First, the new cosmology: the Big Bang and its accompanying theoretical under-pinning in general relativity. These two theories now refer to a definite beginning to the universe. It was not all that long ago that cosmologists argued that if theists were going to posit an uncreated God who has always been in existence, why not simply say the universe itself has always been around, and so also not in need of a beginning? But if something has a beginning, it only stands to reason it also has a Beginner. Something cannot create itself. From nothing, nothing comes. Thus the laws of nature cannot be invoked to explain the origin of the universe. The very fact that most scientists now acknowledge that energy, matter, space, and time had a beginning is¾whether they choose to accept it or not¾profoundly anti-materialistic. General relativity points to the need for a cause that transcends time, space, matter, and energy. Only some form of theism affirms the existence of such an entity¾namely, God.
Who said that something was required to come from something else? This is your claim, not the cosmologists. Indeed, the existence of "virtual particles" has been proven. Virtual particle are a particle and a antiparticle created together, spontaneously. The Universe happens to be the same way.
As Noble prize-winner Arno Penzias was quoted as saying about the Big Bang, The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole (Malcolm W. Browne, Clues to Universe Origin Expected, New York Times [March 12, 1978]).
Really? The Bible predicts the universal background radiation, the galactic redshift, and all of the other great things predicted by Hubble and/or the Big Bang theory?
Second, anthropic fine-tuning: the fundamental laws and parameters of physics possess precise numerical values that very easily could have been otherwise. Yet all of these laws and constants work together in a mathematically mind-boggling manner to make life in the universe possible. For instance, the expansion rate of the universe is fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. If it were changed by one part in either direction¾either a little faster, or a little slower¾we could not have a universe capable of supporting life. And there are many, many other examples of such intricate fine-tuning within other scientific disciplines.
Mmhmm. Think about this. Because of this, you are here to think about it. If another Universe with different laws, you wouldn't be there. By definition, life would exist in the one Universe with the right laws to support it - it's not like life would spring up in the first place in a Universe without the right laws. In other words, my good man, it's not that the Universe was placed for us, it is that we were placed in the Universe for us.
As the late Sir Fred Hoyle, renowned Cambridge astrophysicist¾and staunch atheist¾commented in an obviously unguarded moment, A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature (The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, Annual Review of Astronomy and Physics 20 [1982]).
See above. If you want more, run a quick search on any search engine for "anthropic principle."
Well, perhaps the universe looks fine-tuned because there actually is a fine-tuner. In the opinion of another widely-regarded physicist, Paul Davies¾who has gone out of his way to assure his readers he is not in any way affiliated with any religion¾The impression of design (in the universe) is overwhelming (The Cosmic Blueprint [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988]: 203).
The loss is mine that I have not read the exact work you cite, but I happen to own a copy of another of Dr. Davies' works, The Fifth Miracle, and I have to remind you not to cite out of context. Paul Davies always explores both sides of the issue equally, and it's my understanding that he zealously supports neither side of the issue in its extreme, but concludes with a sort of middle ground. Unfortunately, the same type of understanding is beyond most of this forum, so I will let that pass.
Third, what has come to be called origin of life studies. All of the naturalistic attempts to arrive at a viable theory of how life began from non-life have run headfirst into the corresponding problem of how to also account for the origin of the information necessary to bring life into existence, and further, to then also include the mechanism that allows the information to be passed along in order to keep life going. Life at its roots requires information, which is stored in protein molecules and DNA.
One of the most fervent and prolific atheists in the world today, the aforementioned Richard Dawkins of Oxford, has explained that the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like (River Out of Eden [New York: Basic Books, 1995]: 10). Reflecting on such a statement does not take one long to realize that computers run on software programs that are produced by intelligent engineers. Every experience we have about information¾whether it is a computer code, a book, hieroglyphic inscriptions, or a cave painting¾ points toward intelligence. The same is true concerning the information inside every cell in every living creature. And this is not simply an argument from ignorance. We are not simply inferring design just because the naturalistic evolutionary theories all fail to explain information. We infer design because all those theories fail and we know of another causal entity that is capable of producing information¾namely, intelligence.
Randomness can easily produce information. I could go out into my garden right now, observe a certain pattern of stones, convert that pattern into binary or ternary code, and retrieve a decimal number or set of decimal numbers, perhaps pointing to a geographical coordinates.. This does not mean that the stones were arranged felicitously by an intelligence.
Fourth, irreducible complexity: on a microbiological level there is evidence for design in molecular machines that defy explanation by Darwinian natural selection. These integrative biological organisms¾which microbiologist Michael Behe has dubbed irreducibly complex¾include signal transduction circuits, sophisticated motors, and all kinds of biological circuitry.
Biological machines need all of their various parts in order to function. So how could you ever build such a system via a Darwinian process of natural selection acting on random variations? Supposedly, natural selection only preserves those things that perform a function¾in other words, that which helps the organism survive to the next generation. That of course is survival of the fittest. The problem with irreducibly complex systems is that they perform their function only when all the parts are present and working together in close coordination with one another. So, natural selection cannot help in the development of such systems; it can merely preserve them only after theyve been fully developed. Additionally, it is virtually inconceivable that naturalistic evolution could take such huge leaps by mere chance in the creation of a whole system all at once.
Not quite true. An earthworm has nothing in the way of a heart, at least as humans would call it, except five massive blood vessels in its midsection. A fish has a two-lobed heart. A reptile has three lobes, a bird or mammal four. The trick is not to imagine that a German Shepherd sprang fully functioning out of a pool of scum, but to realize that nature starts with simple and robust and gradually builds its efficiency.
Naturally, this begs the question: How did the biochemical machine arise? Both in the preface and on the first page of Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker one finds the prominent zoologist, writer and atheist use such language as: The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design, and Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1991 [1986]: xiii, 1; emphasis mine). Microbiologist Michael Behe avers that perhaps these biological systems look designed because they really were designed. After all, whenever we come across irreducibly complex systems anywhere else and we know how they arose, invariably a designer was the cause.
You have to define purpose here. Living organisms have been "designed" by blind forces of competition and predator-prey relationships, to keep themselves alive and procreate. If you want to call that a "purpose," go ahead, but then we wander perilously close to the cliff of semantics.
Fifth, the Cambrian explosion: Biologys Big Bang. With these fossils we find between twenty and thirty-five completely novel body plans that, for all intents and purposes, leapt forth suddenly into existence. Here we see a huge jump in complexity without any transitional intermediates.
Not at all. It could be explained by anything from a close-by supernova to a fluctuation in the Van Allen Belt, perfectly natural occurrences.
Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion is also firm evidence against materialistic evolution because, as we already covered above, in all of our experience information is invariably a product of conscious activity. Here we have the geologically abrupt infusion of a massive amount of new biological information necessary to create these body designs; far beyond what any Darwinian mechanism can produce. Indeed Darwin himself declared that nature takes no sudden leaps. Yet the Cambrian explosion demonstrates a gigantic jump forward. Natural evolution simply cannot account for it. Simple commonsense tells us that intelligent design provides a far more plausible explanation.
Ockham's Razor, my friend. You have NOT proved that pre-existing intelligence is necessary to generate information. Randomness and large quantities of time are all that are necessary, and both are available.
Sixth, human consciousness itself: our capacity for self-reflection, for representational art, for language, for creativity. Again, naturalistic science just cannot account for this kind of consciousness merely from the interaction of physical matter in the brain. We are more than just matter¾computer(s) made of meat in the infamous words of MITs Marvin Minsky¾our brains are more than the sum of its parts; we also possess the mind. Here is a quote to ponder:
Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinians as such, seems to have an answer to this
. The point is that there is no scientific answer.
Consciousness is a function of the brain. It is simply the capacity to react independently to external stimuli. Humans have a forebrain of large size and felicitous shape, developed by millenia of finding that the capacity for abstract though provided a survival advantage. It's absurdly simple.
If you had to guess, who would you imagine would make such an observation? A full-fledged, true-blue, card-carrying Creation Scientist? No. Perhaps a church official, or minister of some kind, spoken in an effort to encourage their congregants in their faith? No. A well-meaning but nevertheless inaccurate Christian evangelist attempting to defend the faith against godless sceptics? None of the above. These were the words of the philosopher, Darwinian-apologist and staunch atheist, Michael Ruse, caught in a moment of weakness of honesty.
The quote does not prove the existence of a God, and neither does your source. Many people, religious and atheistic, have pondered consciousness, and some have given it a more philosophical bite of their mind than others. I believe it's a natural function of logic and emotion, both evolved functions that served real survival benefits. It's your choice to subscribe to this view of consciousness or not.
