I need arguments against creation

[Silent Bob]

There are no scientific arguments against God. There are logical arguments against the God many Christians hold to be true. If you are interested www.philosophyofreligion.info has a good list and analysis.

 

[JohnR7]

I am curious, what are these scientific arguments in favor of a creator?

It usually comes down to irreduceable complexity. In darwins day they use to talk about how complex the eye was and how it could not have evolved and Darwin all but admitted that was true. Now they talk about how complex organisms are on a molecular level and how they feel it is irreduceable.

Most of the arguements against a Creator come down to the belief that this world is not perfect enough, and if there was a Creator then the world would be a more perfect place than it is.

 

[Ondoher]

It usually comes down to irreduceable complexity. In darwins day they use to talk about how complex the eye was and how it could not have evolved and Darwin all but admitted that was true.

Poppycock. Darwin specifically explained how an eye could evolve. He did this nearly 150 years ago, and people still misrepresent him. This is one of the more pathetic creationist lies out there. You'd think when something is so obviously false, the argument would stop being used. Here is Darwin's argument in its entirety, from On the Origins of Species, Chapter 6.:

Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?
​

Maybe I'm being an optimist, but I'm going to assume that, being rightly informed of this issue, you will never use that argument again.

Now they talk about how complex organisms are on a molecular level and how they feel it is irreduceable.

Most of the arguements against a Creator come down to the belief that this world is not perfect enough, and if there was a Creator then the world would be a more perfect place than it is.

Irreducible complexity is just an updated version of Paley's watchmaker argument. It has been soundly refuted by scientists, and has never made any headway into actual scientific research. It is a useless deadend.

 

[Socrastein]

While it's true that science can never disprove God, I think it can do (and has done) the next best thing: make Him a completely erroneous conjecture (In other words, turn everyone who falls back on "God did it" into an ignorant and irrational human).

Science has given perfectly reasonable, natural, and soundly supported explanations for such classic "God Appeals" as the origin and complexity of life, apparent morality in human society, and the "miracle" of conciousness, to name but a very few. The result of this is that proposing a Creator of life, of morality, and of souls becomes completely superfluous, irrational, and illogical, as much as clinging to the belief that Santa Claus brings you presents every year, even when there's no reason to propose such a thing when all evidence points to the simple fact that your parents put gifts under the tree while your asleep and simply write "From Santa" on them. Now, science cannot disprove the existence of Santa Claus, of course, but it can and has done the next best thing (Well maybe not the scientific community, but scientific thought no doubt) which is to make such a conjecture completely unnecessary. I believe science has done the same thing to God, and though it falls short of actually disproving His existence, it is a crippling blow to theology nonetheless.

So perhaps "The Critics Say" that nothing we observe or have observed in nature is without a natural and scientific explanation, or at least the promise of one in the future, and that making conjectures about some all powerful creator who is responsible for all these phenomena we observe that do not require supernatural explanation, is pointless, unscientific, and irrational.

 

[davidshane]

It usually comes down to irreduceable complexity.

Some of the arguments I presented in my paper are of this sort. The first is the standard statement about the apparent fine-tuning of certain physical constants that seem to make the universe quite suitable for life. The second was about the orbit of the Earth being nearly circular, (something we certainly appreciate.) I threw in a couple pieces of evidence that seemed to indicate a younger universe than is commonly thought.

My final argument was a little more philosophical:

"And if I may add just one more bullet to this section, let it be the question that one asks oneself when he needs to remind himself of how little he knows. Why was there ever anything? We observe a great causal framework, where, excluding supposed miracles, all effects have naturalistic causes. So how happened the initial effect that created the universe? It would seem that it is necessary to postulate something outside this universe, something not subject to the laws of cause and effect that could have therefore been eternally existent. While difficult to grasp our minds around, minds so tuned to the rules of this universe, this would explain how we all got something out of nothing."

 

[kahri]

I threw in a couple pieces of evidence that seemed to indicate a younger universe than is commonly thought."

What kind of evidence are you talking about?

 

[davidshane]

What kind of evidence are you talking about?

And here I was hesitant to cite them because they were more dubious scientifically and I'd hoped to check them out a little more. Anywho, I found writings by a couple scientists who said the following:

1. The moon is moving away from us. Current theory indicates when it was closer to the Earth, it should have been moving away even more quickly. But if we take it's current rate of movement away and extrapolate backwards, we find it would have been in contact with the Earth only 1.3 billion years ago.

2. The comets are still around. There quite fragile, and should have all been gone after a few 10's of millions of years.

 

[Ondoher]

And here I was hesitant to cite them because they were more dubious scientifically and I'd hoped to check them out a little more. Anywho, I found writings by a couple scientists who said the following:

You would have done well to research first. These old chestnuts have been long debunked.

1. The moon is moving away from us. Current theory indicates when it was closer to the Earth, it should have been moving away even more quickly. But if we take it's current rate of movement away and extrapolate backwards, we find it would have been in contact with the Earth only 1.3 billion years ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

2. The comets are still around. There quite fragile, and should have all been gone after a few 10's of millions of years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html

 

[Socrastein]

Davidshane -

As a philosopher I must commend you for taking a stab at a philosophical question. At the same time, as a philosopher, I must reprimand you for how illogical your argument is

First of all - why do you think the universe has to have been created? What makes you think ANYTHING has to be created? Have you ever witnessed any form of creation whatsoever? Don't go jumping into answering this question before you truly think it over (Like a real philosopher). Consider first if whatever examples pop into your mind are truly examples of creation, and not rather examples of simply rearranging energy/matter into a new form. We throw the term "creation" around quite loosely as humans, not realizing that we are really referring to "rearrangement", technically. Babies are not "created", they grow from the fertilization of an egg, the resultant division of cells, and the construction of various tissues under the codified instruction of DNA. All of this is fueled through nutrients within the womb and later from the embilical cord. On a molecular level, nothing is being created, various molecules are simply rearranging and structuring themselves into a child. Same with buildings - not really created, just rearranged from a bunch of wood, which came from trees, which weren't actually created either.

Even a very basic knowledge of science dismisses the idea that the universe "had to be" created - it's called the Law of Conservation of Energy, and it says that there is no such thing as creation. In fact, creation is not only something we've never observed, it's something we should expect never to observe, or never to discover having happened, for this would directly violate one of the most solid laws of science.

Thusly, to appeal to a concept that has no foundation in reality as we know it (creation) in support of proposing a creator, is a completely irrational and illogical argument that has no merit, nor does it have any basis in evidence or observation.

As for causality, that can be refuted with a little less writing on my part - first of all, causality is a property that we observe WITHIN the universe - there's simply no reason to suppose that the universe itself is subject to it. Anything within the universe, sure, that's a solid, though be it fallible, assumption, but to say the universe as a whole is subject to causality, and must therefore be caused, is a baseless conclusion with no logical or philosophical merit whatsoever. Second of all, and this is the most obvious, though most overlooked objection I can possibly think of - it is nothing more than self-contradiction and utter hypocrisy to argue that the universe must be subject to causality, and thus caused, but not to apply this same reasoning consistently to God Himself. If the universe "has to be" caused, then God as well "has to be caused" and we've solved absolutely nothing, we've simply conjectured an erroneous proposition without reason and without logic. If God is excused from causality because he is "eternal" well then there's nothing inconsistent in applying that same reasoning to the universe, in which case God again becomes an erroneous proposition that does nothing to remedy the problem and only complicates things unneccessarily. If we're going to throw conjectures around for the sake of irrationality, why not suppose that some omnipotent, eternal Barbecue Grill created the universe? Or how about a fuzzy pink elephant with nickles for eyes? Or maybe Bob Saggat is God incarnate, and he really created the universe billions of years ago! An objective look at your philosophical argument shows that it falls short of true philosophy, for philosophy is only as sound as the logic upon which it is founded.

 

[JohnR7]

"""Darwin all but admitted that was true.""" Poppycock.

No it's not "Poppycock" read the quote that you looked up for us:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

Darwin "freely" confesses that the whole thing is "absurd in the highest possible degree". Of course knowing how "absurd" the whole thing is, did not seem to stop Darwin in his speculations. Which is fine, but what is difficult to understand is why people take it all so serious.

Yet reason tells me,

As long as we are here, let's talk about this also. What does Darwin mean: "Yet reason tells me". Is this sort of like our so called founding fathers who claim self evident truths. It makes me wonder if they are so self evident, then why are they not evident to more people.

Maybe I'm being an optimist, but I'm going to assume that, being rightly informed of this issue, you will never use that argument again.

The statement I made was becasue I was to lazy to go looking for the quote. You got the quote and the context for us, so that pretty well resolves that issue. We can go straight to dealing with what Darwin said.

 

[ForeRunner]

Darwin "freely" confesses that the whole thing is "absurd in the highest possible degree". Of course knowing how "absurd" the whole thing is, did not seem to stop Darwin in his speculations. Which is fine, but what is difficult to understand is why people take it all so serious.

Generally, out of context quoting is more effective when the full context isn't 5 posts above it for all to see...

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm actually writing a paper called "Cosmological Evidence for a Creator," and like any good paper, it has a "What do the Critics Say?" section. Unfortunately I've had problems finding actual scientific arguments along these lines, while I have plenty in favor of a creator. So even if you don't believe them yourself, I could use some observations. If you can cite a book, that would be best. If you can't -- well, you're still appreciated.

How about this one for a start:
http://www.strongatheism.com/atheology/noncognitivism.html

 

[davidshane]

You would have done well to research first. These old chestnuts have been long debunked.

I'll check out the websites, but come now, be nice. I did do research first, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to tell you what I did, they aren't my ideas. I can't possibly know everything, every argument and it's refutation and the rebuttal to that and so on, but I'm doing my best here.

 

[caravelair]

if you're looking for evidence against the existence of a creator of the universe, well it's literally impossible to have evidence against that. if you're looking for evidence against YECreationism, then there's no problem. such evidence is abundant. start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

[Ondoher]

No it's not "Poppycock" read the quote that you looked up for us:

Of course it is poppycock. On top of that it is codswallop. The quote is right there. Darwin sets up the argument by telling us what seems to be the case, and then goes into great detail to explain why what seems to be the case actually is not the case.

Darwin "freely" confesses that the whole thing is "absurd in the highest possible degree". Of course knowing how "absurd" the whole thing is, did not seem to stop Darwin in his speculations. Which is fine, but what is difficult to understand is why people take it all so serious.

Again, he did not say it is absurd, he said it seems absurd. Then he explained why it actually isn't absurd. If you read the quote you will see that darwin is making a careful argument about why it isn't really absurd, but the natural result of evolution. It is quite clear from this text that Darwin did not believe this was absurd, and to misrepresent him with the text plain to all to see just baffles me.





In fact, his very next sentence tells us that he doesn't believe it absurd:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.




​

As long as we are here, let's talk about this also. What does Darwin mean: "Yet reason tells me". Is this sort of like our so called founding fathers who claim self evident truths. It makes me wonder if they are so self evident, then why are they not evident to more people.

The reason he is talking about is the reason that follows from his whole argument about natural selection. He is making an argument for this position. As such, it is clear he does not accept that the evolution of the eye is absurd.

The statement I made was becasue I was to lazy to go looking for the quote. You got the quote and the context for us, so that pretty well resolves that issue. We can go straight to dealing with what Darwin said.

Yes, now that it is cleared up, I assume you will never claim that Darwin thought the evolution of the eye was absrud.

 

[Ondoher]

I'll check out the websites, but come now, be nice. I did do research first, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to tell you what I did, they aren't my ideas. I can't possibly know everything, every argument and it's refutation and the rebuttal to that and so on, but I'm doing my best here.

It was not meant to be mean, I was merely responding to what you said, "I'd hoped to check them out a little more." This really is an old argument, and it really does't take much time to find the counter. I was just agreeing that you should have spent that extra time.

However, now that you have come here, we can help you with these things.

 

[Socrastein]

JohnR7

Nobody said that evolution, or the gradual evolution of the eye in particular, were self-evident truths. They are however, completely rational, logical, and evidentially supported truths. Why don't more people accept them then? Because the majority of the world is irrational, illogical, and has a very unhealthy disrespect for evidence.

Funny that you brought up such skepticism on supposed "self-evidence". Supposedly, according to the bible, God's existence is supposed to self-evident to anyone who simply observes the universe. As well, the moral law that He espouses is supposed to be written in our hearts, which would make it quite self-evident indeed. However, I see no reason to suppose there is a God when I look at nature, and I see no reason to suppose a God has written some moral law into my heart, because I certainly feel nothing more than the influence of reason and social influence in my "heart".

It makes me wonder if they are so self evident, then why are they not evident to more people.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I'll check out the websites, but come now, be nice. I did do research first, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to tell you what I did, they aren't my ideas. I can't possibly know everything, every argument and it's refutation and the rebuttal to that and so on, but I'm doing my best here.

Part of the problem is that whatever reasearch you did on these scientific issues was apparently not done in scientific sources. There simply is no credibility to the notion that the earth (solar system and universe while you're at it) has only been around for a few thousand years. Furthermore, using arguments debunked long ago to support that assertion doesn't help your overall thesis.

 

[davidshane]

Part of the problem is that whatever reasearch you did on these scientific issues was apparently not done in scientific sources. There simply is no credibility to the notion that the earth (solar system and universe while you're at it) has only been around for a few thousand years. Furthermore, using arguments debunked long ago to support that assertion doesn't help your overall thesis.

They were writings by Ph.D's in appropriate fields. They must have thought that they had credibility at least at the time. More observations can change things -- like I said, I can't keep up on everything, but thanks for the information to check out.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Somebody stated that science can't prove God exists, I would like to expand/modify that a bit... looking at "Godidit" among other issues.



In the early part of the last century it was shown that electrons were individual entities separate from the nucleus of teh atom. This posed a very serious problem. The obvious model to explain why electrons hang around nuclei is the planetary model, but if a charged particle is accelerated (e.g. goes around in a circle) it will radiate energy, thus losing the kinetic energy that was keeping it from falling into the nucleus.

Also early in the last century a geologist noted the way Africa seems to fit over South America and showed that if you look at the areas that would meet if you were to match the two continents together the geology and fossils match. Yet there was no concievable way that the continents could move.

According to the arguments of Creation Science these instances "proved" that God did it, as best as I can tell your position is that scientists should have submitted papers stating that God did it.

In the first case it took roughly 20 years to come up with a servicable theory to explain the data, in the second it took 30 or 40 years.

The problem with the position of the Creation Science community is that they confuse [the lack of/a contradiction in] a natural explanation for evidence of a supernatural explanation.

In order for a scientist to assign God as the cause of a phenominom there most be a positive reason to do so, there must be evidence, e.g. faith healing in the name of the God of Abraham was significantly more effective than a placebo and significantly more effective than faith healing in the name of Asclepius, the Greek God of Healing. (According to a Catholic friend of mine Lourdes has had a number of miraculous cures, but not statistically significantly more than the number of unexplained cures one would normally see.)

If God is not inclined to be proven, he won't be.

So, unless there is evidence for a supernatural cause of some effect, e.g. speciation, scientists aren't going to assign such a cause, they will look where the evidence leads them, and for the last 250+ years it has consistantly led away from a God who governs the physical world by miracle.
And again, the one possible exception to this is a set physical constants governing the expansion of the universe, but the interpretation of the meaning of those constants is highly debatable.

To restate the point, science does not rule out God as a cause, but evidence is required before God can be ruled in as a cause.