Theory vs Law (vs Hypothesis)?

[Leela]

Right. Agree. Moreover, every human observation is but finite. Hence, even if one theory is “elevated” to a Law status, it is still a guess by philosophical standards. We will never know if such laws are valid in all parts of this universe and at all times. Finally, all Laws are based on the idea that the Universe has a certain level of order – an assumption that is based on nothing, unless we have Faith.

Creating scientific theories is part of humanity’s tool-making. We create such things to cope with our environment and use them for whatever purposes they are useful for. No faith is required to use a hammer and no faith is required to use E=mc^2. Whenever a tool ceases to be useful or a better tool becomes available, we use another tool instead. A hammer doesn’t become any more or less useful by contemplating whether or not hammers “are valid in all parts of the universe and at all times” or whether they correspond with “the way things really are.” So it is with scientific theories.

 

[redneck22]

I agree, Charlemagne. Abiogenesis is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

Abiogensis is better thought of as a field of study. It is the study of how life originally came about.

It is the study of how life may have “naturally” come about, without intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut. All the experiments and chemical evidence points to it not being possible to “naturally” happen, but real science should not interfere with the hard core faith of those who subscribe to naturalism.

The bottom of the linked article in the original post says:-

“Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called “theories” based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.” They left out naturalism.

 

[Leela]

Leela

*Undesigned doesn’t mean the same thing as by accident. *

An accident means something happens that is not intended. That is to say, it was not designed to happen. What alternatives are there to things that are intended and those that are not intended?

I think you will find that an atheist has to say that life was not intended. Therefore it was an accident. What else could it be?

“Accident” sounds like the wrong word to use since it has the connotation that no explanation is possible. Scientists always act under the assumption that explanation is possible though at the same time believing that there may be aspects of nature that we may never be able to satisfactorily explain.

 

[mstone]

It is the study of how life may have “naturally” come about, without intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut. All the experiments and chemical evidence points to it not being possible to “naturally” happen, but real science should not interfere with the hard core faith of those who subscribe to naturalism.

The bottom of the linked article in the original post says:-

“Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called “theories” based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.” They left out naturalism.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that naturalism is the idea that everything can be explained by natural laws and causes. It assumes that God and other supernatural phenomena are nonexistent. Naturalism is not a theory based on religion, it’s a philosophical position that contradicts some of the fundamental tenets of religion.

 

[Leela]

It is the study of how life may have “naturally” come about, without intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut. All the experiments and chemical evidence points to it not being possible to “naturally” happen, but real science should not interfere with the hard core faith of those who subscribe to naturalism.

The bottom of the linked article in the original post says:-

“Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called “theories” based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.” They left out naturalism.

It only seems important to add something about naturalism if you think that there is something acting on nature that is not itself a part of nature. For a scientist, everything is natural. Anything that acts on nature is considered to be a part of nature. In other words, if God exists and acts on nature, then to whatever extent God acts on nature God is natural.

To say that something is unnatural amounts to saying, “I don’t know.” Claiming that “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker” made the things that we don’t understand is no better than saying “I don’t know how these things were made.” And if we say that God made them we still want to know how they were made. So God is just irrelevant to science. You can think of science as trying to understand how a personal god works or you can think of it as trying to understand how an impersonal universe works. It makes no difference to the data or the hypotheses that are useful in explaining the data.

 

[mstone]

Right. Agree. Moreover, every human observation is but finite. Hence, even if one theory is “elevated” to a Law status, it is still a guess by philosophical standards. We will never know if such laws are valid in all parts of this universe and at all times. Finally, all Laws are based on the idea that the Universe has a certain level of order – an assumption that is based on nothing, unless we have Faith.

This is not entirely true. A scientific law is merely an observation. It can often be expressed in the form of an equation, and is simply a rule that we have observed the universe acting in accordance with. In addition to this, a scientific law is normally restricted to specific conditions. For example, Ohm’s law only holds under constant currents. Generalization can lead to situations in which the law does not apply, so we restrict a law to the set of conditions where it holds true in order for it to be useful to us.

A scientific theory is an attempt to explain data or observations. It begins with some propositions and a set of axioms, and uses deduction to reach a conclusion. This conclusion is held as true until one of the propositions, axioms, or logical steps used to reach the conclusion is proved false.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*“Accident” sounds like the wrong word to use since it has the connotation that no explanation is possible. *

What other word can be used, since clearly science in your view does not allow for intelligent design?

*Scientists always act under the assumption that explanation is possible though at the same time believing that there may be aspects of nature that **we may never be able to satisfactorily explain. ***

That’s where science leaves off and the philosophy of science begins, as in the following:

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein in Max Jammer’s* Einstein and Religion.*

 

[mstone]

*“Accident” sounds like the wrong word to use since it has the connotation that no explanation is possible. *

What other word can be used, since clearly science in your view does not allow for intelligent design?

*Scientists always act under the assumption that explanation is possible though at the same time believing that there may be aspects of nature that **we may never be able to satisfactorily explain. ***

That’s where science leaves off and the philosophy of science begins, as in the following:

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein in Max Jammer’s* Einstein and Religion.*

I would argue that the term “accident,” although less than ideal, is capable of describing the origin of life. The problem with using the term “accident” is that people tend to run away with it, exaggerating wildly and asking how everything we see around us could have occurred because of one chance event. The problem with this is that we are not the end result of one big accident. We are the result of an accumulation of chance events. Yes, the probability for some of these events may have been incredibly small, but we are also dealing with an incredibly large timeframe and an incredibly large set of conditions for which these events to occur. Stating that an event is unlikely is not a valid argument to support the belief that the event did not happen; we can see examples of this in the daily lottery winners.

Leela:
I don’t like your description of science’s attitude towards explanation. I think a better description would be that science understands there are some phenomena that are currently unexplained, and the very definition of science is the effort to explain these phenomena. Science does not accept that anything is unexplainable, science is the constant asking of the question “Why?” and the attempt to explain anything that is currently not fully understood.

Charlemagne:
Einstein would most likely be considered an atheist by modern standards in that he didn’t really subscribe to the notion of any one deity. However, he chose to admire the mystery that the universe presents to us, and retain a sense of wonder at the physical forces that we have yet to understand. His ideas aren’t really spiritual, they are more of an accurate assessment of the significance of humanity as compared to the greater universe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mstone

Stating that an event is unlikely is not a valid argument to support the belief that the event did not happen; we can see examples of this in the daily lottery winners.

No, the lottery is set up so that someone must win. The odds of the first living cell coming together for metabolism and reproduction (irreducible complexity) all at once are infinitely less probable than winning the lottery, even with a vastly protracted time frame.

There is simply no way that such a phenomenon could be repeated in the laboratory, and therefore accidental abiogenesis is not the least bit scientific, though it would have to be the preferred model for atheists.

*Einstein would most likely be considered an atheist by modern standards in that he didn’t really subscribe to the notion of any one deity. *

I prefer to take him at his own word:

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

These are Einstein’s words, not yours or mine.

 

[mstone]

mstone

Stating that an event is unlikely is not a valid argument to support the belief that the event did not happen; we can see examples of this in the daily lottery winners.

No, the lottery is set up so that someone must win. The odds of the first living cell coming together for metabolism and reproduction (irreducible complexity) all at once are infinitely less probable than winning the lottery, even with a vastly protracted time frame.

There is simply no way that such a phenomenon could be repeated in the laboratory, and therefore accidental abiogenesis is not the least bit scientific, though it would have to be the preferred model for atheists.

*Einstein would most likely be considered an atheist by modern standards in that he didn’t really subscribe to the notion of any one deity. *

I prefer to take him at his own word:

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

These are Einstein’s words, not yours or mine.

True, I picked a less than ideal analogy. However, the sweeping statement that the chances of something happening are “infinitely” less probable does not exclude this event from happening. The first fallacy is by stating that the event is “infinitely less probable.” We do not know the exact probability of how life began, or even the exact nature of the event itself, making it impossible to calculate said probability. The second fallacy is the assumption that just because probability is low, an event will not or did not occur. As long as there is a possible set of conditions for life to form independently of outside influence (and it has neither been proven or disproven that such conditions exist. See the Riemann Hypothesis for an example of why proof by many examples is not a valid proof.), you cannot merely say that those conditions did not occur because they were improbable.

Ehhh, you can find quotes by Einstein that suggest he was an atheist, you can find some that suggest he was religious, you can find some that suggest he was neither. I’d put some effort into finding some, but I pulled an all-nighter and I have too much respect for the man to start arguing over what I think about his quotes… He was an extraordinary man and I don’t think we’ll ever really know what he thought about the matter. Anyways, I certainly don’t consider myself a fanatical atheist, I was raised in a strict Catholic household and therefore have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church and its members, I just no longer agree with several their views and enjoy partaking in lively philosophical discussions.

 

[aileron]

I’ve been reading through here and would like to opine.

First, the hypothesis > theory > law somehow made it into K-12 textbooks, but it was never how science worked. Most scientists consider the term law obsolete and in many ways unhelpful. The main reason is that law implies something decreed or final, but all pronouncements of science should be considered tenuous.

Second on the issue of falsifiability, this is a rather tricky issue. Popper, a philosopher, got rolled and left bruised on the ground by scientists for this one. Eventually he realized that he was wrong and the scientists right. There are hypotheses and theories that are legitimately within the domain of science that cannot be falsified. An example is the super-heavy island. Theory predicts that certain high atomic number elements should be able to be synthesized. How much trying and failing falsifies this prediction? In fact, there is no way to falsify this prediction. Each failure can simply be the result of an invalid method used in the attempt. This is just one of thousands of examples of scientific claims that are not falsifiable. However, intuitively it is scientific where other non-falsifiable claims are not, such as I have a completely undetectable Martian living in my head.

 

[mstone]

I’ve been reading through here and would like to opine.

First, the hypothesis > theory > law somehow made it into K-12 textbooks, but it was never how science worked. Most scientists consider the term law obsolete and in many ways unhelpful. The main reason is that law implies something decreed or final, but all pronouncements of science should be considered tenuous.

Second on the issue of falsifiability, this is a rather tricky issue. Popper, a philosopher, got rolled and left bruised on the ground by scientists for this one. Eventually he realized that he was wrong and the scientists right. There are hypotheses and theories that are legitimately within the domain of science that cannot be falsified. An example is the super-heavy island. Theory predicts that certain high atomic number elements should be able to synthesize. How much trying and failing falsifies this prediction? None. There is no way to falsify this prediction. This is just one of thousands of examples of scientific claims that are not falsifiable. However, intuitively it is scientific where other non-falsifiable claims are not, such as I have a completely undetectable Martian living in my head.

I don’t believe most scientists consider the word “law” obsolete. I doubt that Newton’s laws of motions will ever be considered obsolete. (Well, technically they already are, but a) we still don’t have a complete understanding of quantum mechanics, b) Newton’s laws yield the same results as the predictions of quantum mechanics at a macroscopic scale, and c) high schoolers learning physics who may not have a solid background in calculus need to start somewhere.) Again, a law is merely an observation that can usually easily be expressed as an equation, while a theory is an attempt to explain these laws.

I believe that you’re working from an incorrect definition of falsifiable. You’re assuming that it implies for every theory, there definitely exists a case for which that theory is not true. The term falsifiable refers more to the ability of a theory to be tested; namely, that it is possible to run tests on the theory that either prove or disprove the theory, and that it is possible that a case exists which would disprove the theory.

EDIT: or prove the theory, in the case of the super heavy island theory.
EDIT 2: You probably shouldn’t use the word “intuitively” when trying to define a scientific term.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mstone

• However, the sweeping statement that the chances of something happening are “infinitely” less probable does not exclude this event from happening.*

That’s true. But it increases the likelihood that the event happened by intelligent design rather than by accident. Everything in our human experience points to the likelihood that anything highly complex is intelligent designed. Why should that not be true of the first micro-organism as well, which is highly complex compared to any random assortment of atoms and molecules?

See the Riemann Hypothesis for an example of why proof by many examples is not a valid proof.), you cannot merely say that those conditions did not occur because they were improbable.

But the increasing likelihood of their improbability by chance argues for an alternative explanation that is a good deal more probable based on our inductive experience of reality: intelligent design.

aileron’s comments on Popper apply here as well.

Why is it that progress on duplicating the “origin of life” scenarios must be doomed? Recreating such a scenario would be impossible by our gross ignorance of the exact conditions prevailing at the time of life’s first appearance; but also the attempt to recreate such conditions would by definition be a form of intelligent design.

God has blocked science from ever proving that there could be no such thing as intelligent design; yet God has provided in us all an instinct to believe in a designing intelligence far more infinite than our own.

If He has not done this, then why is it that the mathematical laws that govern the universe are knowable, even though we did not create them? As Leela asked, where did the laws come from? Did we just make them up? But how could we make them up if the universe did not first conform itself to them?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

One of the things that truly amazed Einstein was the fact that the laws of the universe were knowable. Why would the universe, generally thought of as unconscious, set out sooner or later to produce a creature capable of knowing its own laws? Why are the laws of the universe conformable to the laws of right reasoning? Did the laws and our consciousness of them simply erupt out of nowhere for no purpose?

Wouldn’t that be the atheist position? That the universe and everything in it is pointless … accidental … driven toward no teleological end? Einstein resented the attempts of atheists to put him in their camp.

So did Darwin.

 

[mstone]

mstone

• However, the sweeping statement that the chances of something happening are “infinitely” less probable does not exclude this event from happening.*

That’s true. But it increases the likelihood that the event happened by intelligent design rather than by accident. Everything in our human experience points to the likelihood that anything highly complex is intelligent designed. Why should that not be true of the first micro-organism as well, which is highly complex compared to any random assortment of atoms and molecules?

See the Riemann Hypothesis for an example of why proof by many examples is not a valid proof.), you cannot merely say that those conditions did not occur because they were improbable.

But the increasing likelihood of their improbability by chance argues for an alternative explanation that is a good deal more probable based on our inductive experience of reality: intelligent design.

aileron’s comments on Popper apply here as well.

Why is it that progress on duplicating the “origin of life” scenarios must be doomed? Recreating such a scenario would be impossible by our gross ignorance of the exact conditions prevailing at the time of life’s first appearance; but also the attempt to recreate such conditions would by definition be a form of intelligent design.

God has blocked science from ever proving that there could be no such thing as intelligent design; yet God has provided in us all an instinct to believe in a designing intelligence far more infinite than our own.

If He has not done this, then why is it that the mathematical laws that govern the universe are knowable, even though we did not create them? As Leela asked, where did the laws come from? Did we just make them up? But how could we make them up if the universe did not first conform itself to them?

And so we come to the watchmaker argument. Here I am expected to reply, “Yet does not the presence of a complex being itself deserve an explanation and a creator? We should then stop this infinite recursion at its simplest point, and say that life was created by chance, rather than by seeking a higher and higher power.” To this you will respond, “Your argument is flawed, for God is the Creator, he always was and always will be, and requires no explanation.” Neither of us shall convince the either of anything, so in the interests of not beating a dead horse, I shall move on to your next arguments.

You say that the probability of life originating by intelligent design is much higher than that of it occurring by chance, and I agree that this statement is consistent with your worldview. However, this statement presupposes the existence of an external deity that is able to create life, and we are thus working from two different sets of propositions. In my worldview, no such deity exists. By Occam’s razor, chance is the only option left, be it ever so improbable. My argument is valid in my worldview, and yours is valid in your own, and again we shall not convince ourselves of anything.

I do not believe progress on duplicating the origin of life is doomed. Recreating such a scenario would not be impossible, merely very difficult, and most likely destined to a long series of more intelligent and sophisticated versions of trial and error tests, unless we encounter some new scientific breakthrough or theory that allows us to better understand the conditions around the time life began. Such an attempt, if it succeeded, would indeed be an example of intelligent design. However, there is no evidence to suggest that such an experiment occurred at the beginning of life on this planet, and an ability to create life by design now does not mean that such an ability was necessary in order to create life in the beginning. Let me give you an example. We are currently using recombinant DNA techniques to create new mutations and speed up the evolutionary process. However, before this technology came along, species had been mutating on their own and creating new traits without design, and there was no need for a designer. (I’m assuming here that you subscribe to the school of intelligent design in which the theory of evolution is accepted. If not, please correct me and I will attempt to find a better analogy.)

As I have said twice before, those which we call mathematical and scientific laws are not made up by us, nor are they statutory laws which a great justice of the peace forces the universe to obey. We have simply made observations about how the universe acts, tested these observations, found them to hold true, and converted them into mathematical equations in order to predict how the universe may act. They are merely a description of the interactions we see in the universe.

 

[mstone]

One of the things that truly amazed Einstein was the fact that the laws of the universe were knowable. Why would the universe, generally thought of as unconscious, set out sooner or later to produce a creature capable of knowing its own laws? Why are the laws of the universe conformable to the laws of right reasoning? Did the laws and our consciousness of them simply erupt out of nowhere for no purpose?

Wouldn’t that be the atheist position? That the universe and everything in it is pointless … accidental … driven toward no teleological end? Einstein resented the attempts of atheists to put him in their camp.

So did Darwin.

You utter fallacies and paradoxes in your questions. If the universe is unconscious, which I assert that it is, then it did not set out to produce sentience. Sentience occurred as a product of evolution. A tornado is not conscious, it does not set out to produce destruction, yet destruction is what it leaves in its wake.

Again, you mistake the term “law” to refer to a statutory law, something that was laid down by a great deity and is being enforced. A law is our best observation about how the world around us interacts with itself. For centuries, the defining laws of mechanical physics were those of Newton. Now, those laws will be replaced by the laws of quantum mechanics. The laws of the universe are not conforming to anything, we are conforming our view of the universe to what we can observe to be true.

The laws and our awareness of them did not simply “erupt” into existence. The universe has been interacting with itself since the Big Bang. Our sentience has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, and it is only in the past few centuries that we have begun to dimly understand the world around us.

Please refrain from using the logical fallacy of “You agree with some things these people say, so you should agree with this other thing they said.” I am my own person, capable of making my own observations about the world.

Here we enter a discussion I have been a part of several times, especially with my parents. As an atheist, I do not see the universe as pointless simply because I think death is the absolute end. I prefer to view my situation as a limited time offer, and I want to strive my hardest to make the most of the time I have, and to leave a lasting impact on this planet. We choose what happens to us in life, we choose what we do with our lives, and in doing so, we define our own purpose. That is merely my own opinion, and you will find many atheists who disagree with me and many who agree with me. However, I digress, as we are now leaving the philosophical and heading towards the personal, so I shall finish.

 

[mstone]

Also, I apologize if any of this comes across as insensitive, disrespectful, or ill-natured. That is not at all my intent, I’m merely trying to remain objective.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mstone

Let me give you an example. We are currently using recombinant DNA techniques to create new mutations and speed up the evolutionary process. However, before this technology came along, species had been mutating on their own and creating new traits without design, and there was no need for a designer. (I’m assuming here that you subscribe to the school of intelligent design in which the theory of evolution is accepted. If not, please correct me and I will attempt to find a better analogy.)

But how do you know that the sentence in bold letters is so? You are presuming there was no design without proof. That is, of course, the atheistic presumption, which you are entitled to. You certainly can’t think I believe evolution was not guided toward the emergence of Man without God behind the curtain of Creation. I do subscribe to evolution, but I can’t believe that the emergence of Man was not intended by the creation of a universe that was meant to produce Man.
*
I do not believe progress on duplicating the origin of life is doomed. Recreating such a scenario would not be impossible, merely very difficult, and most likely destined to a long series of more intelligent and sophisticated versions of trial and error tests, unless we encounter some new scientific breakthrough or theory that allows us to better understand the conditions around the time life began.*

Are you thinking of science fiction, like time travel?

And so we come to the watchmaker argument. Here I am expected to reply, “Yet does not the presence of a complex being itself deserve an explanation and a creator? We should then stop this infinite recursion at its simplest point, and say that life was created by chance, rather than by seeking a higher and higher power.” To this you will respond, “Your argument is flawed, for God is the Creator, he always was and always will be, and requires no explanation.” Neither of us shall convince the either of anything,…

I agree. Though the enigma of God for a theist must be no less an enigma than the Big Bang is for the atheistic scientist. And as you well know, not all scientists are atheists. For the ones who are not, the enigma of the Big Bang is explained by God’s fiat.

 

[aileron]

I don’t believe most scientists consider the word “law” obsolete. I doubt that Newton’s laws of motions will ever be considered obsolete. (Well, technically they already are, but a) we still don’t have a complete understanding of quantum mechanics, b) Newton’s laws yield the same results as the predictions of quantum mechanics at a macroscopic scale, and c) high schoolers learning physics who may not have a solid background in calculus need to start somewhere.) Again, a law is merely an observation that can usually easily be expressed as an equation, while a theory is an attempt to explain these laws.

I believe that you’re working from an incorrect definition of falsifiable. You’re assuming that it implies for every theory, there definitely exists a case for which that theory is not true. The term falsifiable refers more to the ability of a theory to be tested; namely, that it is possible to run tests on the theory that either prove or disprove the theory, and that it is possible that a case exists which would disprove the theory.

EDIT: or prove the theory, in the case of the super heavy island theory.
EDIT 2: You probably shouldn’t use the word “intuitively” when trying to define a scientific term.

I entered this thread with some trepidation. Optimism trumps experience. Every time I enter one of these threads someone who is comprehensively ignorant in the field of philosophy of science already has all the answers.

Basically, your claims either don’t show an understanding of the issues or are wrong, including your sophomoric denigration of the word intuitively. I chose it for a reason that anyone versed in the history of philosophy of science would recognize at once.

Every once in a while I get into a good discussion with people who have an appreciation for the field or want to explore it. I don’t have time for people who have all the answers.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mstone

If the universe is unconscious, which I assert that it is, then it did not set out to produce sentience. Sentience occurred as a product of evolution. A tornado is not conscious, it does not set out to produce destruction, yet destruction is what it leaves in its wake.

Then sentience is an accident of evolution? How is it that an accident can produce the power of intelligent design in men? You mean an accident of evolution produced in man the ability to distinguish between intelligent design and the absence of intelligent design? An accident of nature produced a creature capable of intuiting or intelligently designing an equation like E=mc² ? An accident of nature produced in man the the ability to imagine a Creator who designed everything? An atheist must think these accidents of nature are misfiring all over the place.

Except when you can imagine there is no God!