SCIENCE and DESIGN – SYNOPSIS
Random Accident vs Intelligent Design
Precision– Life Balanced On A Razor’s Edge
Discovery Magazine: “The universe is UNLIKELY. VERY unlikely. Deeply, SHOCKINGLY unlikely.”
Martin Rees: “The universe’s structure becomes “UNLIKELY to an ABSURD degree”
Science shows the MIND BOGGLING CONVERGENCES of SCORES of extraordinary “coincidences” that make life possible on earth.
Does RANDOM mutation and the UNCHANGING“laws” of “nature” adequately EXPLAIN the origins of the cosmos, life and humanity ?
“DESIGN”and SCIENCE – COSMOLOGY
“Cosmology” is the study of the origins and nature of the universe.
There are more than thirty separate physical or cosmological parametersthat require precise calibration in order to produce a life sustaining universe.
Alister McGrath – “Is it a PURE COINCIDENCE that the laws of nature are such that lifeis possible?”McGrath describes “the absolutely INCREDIBLE FINE-TUNING of the Cosmos”.
The basic structure of the universe is BALANCED on a RAZOR’s EDGE for life to exist. – Robin Collins
HOW exactly did the universe begin ??? What is the “SOURCE” of the universe ???
UNDIRECTED “NATURAL” VS. DIRECTED “SUPERNATURAL” CAUSATION
What does the EVIDENCE of science show us about our origins ?
Natural science can be used to show that if the physical laws and constants were JUST a LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT from what they are then we would not be here to notice.
The question is WHY does this universe has the PHYSICAL LAWS it HAS?“
WE OBSERVE “DESIGN” and PURPOSE in the UNIVERSE. WHAT is the SOURCE? CAN “SCIENCE” EXPLAIN the ORIGIN and CAUSATION of the COSMOS?
TRUE “SCIENCE” if BASED on EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS that EXPLAIN. “SCIENTISM” is PSEUDO-SCIENCE that HIDES PHILOSOPHICAL “OPINIONS” that are a MODERN MYTHOLOGY
The “BOTTOM LINE” – “CREATION” is STILL an UNSOLVED MYSTERY
The ancients generally considered the universe a timeless, static entity an eternal, changing universe.
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in 1915 suggested the cosmos was in a continual state of either expansion or contraction.
In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble provided empirical evidence to show a universe expanding, light and galaxies moving away from earth.
This implies a “BEGINNING” to the known universe.
Cosmic microwave background radiation suggests cosmic expansion from a SUDDEN BEGINNING.
The BIG BANG was the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe’s early development.
KAALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
1 – whatever has a BEGINNING has a CAUSE
2 – universe BEGAN to exist.
3 – universe has a CAUSE to it’s existence
SCIENCE and “DESIGN” – PHYSICS
The COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT is the density of MATTER and EMPTY SPACE, the expansion speed of space in the universe.
If too quick material objects can not form stars, galaxies and/or planets.
The cosmological constant is part of Einstein’s equation for General Relativity.
The Cosmological Constant is quite small.
If large and positive, it would be a repulsive force that would PREVENT matter from CLUMPING together in the early universe, reverse the expansionof the universe and cause it to RE-COLLAPSE.
The FINE-TUNING has conservatively been estimated to be at least ONE PART in a HUNDRED MILLION BILLION BILLION BILLION BILLION BILLION”
Collins – “That would be a ten followed by fifty three zeroes – that’s INconceivably precise”
GRAVITY pulls all matter together. With no gravitational force pulling matter together, there would be no atomsand no chemistry.Gravity has an INCOMPREHENSIVELY NARROW RANGE for life to exist. Gravity – a very weakforce on the level of atoms– also attractslarge objects – planets, stars, and galaxies.
Gravity happens to be situated in the EXACT RIGHT FRACTION to make our universe capable of sustaining life.
While gravity attracts large objects – planets, stars, galaxies – gravity also needs to work on atoms. With no gravitational force pulling matter together, there would be no atomsor chemistry.
ELECTROMAGNETISM is the key attracting force between protons and electrons allows molecules to form.
Without electromagnetic force no bondingbetween chemicalsand no light.
STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE binds atoms together, “glues” protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom.
If changed the only element left in the universe would be hydrogen chemical life not possible.
Increase the mass of a neutron by about one part in seven hundred and NUCLEAR FUSION in stars would stop.
There would be no energy force for life”
CARBON and OXYGEN are produced in a certain RATIO INSIDE STARS.
If one tinkers with the resonance states of carbon, you won’t get the materials you need for building life.
The “ORIGINAL PHASE-SPACE VOLUME” requires fine-tuning to an accuracy of ONE part in TEN BILLION MULTIPLIED by itself 123 TIMES.
Martin Rees: ”For the universe to exist required HYDROGEN be CONVERTED to HELIUM in a precise but comparatively stately manner in a way that converts seven thousandths (0.0007) of its massto energy.
LOWER that value from 0.007 to 0.006 %, and NO transformation could take place; the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else.
RAISE it 0.008 % and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogenwould be exhausted.
The ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
Patrick Glynn: “All the SEEMINGLY ARBITRARY and unrelated constants in physics have ONE STRANGE THING in common – these are PRECISELY the values you need to have a universe capable of producing life”. Humans require26 essential elements; a bacterium 16.
SCIENCE and “DESIGN” – ASTRONOMY
We are told the fact that LIFE flourishes on Earth is NOT EXCEPTIONAL.
The earth is an AVERAGE ROCK spinning around an UNREMARKABLE star in a run of the mill galaxy.
IF life can emerge from nonlife so quickly and efficiently on a planet as undistinguished as ours, then why not throughout the universe’s hundreds of millions of galaxies?
Science shows the CONVERGENCE of scores of extraordinary “COINCIDENCES” that make life possible on earth.
Not only intelligent life, but even the simplest of animal life, is EXCEEDINGLY RARE in our galaxy and in the universe.
Earth’s location, size, composition, structure, atmosphere, temperature, internal dynamics essential to life and many INTRICATE SYSTEMS – e.g. carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, sulfur, calcium and sodium – that are essential to life testify to the degree to which earth is EXQUISITELY and PRECARIOUSLY BALANCED
SCIENCE and DESIGN– CONCLUSIONS
Does “scientific” evidence support “creation” by UNDIRECTED, SPONTANEOUS and CHANCE or ACCIDENTAL methods?
With the SLIGHTEST TWEEKING of the NUMBERS the universe as we know would not be here.
The more we understand our CAREFULLY CRAFTER HABITAT, the impression of DESIGN is OVERWHELMING.
The COINCIDENCES are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere CHANCE or to claim it needs no EXPLANATION.
The dials are set too PRECISELY to have been a RANDOM ACCIDENT.
Darwin made evolution a scientific concept by claiming to show… that major transformations could occur in very small steps by purely natural (i.e. “random”) means major transformations undirected, spontaneous and by chance darwinists claim evolution “has a BUILDING effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell and GRADUALLY CRAFT it’s descendants over billions of years to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds and humans”
Phillip Johnson – “How do we KNOW all this is possible?”
“Absent an explanation of HOW fundamental transformat-ions can occur, the bare statement that ‘humans evolved from fish’ is NOT IMPRESSIVE” …
What makes the fish story impressive and credible is to show HOW a fish changed into a human
Colin Patterson of the British Museum : “a fact of evolution is VACCUOUS unless it comes with a supporting theory”
“design”and science – physics
”random”, “accidental” precision beyond belief life balanced on a razor’s edge
Does “scientific” evidence support “creation” by undirected, spontaneous and chance methods ???
Is the “logic” of Darwinism supported by the evidence of “science” ???
Does “evidence” show the cosmos originated by undirected, spontaneous and chance methods ???
or does “science” provide evidence for the existence of supernatual “design” ? does “science” support the existence of “god” ?
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator” – Louis Pasteur
“From a knowledge of God’s work we whall know him” – Robert Boyle, father of modern chemistry
Darwin On Trial: an evolution-ary “DEAD END”?
the LIMITS of materialism & “science”
Darwin may have “MISLED science into a DEAD END”, the biologist shi v. liu observed
“Did you IMAGINE that SCIENCE was a DISINTERESTED PURSUIT of the TRUTH? well, you were wrong”
― david berlinski, the devil’s delusion: atheism and its scientific pretensions
David Berlinski explores the LIMITS of science and the PRETENSIONS of those who insist it can be – indeed MUST be – the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves:
“Scientists do NOTHING to ANSWER the QUESTIONS that RELIGION ASKS, and they FAIL to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated”
“the idea that the ‘world of matter’ is the ‘world that matters’ is simply not true”
David Berlinski turns the scientific community’s cherished SKEPTICISM back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:
• has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? not even close.
• has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? not even close.
• has quantum cosmology EXPLAINED the EMERGENCE of the universe or WHY it is here? not even close.
• have the sciences EXPLAINED why our universe seems to be FINE-TUNED to allow for the existence of life? not even close.
• are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is NOT religious thought? close enough
• has RATIONALISM in moral thought provided us with an UNDERSTANDING of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? not close enough.
• has secularismin the terrible twentieth century been a force for GOOD? not even close to being close.
• is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? close enough.
• does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?not even ballpark.
• is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? dead on.
“if moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is …physical theories, having said nothing about God, …right or wrong, good or bad”
to admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality”
David Berlinsky: “is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in INTELLECTUAL CONTEMPT?
Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science.
The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race.
Berlinski explores the LIMITS of science and the PRETENSION of those who insist it can be – indeed must be – the ULTIMATE touchstone for UNDERSTANDING our world and ourselves.
Scientists do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmosor the methods by which it might be investigated
David Berlinski: “the idea that the ‘world of MATTER’ is the ‘world that matters’ is simply not true”
this scientist vision, purely and simply MATERIALISIC, in which man is only a cog of a bigger mechanism: the society or the state, seek to “improve” the human race to the point of creating the “superman”
“the attack on traditional religious thought,” writes David Berlinski in the devil’s delusion,“marks the consolidation in our time of science as the SINGLE SYSTEM of belief in which rational men and women might place THEIR FAITH, and if not their FAITH, then certainly their DEVOTION”
Militant Atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness
“a DEFENSE [of religion] is NEEDED because none has been forthcoming. the discussion has been ceded to men who regard religious belief with frivolous contempt” …
“their books have in recent years poured from every press, and although differing widely in their style, they are IDENTICAL in their message: because scientific theories are TRUE, religious beliefs MUST be FALSE”
― David Berlinski, the devil’s delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement – one that now includes much of the scientific community
“what Hitler … Mao and the SS … gestapo … the NKVD … the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, nazi doctors, communist party theoreticians, intellectuals, brown shirts, black shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing
“and as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried over much that God was watching what they were doing either. That is the meaning of a secular society”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
“If moral statements are about something, then the universe is NOT QUITE as science suggests it is …
physical theories, having said nothing about God, … RIGHT or WRONG, GOOD or BAD”
“to admit this would force philosophers to confront the POSSIBILITY that the PHYSICAL SCIENCES offer a GROSSLY INADEQUATE VIEW of REALITY”
“and since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or ACCEPTING THEIR IRRELEVANCE”