A Scientists Approach to Creation (Origins)

by dhw, Friday, January 18, 2013, 18:30 (4115 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

My thanks to Tony for provided us with the basic points of this thread. -I'm in no position to discuss the techniques of dating, or the physics, but I have no difficulty supporting many of the arguments listed against Darwinian evolution ... and in fact, they have formed the subject of many of our discussions. They include (in my own words): lack of fossils, random mutations and adaptations unlikely to account for innovation, problems with gradualism, no evidence for abiogenesis (though this is not an evolutionary topic as such).-One item on the list stands out for me: "The model that incorporates the most data and has the smallest number of unresolved issues is the most likely to be true." My only reservation here concerns "the smallest number of unresolved issues", because in the conflict between evolutionist and creationist models, the issues are not confined to the manner in which living creatures evolved. First, though, it's important to point out that few people can cover all the fields concerned with this topic, and certainly all of us on this forum are dependent for our information on the work of so-called experts. If there is a general consensus, we tend to accept their findings. (I myself can't prove that the Earth goes round the sun. I simply accept it as a fact.) This makes us vulnerable, and if there is controversy, I think one has to keep an open mind. The same scepticism applies of course to other sources of information, such as ancient texts that purport to contain eternal, though unprovable truths. Why should we trust them?-The very simplified picture that I have of life's history is as follows: origin unknown; first forms of life single-celled followed by multicellularity followed by variations through new combinations; increased complexity, new organs, new species, many extinctions, many survivals, arrival of man.-The model of evolution that seems to me to incorporate the most data with the smallest number of unresolved issues is as follows:
Origin unknown; first forms of life must have contained the mechanism for increasing complexity through combinations/variations; changing environments led to new combinations, sometimes adapting, sometimes innovating; each new variation led to new organs, new species; changing environments resulted in extinctions as well as innovations; natural selection determined what survived; arrival of man.-In my view, there is no conflict here between evolution and creation (in the sense of design). The above process removes the fossil problem and dispenses with gradualism (new variations would be sudden and would have to function if they were to survive), does away with random mutations, generates innovations.-Only one unresolved issue: origin of the first forms of life with mechanism for increasing complexity through new variations.
Two possible resolutions: 1) design by an unknown designer; 2) chance assembly.
(For the sake of simplicity, I will leave out the various panpsychic ideas I have been playing with.)-The complexity of the mechanism may also be applied to the complexity of the combination of factors within the universe that are necessary for life. Origin: as above.-This brings us to the "smallest number of unresolved issues". However unlikely it may seem to some of us, numerically chance wins hands down. One huge stroke of luck, and there are no further ramifications. But the moment you bring in a designer, you are clobbered with a vast number of unresolved issues: 1) Where did the designer come from? 2) What reason(s) did it have for creating life? 3) What is its nature? 4) What does it want from us? 5) What are its future plans for us? And arising from all these unresolved issues are millennia of disagreements, libraries of books and interpretations of books, vast institutions, conflicts on a massive scale...-Chance ends the debate. The universe is then a vast impersonal combination of mindless matter and energy, there is no purpose, and we are on our own.-You do not need to repeat the case against chance. In my view it is unanswerable. I (and of course many others) have put the case against any kind of self-aware god. In my view it is unanswerable. One can only take sides through an act of faith ... and Tony, you have summed this up admirably under "How God works": "I find no reason to doubt the things that we can not yet prove. That is the textbook definition of faith." You and Richard Dawkins both have it in abundance.-******-I was afraid that my interrogation of you on the subject of resurrection, the 1000 year reign of Christ, the eternal death of agnostics etc. might break the bounds even of your patience, and I'm sorry to have caused you so much frustration. It would be best to leave it at that, except to thank you and Casey, and to reciprocate all the good wishes.