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.

[nikolayevich]

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.

This is anecdotal perhaps, but I don't believe it's always true. Yes there is logic behind the concept that complicated things are often either "learned" or "developed", and the desire for evolutionists is for this always to be the case. However, there are simple examples which defy the concept.

For instance, if my mind (intelligence) draws a line in the sand (something simple) the opposite can be said of the aforementioned situation. So then, complexity can generate simple things and complexity can generate complicated things. There is no [real] rule that says complexity arises out of simpler beginnings except for just-so presuppositions.

[micatala]

Please pardon me while I engage in logical nitpicking (it's my mathematical nature).

QED is essentially saying:

"If it's complex, intelligent or capable, then it arose from simpler beginnings."

To negate this, you would have to provide an example of something complex, intelligent, or capable that did not arise from simpler beginnings.

To say there exist things that are complex (or simple) that arise from intelligence or complexity is irrelevant to his statement, unless you can also show that the intelligence or complexity itself did not arise from something simpler.

You are essentially saying that

"If it arises from complexity (or intelligence), then it can be either simple or complex."

This is not the same as saying

"If it did not arise from simpler beginnings, then it is not complex, nor intelligent, nor capable"

This latter statement would be equivalent to the first statement I made paraphrasing QED.

In fact, the statement I am attributing to you is a tautology; i.e. it cannot be falsified.

If I am misunderstanding what you are saying, my apologies. Thanks for indulging me in my pet peeve.

[QED]

For instance, if my mind (intelligence) draws a line in the sand (something simple) the opposite can be said of the aforementioned situation. So then, complexity can generate simple things and complexity can generate complicated things. There is no [real] rule that says complexity arises out of simpler beginnings except for just-so presuppositions.

Yes, I was hanging on the very edge of my chair when I read as far as "For instance" only to be disappointed by an example of something that had already evolved from more humble beginnings. I would argue that it is more than just anecdotal to say that we alway see complexity rise before it can fall. It has more the appearance of a natural law.

[nikolayevich]

Please pardon me while I engage in logical nitpicking (it's my mathematical nature).

It's okay, I nitpick too so I may as well take it myself to keep me in check.

QED is essentially saying:

"If it's complex, intelligent or capable, then it arose from simpler beginnings."

To negate this, you would have to provide an example of something complex, intelligent, or capable that did not arise from simpler beginnings.

You are essentially saying that

"If it arises from complexity (or intelligence), then it can be either simple or complex."

Actually... I was not trying to suggest that either produces itself as a rule or N=N which is as you would rightly note is pointless.

What is important is that simplicity and intelligence/capability are each complexity of varying degrees.

The line in the sand shows a reversal in exchange of complexity but the initial direction was implied.

Perhaps to better respond to your points, imagine a human at MIT, producing a robot, where that robot by its nature has a certain complexity tied to its function. It did not arise from simpler beginnings. Its parts may be simpler than its whole, but its cause (man) is far more complex.

So then, revisiting your statement:
"To negate this, you would have to provide an example of something complex, intelligent, or capable that did not arise from simpler beginnings."

Example:
Complex man makes complex though simpler robot.

In my personal experience this more closely conforms to reality than that complexity always arises from simplicity. To be sure, I would not say that complex things are not made up of simpler things, but the philosophy of simple-to-complex is generally about origins and tendency, not that there are simple parts that make up a whole. If this is not what you all are arguing then I'm not sure what we're discussing. I have been rather tired lately. :sleep:

What I did not see was a proof of the statement above by QED. It was not simply the complex-out-of-simple I was commenting on but "for things to follow the patterns we normally observe". I think that with great frequency we see simple things arising out of complex things. Digression more common than progression, etc. We are told to see how things evolve, so naturally the picture of the simple to complex can be "seen" everywhere. But is it everywhere?

Small-to-big certainly is everywhere. But simple-to-complex, everywhere? The statement about "patterns we normally observe" I believe refers to common experience. i.e. what the ordinary individual notices around them (if I'm mistaken I apologize). What are these things, which lend credence to the always simple-to-complex philosophy? I can think of some I've heard although to avoid setting up a straw man, I'd like to hear some which you think are legitimate.

I believe that we can always generate something simpler than ourselves but nothing more complex, regardless of whether by our intellect or by accident. The reason we can use intellect in the conversation is because information is information regardless of its cause. The laws around information do not change by human or animal interaction. They simply provide more obvious examples of greater truths. i.e. that a complex thing is generally limited by its total complexity, but that contamination from other extant sources may play a role in complexity's arrival (two smart people making one brilliant thing, or two existing mud puddles of different mixture merging to form another more caustic or colorful brew). The examples in parentheses are always limited by their total combined complexity. That is, there is not an increasing of complexity of the total system. The sum is the same. The simple-to-complex philosophy contradicts this, but I don't see its proof.

[QED]

I said that we always observe complexity, intelligence and capability arising from humbler beginnings. It is trivial to provide numerous examples and doubt that any sincere person would struggle to find any at all.

Consider the evolution of the universe, the various phase changes that were precipitated by the reduction in temperature following the big-bang. The formation of the heavier elements by nucleosynthesis which occurred in the big-bang itself as well as within stars thereafter. From here we have a great causal chain driven by gravity and thermodynamics. The emergence of life comes much later and hence so do our own technological creations.

So, where in this mighty nexus do we see something pop-out at us in a ready-made condition of higher order? Religious adherents might be so bold as to offer us one isolated example, but this bears no universally accepted witness and is in my opinion counter to over thirteen billion years of accumulated evidence.

[Jose]

Small-to-big certainly is everywhere. But simple-to-complex, everywhere? The statement about "patterns we normally observe" I believe refers to common experience. i.e. what the ordinary individual notices around them (if I'm mistaken I apologize). What are these things, which lend credence to the always simple-to-complex philosophy? I can think of some I've heard although to avoid setting up a straw man, I'd like to hear some which you think are legitimate.

<mud puddle example> That is, there is not an increasing of complexity of the total system. The sum is the same. The simple-to-complex philosophy contradicts this, but I don't see its proof.

One useful point here is that in evolution, there is no simple-to-complex progression. It looks like there is if we start with the beginning of life (very simple) and look at ourselves as the endpoint (very complex). But there are many examples of evolution giving rise to lesser complexity, provided that the starting point is already somewhat complex. The classic examples are the blind fish and crickets that live in caves. There are also numerous examples of species introduced to islands, after which some lose complexity, and others gain complexity. There is no guaranteed progression in any particular direction. It's just that once life started, it had nowhere to go but up--just as a random walk starting from a wall can only go away from the wall.

To accept that there has been an increase in overall genetic information through evolution, and that complexity can arise evolutionarily from simpler beginnings, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms, and to recognize the data and accept the inferences we draw from the data. Why? Quite simply, because it takes too long for us to observe it first-hand.

It is also necessary to set aside our everyday experiences and "common sense," which apply only to things we can experience. We simply cannot apply personal experience to things that are too small (molecules) or too large (tectonic plates) or too slow (plate movements, plant behaviors) or too fast (chemical reactions) for us to witness personally. For these, we need instruments and experimental manipulations to extend our experiential reach. Most people don't have access to these, and therefore consider it valid to reject the findings if they contradict their beliefs that are based on personal experience.

There is a logical fallacy in comparing human-designed things with evolved things. Quite simply, we already know the origin of the human-designed thing, but must use the evidence that is in the world to determine the origin of an evolved living thing. In addition, the human-designed things require humans to build them. Living things are self-reproducing. This is considerably different. The results of errors are not at all equivalent.

Human-designed things are typically checked for errors, and compared to a pre-existing standard. Those which meet the standard are allowed to enter the marketplace. Self-replicating things are not checked for errors before they enter the world, and there is no pre-defined standard that they must meet. Even if we call "the environment" a form of error-checking (which is basically what natural selection is), we must recognize that the environment is not static, but changes frequently. In a changed environment, an "error" that may have been a problem before, may now be helpful. For a designed thing to work better in a changed environment, the designer has to sit around and think of how to change the thing--i.e. he must change his pre-determined standards.

Because there are extensive records of environmental changes throughout the earth's history, we have little choice but to conclude that the evolutionary mechanism is far superior to a one-time creation, because only evolutionary change allows adaptation in the face of environmental change. The alternative is to argue that the designer is always watching, and changing his designs every time the environment changes.

I also wonder, if there is intelligent creation, why this creation allows so many mistakes. Why would intelligent creation allow mutations? Why would it allow environmental changes that cause so many of the "intelligently designed" species to go extinct? Theology suggests that these kinds of environmental trials are god's way of reminding us to follow the correct path...but why would these trials have equal or greater determintal effects on plants and animals, which theology defines as soul-less, and therefore unable to offend god? Mistakes and environmental changes just don't seem to fit intelligent creation--but are easily seen to be the driving force of evolution.