Greylorn – thanks for your interesting thoughts, as always. It’s obvious that you’ve thought long and hard about these issues and I appreciate your candor.
I know you well enough to be surprised that you would have misquoted me so egregiously. Saying “nothing” about the Creator is quite different from 'not saying anything about the nature of the Creator.
Ok, true. I misread that - sorry.
As you may know, I accept the concept that the universe is created, but not quite to the extent as conventional religionists. For example, I regard energy as a non-created substance, the silly putty with which the Creator worked.
Once you posit a non-created substance, I think that adds quite a lot of complexity to your argument. At the same time, what you’re saying could be similar to the Christian idea of grace – which might act as some kind of energy. “In His light, we see light”.
I agree with you that the evidence is even better— yet as that happens, the voices of the atheist movement become increasingly strident. More evidence will change nothing, because of the differently colored lenses through which the evidence is viewed.
This may be a side-note, feel free to ignore it – but have you considered the difference in your world view from that of atheism, with regard to the need (good reason) to accept your view of the Creator(s)? Let’s say you’re mostly right – or somehow – completely right. What difference does that make to atheism? Is your version of God “something nice to know about”, but which carries no mandate or change in the meaning of one’s own personal life?
Let me once again express this simple point: The clear evidence that the universe is the result of intelligent thought, design, or as I prefer to call it-- engineering does not define the properties of the thinker, designer, or engineer.
Ok, that’s a better modification of your original statement that it doesn’t say anything.
Again, you’re assuming engineering. We have no direct evidence that any engineering occurred. Even Darwinism (and I agree with your critique) cannot show that the chain of being that we observe in history, was caused by “accidental engineering” through mutations.
Additionally, we have “thinker” – which is what is required in design. So, the designer must have enough intelligence to think of the plan, and enough power to implement the plan. True, this does not fully define the nature of the designer, but we start to observe some properties.
Finally, I’m pretty sure that even with your interest in engineering and physics, you wouldn’t reduce the entire universe and all of life to their physical properties alone. An understanding of physics or mechanics does not give us enough information to explain the origin of language, music, love, heroism, gratitude, wonder and moral courage – among many other characteristics that we observe.
For example, I’ve proposed here on CAF that the properties of omniscience and omnipotence that are attributed to the Creator by conventional religions are completely illogical. Moreover, a Creator of the universe does not need these properties. They are no more than poorly-considered points of upmanship, the equivalent of ‘my dad can kick the heck out of your dad,’ applied to religious rather than personal egos.
I can see your concern, but I wouldn’t think they’re completely illogical. When we have to explain the origin of things we have to explain where they came from. I think most atheists know that and see the problem. So, they assert these things:
– Things can happen without any cause (we can observe effects that had no cause).
– Things can emerge into existence from nothing.
– Some things (matter, natural laws) have existed forever - eternally - infinitely
These kinds of assertions are far less reasonable than the idea that there is a Creator that possesses the power to create other beings, since a Creator is an explanation (built on what we know about how intelligence creates things), whereas things coming from nothing is not at all.
You’ll find a more objective conclusion in the final chapter of Michael Behe’s excellent (and not-for-everyone) book, The Edge of Evolution. After making it absolutely clear to anyone capable of understanding the core of microbiological reality that Darwinism does not and cannot work, and that only the guiding force of intelligence can be responsible for biological evolution, Behe makes it clear that not even his own Catholic religion explains the nature of the Intelligent Designer.
Yes, I’ve read that excellent book. I only disagree about Behe’s views on the Designer. He was just framing the argument from design (in biology) from that comment. In other words, we cannot understand the nature of the designer from biology (or science) alone. I don’t think he extended that to what Catholic teaching offers though (I will look again).
Logically, we know the Designer must possess certain properties.
We can dispute that, but to offer a better idea, it has to be more logically coherent.
What is missing from all discussions in which science and religion bump against one another is indeed missing from this one, more by implicit contrivance than by “design.”
What I was getting at is that we make a distinction between philosophy and theology. The argument from design is about what we can know without need for divine revelation. Once we start talking about the Bible, then we move to theology.
From human reason alone, we can learn that a Designer has to exist. Plus (and you disagree) we learn something about the nature of the Designer. That is, not everything about the Designer’s nature, but some key things.
After that, we move to theology. Did the Designer(s) communicate themselves to humanity? Is it reasonable to consider that a real possibility? Once we start talking about revelation, we’re no longer in the realm of pure philosophy (or physics).
If any theology is ever to reconcile with hard science, it will not be any of the theologies invented by men who were ignorant of science. On the other hand, the “science” with which a hypothetical logical theology connects will not be the atheist-controlled physics or biology of today.
That is a very interesting and potentially valuable insight.
A trivial calculation of the probability that a single small human gene could have assembled by random chance produces the absurd result of one chance in 10[sup]-542[/sup], a number so small that any competent scientist (e.g: non-Darwinists) will regard it as ridiculous.
True.
On the other hand, the evidence makes it pretty clear that if the universe was created by some kind of intelligent entity, that entity did not have the power to pull off the job in an instant, a day, six days, or six million years. (Or, if the Entity had such power, He did not use it.)
I’m not sure that the evidence shows this. First of all, we’d have to assume that “the job” is … the state of the earth today in 2012? This may say nothing at all about how much power the Designer has or used, but rather what was the purpose (plan, design) for the development of the universe.
I think you’re saying that the results were accidental – unplanned (mostly). Personally, I don’t see that as a necessary conclusion.
The fossil record tells us something else, if we care to read it. It tells us that lots of creators were involved in the engineering of life.
I’d like to learn more about your views on this. As I see it, the evidence shows the work of a single designer: Convergent features (stereoscopic vision in unrelated species, a universal code (DNA), a single set of laws used consistently and regularly (accesible to mathematics, logic), Fibonacci sequences in diverse plants and animals, finely-tuned constants making life possible on earth – all of those indicate unity rather than diversity of design.
continued in next post …
