My Problems with Creationism/Intelligent Design

[MikeRadUNH]

Hi guys. I was pretty bored yesterday so I just sat down and wrote a blog after I finished reading the God Delusion (I thought it was good; strong arguments, but Dawkins is just as arrogant as the religious people he is accusing).

 

 

 

 

After reading The God Delusion by Evolutionary Biologist and Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins, and The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin, I began to realize (not that I hadn't come to the realization before) how absurd the idea of Intelligent Design really was.

 

Think for a moment of what it is about...Creationists say that since the universe did not exist at one time, but exists now, that a being lacking mass, shape, and time must have created it. Using the idea of infinite regression, they push back the origin of the universe further and further until they must come up with a means of creation. Their answer? God. Of course, it must be that simple. If none of this existed before, but exists now, God must have created it. It seems almost too good to be true, and in my opinion, it is. If this is the context in which God is used, he is not what he appears in the Bible; omniscient and omnipotent, He is merely a way of ending the infinite regression. The term God is more or less saying, "we don't know" and we're going to give that "we don't know," a name. Why not call it, say, the Big Bang?

 

Since laws of matter and energy state they can be neither created or destroyed, we would conclude that since our universe is both massive and full of energy, that something must have existed all along. How could God (a timeless and massless being; merely an existence not of the physical world) create something out of nothing? It is not scientifically or mathematically possible for something without energy or matter to create energy and matter.

 

So perhaps the infinite regression idea on which God rests, is really not the case after all. Since infinity is not a true mathematical figure observed in the natural world (it is just a way to comprehend something so large we cannot measure it), mathematics would imply that there must be a set beginning, while science would imply that something must have originally existed. It is certainly a hard concept to grasp, but I find the idea of a supernatural creator no more satisfying. At least behind this argument there lies some scientific and mathematical evidence.

 

 

On one of the forums I post on, people who quite obviously know very little science attempt to disprove the idea of Evolution and prove Creationism. Here is a quote from one of these tools, "The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

 

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day."

 

 

There are a number of things wrong with this logic, but I'll point out a few. First of all, this argument is more relevant to evolution than it is creationism. Why is he automatically assuming that the universe, and Earth specifically, was created to house life? If he were to read any book on the origins of life not written by a person with significant mental handicap, he would realize that that is far from the truth. If you imagine the vastness of the universe, it would be almost statistically impossible for there not to be another planet capable of life. Why is it so hard to believe, that in all this space, with trillions of other planets and stars (99.9% of which we are technologically incapable of studying) that there is only one known planet with that capability? If life flourished everywhere, he may have something. But why would God create a planet minuscule in size to most other planets and stars in the universe and choose that to house life? Why would he create Earth, a tiny blue marble, a pinhead in regards to the rest of the universe, as the site of such an amazing phenomenon? God himself tells us to be fruitful and multiply. Don't you think he would have given us a bit more space to do so? We've only been around for roughly 100,000 thousand years; the significant population increases have only taken place in the last 300. Surely he could have done better than Earth...

 

 

So now that I've loaded you up with my negative views on creationism. I'll hit you with some positive ones regarding evolution. For reference, let's here more from the genius who posted that last bit of horseshit... "The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

 

Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck."

 

First of all, life can arise from non life, the theory is called abiogenesis. Are the chances high? No. Is it possible? Yes. But try letting a bunch of matter dick around for a billion years or so and see if something strange doesn't happen. The following picture is of fossilized bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago.

 

 

Bacteria is a living organism, and if it could be found on earth 3.5 billion years ago, that means it was created somewhere in the 1 billion year time period from then to the creation of the Earth. Now allow that bacteria to do it's thing for another 3.5 billion years (it doesn't sound like a lot when it can be written in 10 characters, but that is an amazing amount of time) and enormous change will inevitably occur. Also, the words luck, chance, and random need to go. There is nothing lucky or random about Natural Selection. Those organisms better able to adapt to their environment will survive to pass on their traits. It is in no way comparable to rolling dice.

 

Another question people tend to bring up to disprove evolution is that; if we descended from apes, why do apes still exist. This is nothing more than ignorance. Had these people actually read about what they were trying to disprove, they would understand that we are not a descendant of any living great ape alive today, but rather humans and apes had a common ancestor that is now extinct. Humans have between 96 and 98.77% of the same DNA as Chimpanzees (depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded). To put that into perspective, that is a higher percentage than Zebras to Horses. The ancestral relationship between a zebra and horse is undeniable. Why are we any different?

 

 

Alright I think I'm done now. Hopefully I need to write a Bio paper or something in the near future. It would be a shame if I just wrote all that for the hell of it...

[freeztar]

That's a pretty good summary of ID and it's incompatibility with Evolutionary theory.

 

One of the strongest arguments for ID that I've seen (which you touch on) is probability. What is the actual probability of life evolving from bacteria to humans? Sure, there's plenty of time for this to occur naturally, but what are the actual numbers, the math of probability, that show the chances of that occurring. To my knowledge, there exists no definitive number that can be placed on this. We can hazard guesses though. Is it 1 in a trillion? One in a septillion? One in a cetillion?

 

Is it even possible to get a rough quantification of this?

[pgrmdave]

Well, I think that's a bit of a flawed argument for ID. Consider this - given my mother and father, what are the chances that I end up with the DNA that I have? The probability is likely infinitesimally low, but that doesn't change the fact that I exist with my DNA. The sum of all the chances is 1 - something will happen, even if each potential possibility is extremely small.

[freeztar]

Well, I think that's a bit of a flawed argument for ID.

 

I've never seen an argument for ID that wasn't flawed. :hyper:

 

Just trying to play devil's advocate and create some dissension for the sake of argument.

[MikeRadUNH]

Well, I think that's a bit of a flawed argument for ID. Consider this - given my mother and father, what are the chances that I end up with the DNA that I have? The probability is likely infinitesimally low, but that doesn't change the fact that I exist with my DNA. The sum of all the chances is 1 - something will happen, even if each potential possibility is extremely small.

 

What part are you referring to as flawed, exactly? Where I said that if you allow the bacteria to sit around for billions of years?

 

It's certainly not an in depth argument, I was just touching on it. But essentially, that's what's happening. We know for a fact that evolution occurs in a fairly short amount of time on a bacterial and viral level. Those organisms become immune to certain vaccinations, etc.

 

If you allow for billions of years, the chances (while still not very high) are definitely there.

[questor]

Why not get to the bottom line? Can something occur with no cause? If it happened suddenly 14 billion years ago, shouldn't there have been a cause? Do you know of any examples of something occurring without cause? Does the existence of the four natural forces, natural laws, energy, matter, and the operation of the universe imply cause or no cause? If there was cause, wouldn't it have to be intelligent? If not, what caused it to operate like it does?

[InfiniteNow]

Why not get to the bottom line? Can something occur with no cause?

 

Yes. Just because our tiny minds which evolved to understand small sections of life during small sections of time on a small planet (Earth) in a small solar system in a small corner of a single galaxy can't figure it out doesn't mean it's impossible.

 

I'm thinking specifically of particle/antiparticle pairs which pop into and out of existence. This negates the rest of your points, as your premise has been cutoff at the ankle.

 

 

 

"Those that answer a question with a question don't have much to say."

~Questor

[questor]

Would you post a research link proving your claim about the particles?

[Turtle]

This must be what...the 15th thread here at Hypog on this topic? Does anyone bother to search the site? :shrug: Adding content is great n' all, but adding nothing new does not satisfy. :)

 

Here's a blast from our past that brings the issue, the players and the pertinent facts to adjudgement. Those who don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it? :naughty: :shrug:

 

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

[questor]

Yes, this is the same boring discussion which is actually about God. People just can't argue about creation of the universe without arguing about God. If there were no human beings alive, the universe would still be here and the question would still be: cause or no cause? How simple this is, but people can't seem to grasp the concept.

[Turtle]

Yes, this is the same boring discussion which is actually about God. People just can't argue about creation of the universe without arguing about God. If there were no human beings alive, the universe would still be here and the question would still be: cause or no cause? How simple this is, but people can't seem to grasp the concept.

 

What I grasp from what you say here is that you are content to perpetuate the same boring discussions by introducing the same boring paradoxes. You, be the people too dude. You know where the argument is going & yet you blithely help it along and berate those that you drag with you. In the mean time you proffer nothing from your view that informs us about the Universe.

 

I gave the link that you neglected to respond to because the transcript of the court case gives pretty much all creationism arguments, whether religious based or not, and the refuting scientific evidence from experts in the appropriate fields.

 

Fact is, we are here and therefore your argument (any argument) on the premise that we are not here is moot.

[questor]

Your comments on being here have no relation to my point. My point is simple, the universe exists . The universe was either created or not. Which is correct?

[InfiniteNow]

Your comments on being here have no relation to my point. My point is simple, the universe exists . The universe was either created or not. Which is correct?

 

You are asserting a false (or, at least, completely unsupported) dichotomy. You are correct that we know the universe exists, you then jump via non-sequitur that it was either created or not. This is plainly illogical, and shows how small your human understanding of matters (or, more appropriately, how large your misunderstading) truly is.

 

Again: Universe exists. That's all you've got. To suggest so fervently that it was either created or not created shows your own bias on the question. It's equivalent to saying "The color Red: It is either boring or depressed."

 

You are an ignorant fool in so many ways, questor.

[pgrmdave]

Infinite - rather than rudely attacking someone, why not make even the slightest attempt at enlightening us?

 

I wonder if part of the problem in the discussion is the understanding of the word "universe". Does it entail the simple three dimensions in which we exist, or does it entail the matter and energy within those three dimensions?

 

The matter and energy, as far as I understand (which isn't much), either always existed, or didn't always exist (of course, this also depends on how time works...).

[questor]

Infinite,I will not answer your attack, since my free speech is not allowed on this site. You would not be brave enough to say that to my face. You don't seem to have a clue what i'm saying, so why not let me converse with others?

I wonder if part of the problem in the discussion is the understanding of the word "universe". Does it entail the simple three dimensions in which we exist, or does it entail the matter and energy within those three dimensions?

Do we not exist as part of everything, known and unknown in the universe?

We obviously do, but the question still remains..was the universe created or not created? Was there cause or no cause?

[Turtle]

Do we not exist as part of everything, known and unknown in the universe?

We obviously do, but the question still remains..was the universe created or not created? Was there cause or no cause?

 

It is an unanswerable question as stated, and we all know it. Lipstick on the pig. Again, what do you proffer from your view that the Universe is created, that informs us all? :D

[questor]

I do not know whether or not the universe was created, nor does anyone else. If it was NOT created, it would seem to go against all other occurrences of which we are aware. If it WAS created by some agent, that agent may still be operational in the universe even though we can't detect it. Maybe it would be part of dark matter, or whatever the unexplained mass turns out to be.