Perhaps one of the best arguments based off empirical evidence, the more we learn about this planet and the universe, the more momentum this argument is actually getting. Having finished a year of doing biology (I have that as a minor) all I can really do is be struck in awe. From the complex process of how biolumenences work to the endocrine system; it really is incredible.  My faith in a God has definitely strengthened with more understanding in science and I am only a first year, I wonder what next year will be like.

Anyway to get to the argument the more complex something is, the higher the chance it has of been created by an intelligent being. The universe is extremely complicated (there is still so much to discover) and I believe this shows that an intelligent being was behind it all. This is an assumption that I can only back up with posterior and current a priori knowledge, perhaps it was all created through natural processes? However, I believe one should look at the evidence as a court does; witnesses are brought forward, both sides make their case and the judge or jury make a decision at that point in time. Sometimes we do not look at the evidence which is here today and we assume that in the future all our beliefs will be supported by empirical evidence. We need to look at the evidence today and currently the design argument does have some serious weight to it.

Does evolution shoot holes in this theory? I do not believe so. There are a lot of things we do not know about evolution, for example if a being did guide the process. I am not using the God of the gaps fallacy, but there are some big holes in a completely natural evolution; for example the Cambrian explosion. I am not saying God did cause the Cambrian explosion, I can only go by current evidence and my stand is neutral; perhaps it was God, perhaps it was natural process, either belief is based on faith and interpretation of empirical evidence. The Cambrian explosion is similar to the age old question; how did life start on this planet? We do not have enough evidence to give in an answer.  Since there are gaps in complete understanding of the mechanisms of evolution we cannot say that it refutes the design argument.

At the start of this year I was considering on dropping the whole ‘God thing’ and just live the rest of my days as a skeptic; biology has reinforced my strength in a creator God, perhaps He did not get down on His hands and knees and form the human race, but that does not mean God did not play a part and was the creator of everything.

 

Views: 55

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

More special pleading.

Answer this: Is there anything AT ALL that you, or anyone you know, has observed that does NOT begin as an effect of causality?

You fall into an age old fallacy: there can be more options. If evolution is unable to explain something, it does not mean a creator exists. Also, I feel you are selling science short. Of course, there are lots of things we do not understand.... yet, but in the last century the scientific method has proved itself to be the best method available to understand the world around us. Just because this is not going quickly enough for yourself, doesn't mean falling back on a deity-centered explanation is satsfactory. At least, I do not get much satisfaction out of that.

As for the Cambrian explosion, there is a wide variety of ecological explanations which are currently researched as we speak. I think that in the next few years, a number of these explanations will be debunked or reinforced with new data. I also think there is a reason why none of the scientist has written a thesis explaining Cambrian explosion through divine intervention.

Why is such creationist bullshit here?

I was reading another post here, and something similar came up. I think it's good to have someone with differing viewpoints on here. What's the point of being part of a forum where everyone pretty much agrees on everything? yeah, so it's not exactly anything new or profound, but I think we should at least be tolerant of people who are willing to come on here and state their beliefs, especially when it's obvious this kind of talk is not exactly...in line with the general consensus of this website. Yeah, I'll agree. It's pretty much bs. But it's a conversation with the other side. That doesn't happen a lot.

That being said, maybe you could express why exactly you feel this is bs? It might be a little more productive than simply calling it bs. Although, quite a few other people have beat you to it.

The atheists that believe in woo are pretty fun, because they often come here expecting to find other atheists who believe the same woo, and are very frustated when told why it's bullshit. I remember a guy half a year or so ago who was an atheist 9/11 truther. That discussion was fun to read.

With god as your lab partner you will go far.

Thats because god is testing you.  :-)

 

Just because the world is complex doesn't mean that is proof of a creator. I don't understand how

complexity = proof of gods existence.

 

“how did life start on this planet? We do not have enough evidence to give in an answer.  Since there are gaps in complete understanding of the mechanisms of evolution we cannot say that it refutes the design argument”

and

“The Cambrian explosion is similar to the age old question; how did life start on this planet? We do not have enough evidence to give in an answer.  Since there are gaps in complete understanding of the mechanisms of evolution we cannot say that it refutes the design argument”.

 

How life started on the planet has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. That is the theory of Abiogenesis. Whether a god, aliens or a puddle of hot mud created life on the planet make no difference to the process of Evolution.

 

Evolution can and does explain very complex cellular structures without the need for a god of the gaps to appear. Evolution has no long term objectives and therefore “Time” is not important to the process. It does not look to the future. It is only concerned with the present and with replicating.

 

Variations and mutations can happen randomly at any stage. It is not random however if these mutations get passed on. If they are beneficial to this complex cellular structure then by the process of Natural Selection they get passed on to the next generation. This is done only at the genome level.

 

If it was done by I.D. then the copying process would be flawless - is that fair to say? If it is a flawless process then Evolution never occurred – only copies of the original are replicated. The process however is not flawless – that is because mutations and variations do occur. I am not a biologist but it is as obvious as the nose on my face (anyone got any pictures?) that mutations do happen. This shows that I.D. is not at play. It is debunked.

 

I have to say that reading your post I do not believe you are a skeptic. It reads so much like the brochures I get from creationists groups (I have them delivered). I cannot accept that after a year studying biology that you would have this view. I hope that sometime in your second year studying biology that the Theory of Evolution will be covered.

No way there could be a God.. Sorry, who created God? Then when you find that creator, that would in fact mean that was the real god? This becomes a vicious cycle.. The ultimate creator had to be created..

This is like saying I created myself.

Sure I did to some extent however I would not be here had my parents not conceived me, my mom pushed me out. This is not evidence of anything more that reason to have more questions about the string of creators, and we can't even prove the first one. So please prove it then we will work on proving the rest ok??

‘You fall into an age old fallacy: there can be more options. If evolution is unable to explain something, it does not mean a creator exists. Also, I feel you are selling science short. Of course, there are lots of things we do not understand.... yet, but in the last century the scientific method has proved itself to be the best method available to understand the world around us. Just because this is not going quickly enough for yourself, doesn't mean falling back on a deity-centered explanation is satsfactory. At least, I do not get much satisfaction out of that.’

I am not falling back on a deity, all I am saying there is gaps in evolution, to fully understand all the processes, I could speculate and say it was all caused by natural factors. But we do not have enough evidence to say if a God or some alien was involved in evolution or abiogenesis.

‘As for the Cambrian explosion, there is a wide variety of ecological explanations which are currently researched as we speak. I think that in the next few years, a number of these explanations will be debunked or reinforced with new data. I also think there is a reason why none of the scientist has written a thesis explaining Cambrian explosion through divine intervention. You cannot be a biologist and think that intelligent design has any merits, simple as that.’

Perhaps they will be debunked, perhaps they wont.

 

I could speculate and say it was all caused by natural factors

That's called estimation of probabilities, not speculation. We know for a fact that natural factors exist, but we haven't been able to prove one act of supernatural. Because there are 0 supernatural factors proved and a positive number of natural factors, which have been proved, the likelihood of the supernatural is actually infinitely close to 0. It is possible, but we have no reason to believe that factors that are not natural exist, therefore it is only reasonable to assume that everything is natural.

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 4 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 6 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service