would observe everything else as moving away from you (red shift) and conclude that you are at the centre of the balloon, but you're not.

The problem is that the universe is expanding in all directions giving us humans (and any other aliens that may be present) the idea that "Hey, we must be important as we're at the centre of the observable universe." Unfortunately the answer is somewhat less prosaic. We all inhabate a small planet orbiting a non-descript sun, described as "Mostly Harmless" in the Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy!

[otseng]

In 1967 Steven Weinberg, Abdus Salam, and Sheldon Glashow formulated a theory called electroweak theory that unifies the weak force and the electromagnetic force.

From
answers.com

I fail to see how this shows that physical laws were different in the past.

Well the story of Weinberg and his colleagues in my quote really says it all. Having formulated the electroweak theory to unify the weak force and the electromagnetic force, the application of standard scientific practise was required to verify the theory. In this case the theory predicted the existence of high-mass particles that had never been encountered before. some sixteen years later these particles were detected at CERN in Geneva. This experiment represented the high energy levels that were prevalent at at a much earlier epoch in the universe, hence at earlier epochs the laws of physics were different.

The article doesn't mention anything about laws having "changed" in the past. If a unifiying law is discovered, that does not mean that the laws that apply to the constituent members become invalid. For example, when Einstein discovered E=MC^2, it did not mean that the other equations involving energy or matter were invalidated.

We certainly can't assume that this is the only universe that ever was.

What evidence do you have that other universes exist (or tried to exist)?

Absolutely none of course.

Also (and you'll love this one) it is possible that universes are subject to evolution such that they are capable of passing on their laws to offspring universes.

Believing in a "parent" universe would still require much faith to believe in. Again, what evidence suggests such?

Again, absolutely nothing.

I refer back to an earlier statement that you made. "However, once again the issue should not hinge on whether it is pure philosophy that dictates our conclusions, but rather that we should be looking carefully at the weight of evidence before us." The weight of the evidence of your assertions that other universes exist or that our universe was spawned from another is 0. Since there are absolutely no evidence that supports these, it would appear to me that such statements would be purely philosophical in nature.

Even if there were pressing timescales the potential for nascent universes to exist in a state of quantum superpositions would also destroy the odds in a highly effective manner.

Could you rephrase that? I do not understand your point.

Certainly. I was making the point that we have no rights to any expectations of the amount of time available for the development of multiple universes.

Since time started at the moment of the singularity, it would be meaningless to talk about time before the Big Bang.

But if we are considering a succession of universes in order to explain why we live in one that is just right for us, then we cannot resort to incredulity simply because the numbers of the odds (or tries at getting the 'perfect' universe) are so extraordinarily high.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that other universes exist or have existed.

This provides us with the potential to keep such theories within the realm of empiricism.

The potential for evidence to come forth might exist. But, as of now, no such evidence exists. Basing any conclusions on evidence that might appear would further be a step of faith.

Obviously we are talking about potentials here, but the reason cosmologists pursue such matters is because they are not inclined to give-up the quest and just declare "oh god must have done it". If something is not ruled-out in principle then it becomes a valid objective for investigation.

I would not discourage cosmologists from furthering research and studies. Perhaps further explanations will arise. My point is, given the facts that we know today and the evidence that lies before us now, the most logical conclusion is that we are the product of intelligent creation.

Must add that one to the spell-checker!

Done. However, it doesn't suggest that as the proper spelling of osteng.

If you are on the surface of an expanding balloon, you would observe everything else as moving away from you (red shift) and conclude that you are at the centre of the balloon, but you're not.

I discuss this in-depth in the other thread. Please present your counter-arguments and I'll join you over there.

[QED]

Well otseng, I've been discussing this with harvey1 in this topic although it would be more appropriate to continue it here.

I said that "we can imagine our universe as a closed, although potentially infinite, subset of some meta-universe that can be said to posses an infinite potential for events. This is the arena in which Hartle & Hawking describes their Quantum Cosmology."

This short paper is also quite representative.

When quantum mechanics is applied to the entire universe, we are inevitably lead to the concept of an ensemble of universes, with a probability distribution for different initial conditions and for different constants of Nature. The principle of mediocrity asserts that we are typical inhabitants of this ensemble.

But as you quite rightly point out, such propositions are a matter of philosophy at the moment and as such require faith, yet such propositions when properly formulated have the potential make predictions that can be checked against real observations.

What I feel gets lost in these debates is the level at which such arguments are being held. You would have it that god is the creator of all things -- a very common standpoint. But I would hazard to suggest that most people do not share your ability to argue it "down to the wire" as we are when considering Quantum Cosmology as an alternative to a creation event. When we do get to this remote point in history, we are skipping over billions of years of 'natural' laws that have been played-out in a well understood fashion.

I am not trying to suggest that we have a watertight empirical understanding of everything from the BB onwards, but our success in interpreting nature thus far suggests that we have a good chance of doing so eventually. So what should we make of such a universe devoid of metaphysics from the point of inception onwards? To simply postulate an intervening god at the critical handover point between metaphysics and straight physics does not in my opinion simplify our quest for an explanation of the creation we observe. This seems like a lot of trouble to go to, given that alternatives to this exist in principle in the guise of the meta-universe of Quantum Cosmology. By the time we do have a total understanding of a metaphysically free universe -- I think it highly probable that we will also understand the meta-universe as a consequence.

[otseng]

I said that "we can imagine our universe as a closed, although potentially infinite, subset of some meta-universe that can be said to posses an infinite potential for events. This is the arena in which Hartle & Hawking describes their Quantum Cosmology."

I think we could wildly wander off into pure philosophical areas by chasing such ideas. But I think the bottom line is that those who reject a intelligent creator makes the preassumption that no intelligent creator could exist. Therefore there is no choice but to come up with philosophical ideas such as meta-universes, spawned universes, multiverses, etc. But if one does not make the assumption that a god could not exist, then it's entirely logical to come to the conclusion that a god created everything.

[Jose]

I said that "we can imagine our universe as a closed, although potentially infinite, subset of some meta-universe that can be said to posses an infinite potential for events. This is the arena in which Hartle & Hawking describes their Quantum Cosmology."

I think we could wildly wander off into pure philosophical areas by chasing such ideas. But I think the bottom line is that those who reject a intelligent creator makes the preassumption that no intelligent creator could exist. Therefore there is no choice but to come up with philosophical ideas such as meta-universes, spawned universes, multiverses, etc. But if one does not make the assumption that a god could not exist, then it's entirely logical to come to the conclusion that a god created everything.

IMHO, this conclusion is not warranted. To claim that a god could exist is equivalent to claiming that a portal to another dimension could exist. Sure, they could exist, because we cannot prove irrefutably that they do not exist. That a god could exist does not necessarily make it logical that said god created everything. We can as easily conclude that everything squeaked through a portal from another dimension.

You are absolutely right that we can wander off into philosophical discussion about this. The reason is that we don't know how things started. Therefore, wild speculation is possible.

How do we sort through the various types of wild speculation? Well, there seem to be two approaches. One is to defer to scripture, based on Faith. The other is to gather what data we can, and attempt to cobble together explanations that can lead us toward the acquisition of additional data. By these two methods, we are guaranteed to come to different conclusions. However, in my mind, it is absolutely impossible for the two to conflict. The evidence that exists in the real world is real. It has a history. It follows Laws that we have begun to figure out. If a god created everything, then he must have created it so that those Laws would be as they are, and so the facts we can observe would exist.

Those facts happen to include the mechanistic aspects of how evolution works, so god must have created a world in which evolution occurs. This is extremely clear, despite the denials of those who would rather adhere to a different history. Outside of the theory of evolution, which seems to be the current subject of this thread, we know very much less. Our explanations are much less firm. They may be entirely wrong. This is why scientists interested in this question continue to kick around new ideas. This is why they continue to postulate things that seem to be at odds with the current operation of the universe. I expect that, once we figure it out, everything will fit very nicely with the laws that govern the current universe--so objections that the Big Bang violates this or that theory or law will prove to be irrelevant. However, the fact that we don't have the complete answer does not, in any way, force us to conclude that it was done by a god. To make a conclusion about how it was done, and call it Fact, we need to know that it was done that way. So far, we don't know, either about postulated gods or about natural processes.

This makes great fodder for discussion and debate. It does not make good material for science classes. Science classes should present the data about what we know, and the current-best explanation for those data. Until such time as there is scientific evidence that gods exist, there is no reason to bring them in to science classes. Otherwise, we teach that gods exist only in areas that science has not yet explained fully.

[QED]

I think we could wildly wander off into pure philosophical areas by chasing such ideas. But I think the bottom line is that those who reject a intelligent creator makes the preassumption that no intelligent creator could exist.

Because, if you'll pardon my thinking, the existence of that intelligent creator needs explaining. I know that there are those who's worship of such a supreme being is so great that they cannot conceive of such a requirement, yet if it is possible to contemplate the existence of the one thing that requires no explanation, then I can see no reason to attribute this property to a god, rather than to the universe that others are invoking a god to explain.

It's more than just cutting-out the middle-man, it's a way of satisfying the requirement for things to follow the patterns we normally observe: complexity, intelligence and capability always arise from humbler beginnings. We have never witnessed anything starting out at maximal levels. The evolution of the universe and everything in the universe are before us as examples. From this I reason that if anything should be entertained as requiring no explanation, then it will be something infinitely humble from which evolve all the other properties we see today.