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, 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.

[LillSnopp]

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?

I had some other things to say, but im wasted on painkillers so i wont bother, im to tired for a discussion, il read your answers.

[micatala]

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.

Axeplayer wrote:
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.

The second of these is one version of the second law of thermodynamics. I don't believe the first is correct.

I have been reading a good book on the second law called "Maxwell's Demons". It goes into the various versions of the 2 laws of thermodynamics, as well as some of the history.

The second law does not say that "all things" move from organized to disorganized. It only says the total entropy of a closed system can never decrease, but always tends towards a maximum. Localized and naturally occuring decreases in entropy can occur. All life decreases entropy by taking in energy, and releasing 'waste heat' into the environement. This does not violate the 2nd law.

The gist of Lilsnopp's point I think is valid. It is difficult to define what is 'organized' and what is 'chaotic.' The mathematical measurements of entropy are (at least to me) a bit arcane and non-intuitive. I don't believe they correspond very well to our every day, subjective understanding of organization vs. chaos.

Also, for Axeplayer:

I know there is a lot to respond to in this thread, but was wondering if you do have any what I would call 'non-subjective' criteria for deciding what is irreducibly complex. I am looking for more than 'it looks like it's designed' or 'it can't function without any of its parts.'

The question also remains concerning whether things that are IC can evolve naturally. The geological example was already given, and no this is not a biological example, but it does not mean that biological examples do not exist.

[LillSnopp]

The second law does not say that "all things" move from organized to disorganized. It only says the total entropy of a closed system can never decrease, but always tends towards a maximum. Localized and naturally occuring decreases in entropy can occur. All life decreases entropy by taking in energy, and releasing 'waste heat' into the environement. This does not violate the 2nd law.

This is the problem to, as these people think Maximum means "more then", instead of actually understanding what is meant by entropy. That the entropy comes to its ´end´ (complete entropy)

The gist of Lilsnopp's point I think is valid. It is difficult to define what is 'organized' and what is 'chaotic.' The mathematical measurements of entropy are (at least to me) a bit arcane and non-intuitive. (1)I don't believe they correspond very well to our every day, subjective understanding of organization vs. chaos.

I wont bother in going into detail about second and first law of thermodynamics with Axeplayer, i just wanted to hear ome of his views on it. (what he believes).


1. And here i actually (perhaps axe dont realize it) i goe against these evil scientists. Because they claim what chaos and order is, without giving a basis for what it (chaos / order) really means (in this sense)-- I seen several ´analogies´ about it, but i still want them to tell me, how they can classify something as order / disorder.

If you look at a coin veyry very closely, you could classify it as ´chaos´, but if you go further away, you see the whole picture, and suddenly, its order. Just because we humans cant understan something, does not make it ´chaos´ in the sense that we use this word, thats all i am saying *ducking from the tomato´s thrown at him*.

[Chem]

Quote:
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.



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".

Methinks you protest too much.

How exactly does the BBT go against the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? Before the BB there were no laws and even directly after the BB the laws that we know today did not exist. All four forces were unified, only seperating as the universe cooled after the first instance of existance. The background microwave radiation is an echo of this event.

[otseng]

Before the BB there were no laws and even directly after the BB the laws that we know today did not exist.

I brought this up before, but it wasn't answered sufficiently. If no laws existed prior to the BB, how can anything happen? And how did the laws come into being? And how did the laws change afterwards? To me, to accept that there were no laws, then laws sprang into existence out of nowhere, then got changed for some unknown reason requires as much (if not more) faith as believing the universe was created by a supernatural entity.

[Gollum]

If no laws existed prior to the BB, how can anything happen? And how did the laws come into being? And how did the laws change afterwards?

I don't think that the contention is that there were no laws ... just that the laws that existed at the instant of the BB were not those that we have now. As to the rest, the long and short of it is that hypotheses abound but confirmed theories do not. It must be admitted that the events at the instant of the BB were supernatural where that term means "... not in accordance with the laws of the natural world as we now know them ...". If the further extension of that to an intelligence / supreme being / etc. works for you then science is not in a position to either support or refute it.

[micatala]

Chem wrote:
Before the BB there were no laws and even directly after the BB the laws that we know today did not exist.

I brought this up before, but it wasn't answered sufficiently. If no laws existed prior to the BB, how can anything happen? And how did the laws come into being? And how did the laws change afterwards? To me, to accept that there were no laws, then laws sprang into existence out of nowhere, then got changed for some unknown reason requires as much (if not more) faith as believing the universe was created by a supernatural entity.

These are good questions. I have a couple of responses.

There is a difference between 'physical laws didn't exist prior to the Big Bang' and 'we don't know whether or not laws existed prior to the BB, or what those laws were if they did exist.' I don't know that we can say whether the first is true or not. To me, the 'how can anything happen?' is sort of irrelevant given the extent of our knowledge.

More relevant is the possibility of laws changing after the BB. Here is one short description of the basic theory. My understanding is the 'laws of the universe' changed over time because the nature of the universe changed. What may have happened over the first tiniest fraction of a second, as was pointed out here by Gollum, we do not know (and my understanding is may never know for sure).

Even after this time, the BB model would say that the nature of matter changed from a 'quark soup' to a sea of hydrogen and helium nuclei but with no attached electrons, and eventually to the first atoms, all hydrogen and helium. During these different periods, different laws applied in the sense that the four fources we know today (gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong) were unified into three or two or perhaps even one force. Here is one rather lengthy passage addressing this, but you would find this described in a number of popular physics books, including Stephen Hawkings' "THe Universe in a Nutshell" which the previous reference is from. Here is another lengthy discussion of cosmology that you might find interesting. (Sorry I haven't run across anything more succinct! )

THe point I would make is that the BB model does give good reasons for why the early universe behaved differently than it does now. The laws did not change for an 'unknown reason.'

Perhaps an analogy that might be useful is to think of how the physical laws we experience here on earth (particularly gravity) are different than experienced in space. Today, of course, we know that there is really one gravitational law that applies everywhere in the universe (except on the quantum scale, which is why we have trouble understanding the first moments of the universe). In the past (eg. prior to Newton or certainly prior to Galileo) it was thought that the laws that applied on earth were entirely different than the laws that applied 'in the heavens.' So, in some sense, a separation in space meant a difference in the physical laws.

In the present circumstance, we are saying a separation in time may mean a difference in physical laws, but that we may be able to show that these different laws are merely different manifestations of the same underlying law, just as what happens on earth and what happens in the heavens are different manifestations of the same underlying gravitational law.

Also, it is worth pointing out that some would consider laws not as having any a priori existence, but as existing only as human constructions. As such, they really have no effect on how the universe operates, but only effect our explanations of how it operates.

I'm not sure how it takes more faith to believe in the BB model than a creator. THis, frankly, seems to me to be a pretty subjective judgment. Obviously a lot of aspects of modern physics is counter-intuitive and stretches our credulity. I would submit that this by itself is absolutely irrelevant. Any incredulity that some might have is probably no more than those who were first presented with the Copernican system.

[otseng]

Here is one short description of the basic theory.

This link is choke full of interesting quotes:

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

Actually, I have argued before that the earth being in the center of the universe is the most intuitive conclusion. But, it is telling that it is on philosophical grounds for how one chooses which cosmological model to accept. The argument that the laws of physics have changed in the past is not based on evidence, but on conjecture. Hence, I say that faith is required to believe that the laws of physics have changed in the past.

Here is another interesting quote:

Famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, Sir Arthur Keith, is quoted as saying, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is Special Creation, and that is unthinkable."

Again, it is purely on philosophical grounds that a creator is denied.

Even the great genius Albert Einstein could not accept the logical conclusions of his discoveries and introduced the cosmological constant in order to protect his philosophical beliefs.

Einstein's mistake was not a mathematical one but rather a philosophical one made many times over the history of thought. Einstein held too strongly to the belief that the universe was static and thus was unable to appreciate the power of his theory's predictions of a dynamic universe. His error serves as an lesson to all thinkers, that we should never close our minds to new possibilities, even if the thought of the day is that they are impossible.

Here is another lengthy discussion of cosmology that you might find interesting.

It is indeed interesting! Though all the math there whizzed by me...

Here is one interesting observation from that link:

The figure above shows a(t) for three models with three different densities at a time 1 nanosecond after the Big Bang. The black curve shows the critical density case with density = 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016 gm/cc. Adding only 1 gm/cc to this 447 sextillion gm/cc causes the Big Crunch to be right now! Taking away 1 gm/cc gives a model with Omega that is too low for our observations. Thus the density 1 ns after the Big Bang was set to an accuracy of better than 1 part in 447 sextillion. Even earlier it was set to an accuracy better than 1 part in 10^59! Since if the density is slightly high, the Universe will die in an early Big Crunch, this is called the "oldness" problem in cosmology. And since the critical density Universe has flat spatial geometry, it is also called the "flatness" problem -- or the "flatness-oldness" problem. Whatever the mechanism for setting the density to equal the critical density, it works extremely well, and it would be a remarkable coincidence if Omega were close to 1 but not exactly 1.

Sounds like a validation of the anthropic principle to me!

Also, it is worth pointing out that some would consider laws not as having any a priori existence, but as existing only as human constructions. As such, they really have no effect on how the universe operates, but only effect our explanations of how it operates.

Laws would still be in effect whether there are humans around to call them laws. Sure, we have our own construct to understand the laws, but they still exist independently of our observations of them.

I'm not sure how it takes more faith to believe in the BB model than a creator. THis, frankly, seems to me to be a pretty subjective judgment. Obviously a lot of aspects of modern physics is counter-intuitive and stretches our credulity. I would submit that this by itself is absolutely irrelevant. Any incredulity that some might have is probably no more than those who were first presented with the Copernican system.

It is not the argument of incredulity that I say it requires faith, but the lack of evidence to support the assertions (of physical laws changing) that I say it requires faith.

[QED]

Actually, I have argued before that the earth being in the center of the universe is the most intuitive conclusion. But, it is telling that it is on philosophical grounds for how one chooses which cosmological model to accept. The argument that the laws of physics have changed in the past is not based on evidence, but on conjecture. Hence, I say that faith is required to believe that the laws of physics have changed in the past.

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. While eccentric postulations can be put forward to force empiricism into an apparently more philosophical light, we should not lose sight of the fact that we should always draw our conclusions from the most responsible material if we want to obtain the correct impression.

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. Unusual that is except for conditions prevalent in earlier epochs.

Here is another interesting quote:

Famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, Sir Arthur Keith, is quoted as saying, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is Special Creation, and that is unthinkable."

Again, it is purely on philosophical grounds that a creator is denied.

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

Even the great genius Albert Einstein could not accept the logical conclusions of his discoveries and introduced the cosmological constant in order to protect his philosophical beliefs.

Which ably demonstrates the dangers of disregarding empirical data in favour of what prove eventually to be arbitrary mind-sets.

Sounds like a validation of the anthropic principle to me!

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. I would invite you to put yourself in the position we are discussing here -- your own personal existence owes itself either to contingency, or to a deliberate intention that such a person should exist. I for one feel far too humble to plump for the latter, but its your prerogative to disagree.

[Chem]

I brought this up before, but it wasn't answered sufficiently. If no laws existed prior to the BB, how can anything happen? And how did the laws come into being? And how did the laws change afterwards?

Unfortunately, language is a funny thing even when you use it every day. What I meant by no laws before the BB was that it doesn't matter what happened before the BB as from a scientific perspective it has, at this time no meaning. It's like asking how many angels can fit on the top of a needle (my guess would be 7 ).

The following link provides a good discussion with regards to creation ex nihlo and the BB model (an argument against the unifying creation ex nihlo and the BB):

http://www.philoonline.org/library/morriston_5_1.htm

With regards to the laws changing, it is wholly down to the physical state of the universe at the different epochs of the universe. The existance of unified forces at the very early stages of the universe coupled with the temperature experienced certainly would be a different universe than of our familiar one. These conditions are only matched by that found in the most powerful particle accelerators who would have energies in excess of 1 GeV. It is below the Plank time (10e-43) that things get hairy. Above this epoch, the generation of the universe is pretty well understood.

As the young universe expanded and the forces seperated then the conditions would change and the universe as we know it would be more familiar.

I certainly do not see the need for any supernatural intervention in such a process.