HAHAHAHA... MENTAL DIVERGENCE, MY MUSE!
A new look at things
Published on May 30, 2004 By TARSIER In Religion
I thought I would not post again, but this is something special. I posted a "How can God not Exist" article hoping to change a few peoples perspectives, but it didnt do any good. Many people on this site probably thought, "What a loser trying to prove God exists. He just does." I cannot prove to someone anything, but I feel that this is very interesting.

An Intelligent Creator
The idea of an intelligent creator of the universe has always sparked debates, but as science and learning increases, the debate becomes more complex. Philosophers and scientists alike are focusing their energies to uphold or dispel the notion of God using reason and study. Darwin's work has inspired many scientists to seek every part of the known universe trying to understand the creation of the world, and then to use the facts discovered to defeat previous arguments. Although there are a lot of theories against it, there must be an intelligent creator because of some biological, physics, chemistry facts and reason.

An argument often brought up against the thought of intelligent creation is the idea that organisms can evolve through processes of natural selection. This process was theorized by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Darwin used examples like birds in the Galapagos island that changed their beak size and shape to eat different foods in their generation, and if the food source changed in the next generation, so would the beaks. He also theorized that man descended from ape.
In addition to the scientific rebuttal of anti-creationism that is above, reasoning arguments can also help prove the idea of an intelligent creator. It is common knowledge that a big bang must have happened in order to create the universe in which we live in. The big bang was a collection of particles that exploded and hurled matter everywhere. According to a Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein from U of M, the universe was held at an
Franck 2
extremely thin line of equilibrium. They said: “Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger.” Adding to this, the first particles in the Big Bang came from literally nothing. Some may say that this is all a coincidence, yet coincidence piled on coincidence should produce more believers.
Furthermore, many everyday things are extreme examples of a very unique plan for each and every piece of the universe. Robert J. Sawyer, a leading Science Fiction writer, uses actual scientific information in his novels to prove very strong points, like the existence of God in Calculating God. He believes science should be one of the best ways people find God. Some of his scientific examples that support an intelligent creator are very intricate to our lives. Carbon for example, is a heavy element. Carbon was not an original element at the start of the universe, but Hydrogen and Helium were at the start, with hydrogen being three times more abundant than helium. Carbon is formed in the center of long dead stars that fused hydrogen to helium and so on through the table of elements. To get carbon, you must have six protons and six neutrons, so two helium atoms must attach to a third. If the resonance, or in simple terms the natural frequency, of carbon were 4% percent different, then the helium atoms could not become carbon, and we would not exist. The presence of carbon apart from long dead stars is the result of supernovas, where matter is discharged in all directions, including carbon, and thus our bodies
Franck 3
are formed by stars. Yet supernovas have a devastating effect on anything nearby. A very precise equilibrium was either created or is a coincidence which enough supernovas go off that other types of elements are spread throughout the universe, such as carbon, and few enough that species like ourselves are non-existent. Another fine example is water. Water is so necessary to life, and it is very unusual. When water is freezing, instead of becoming more dense like every other compound, it becomes less dense. The less density allows ice to float. It may not seem very incredible because of the fact that we see ice float almost everyday, but it is beneficial because if ice did not float, then ice would form on the bottom of water bodies, which would kill off all growth. The water under the ice helps the ice during the spring to melt. Otherwise bodies of water would stay frozen forever.
Imagine a puzzle. This puzzle has uncountable pieces, but one by one pieces get put together by scientists. Once in a while people attach a lot of pieces in quick succession, yet during other times those same people wonder if there really is an end to the puzzle. As more and more pieces get put together, parts of the image become visible, but it these parts do not fit together at all. The unattached pieces do not fit because they are so unlikely matches. Then a scientist makes a new piece, a perfect piece called God. This piece is not against science, but rather, can be found in science and connects sciences together. The existence of God unifies all things and our world without a designer is unthinkable and illogical.

Works Consulted

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry. Associate Professor Michael J. Behe.
11-8-01. Discovery Institutes's Center for Renewal of Science & Culture. 18 May 2004

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London, John Murray, 1862.Larocca, Chris and Blair Rothstein. The Big Bang: It surewas BIG! 1998. University of Michigan.

LaRocco, Chris and Blair Rothstein. The Big Bang: It sure was BIG! 1998. University of Michigan.26 May 2004.

Milner, Richard et al. Intelligent Design? A Special Report from Natural History Magazine. April 2002.American Institute of Biological Sciences. 18 May 2004.

Sawyer, Robert J. Calculating God. New York, Tor Publishing, 2000.

Professor Fred L. Wilson. Science and Human Values. 5 May 1999. Rochester Institute of Technology. 17 May 2004

If you would like to debate, please post a reply.

*I have a debate for my concession paragraph ready, so dont think I gave up a point to the other side just yet.

Comments
on May 30, 2004
This is an excellent piece of writing, well researched and argued.
I am not about to argue with you as to whether God exists or not. Personally, and for many of the reasons you quote here, I cannot bring myself to believe that some force of order does not exist in this world. Whether you call it God or any other name matters little to me. What I do not believe in is the God of the Christian Bible. For me this God is a God of inconsistencies which, when you add it all up.....does not add up. We have a place in the 'force of order' as I called it but to find our place in it, and everyones is different, is a lifes work. It is far too convenient to be presented with God on a plate as the Bible does. We do not know everything about man, the universe or God and nor will we ever. The further we go the more I believe that neither 'science' (and here I mean a science that denies the existence of God) nor 'religion' (that denies the role of science) have the answer. It is as if they they are both looking at differnet sides of the same coin.
on May 30, 2004
I have gone back to read some of your other articles and could identify with aspects of them myself.
Normally I do not recommend books, particularly to people I do not know but you may find Paulo Coelho's 'The Pilgrimage' interesting reading.
on May 31, 2004
Interestingly, I am a Christian, or, even more interesting, a Catholic. Now you may say that the Bible hands you everything on a platter, but many people believe very differently, including myself, in that the Bible and the belief in Jesus holds many more mysteries. I feel that the saying old saying of You need to learn you know nothing in order to learn, which can be interpreted into, The more you learn, the more you learn that you know nothing. I believe in a Intelligent creator, which leads me to believe in Jesus Christ, which leads me to believe that there are great mysteries and purposes that God has made, which make everything even more complex. If we just believed that God existed, then what else could we conclude? With Jesus, nothing is handed to us on a platter (or really any other religion), but most be discovered in everything we do. There must be a God, and that God must have a purpose, and Jesus had a very purposeful mission, which fits in perfectly. You also said that science denies the existence of God. God created Science, and Science can be said to create God, in a meaning like through Science we can create a God in our own image, instead of being a remote and ever powerful being, is in every tree, every piece of soil, every animal, in everything.

Also, I do not know if you considered them such, but they are not "my" articles lol. I did not write them.

Thank you for ur comment.
on Jun 01, 2004
TARSIER,
I didn't mean that all science denies the existence of god. I watched a show some months back which was basically saying that many scientists that are studying the universe are quickly coming to the realisation that there are too many unanswered questions about the beginnings of the universe and, at the moment, one of the best explainations for them is the idea of a creator. As for the existence of god...as I said, for me there are too many inconsistencies in the Bible for me to accept it on faith.
I just read an interesting passage in the book I mentioned above that one of the goals of the Knights Templar was to unite all religions that believed in a creator (at the time that meant Christianity, Judaism and Islam) into one religion. I will explore this further.
I think it is a shame that well researched and well written articles like this one get so few comments where as I can post one worrying about spam on JU and get 15 replies....I believe that peoples attention spans are shrinking.

on Jun 01, 2004
Ya, i thought I was getting a lot more responses. You should have seen the last one. I had 20 in like 2 days.
on Jun 01, 2004
TARSIER,

You made some very valid points and, apparently, researched your argument very well. However, there are a few key points that I'd like to point out that you neglected:

1. "Philosophers and scientists alike are focusing their energies to uphold or dispel the notion of God using reason and study."

Isn't that what any intelligent, truth-seeking individual should do? Reason and study is the essence of science. Learning and advancing forward, whether it be through affirmation or disproval of a theory, is the purpose of scientific endeavor. When you say that scientists, presumably evolutionary biologists, Darwinists or cosmologists, try with all their might to disprove the existence of any Superbeing, you could not be further from the truth. A good comparison is extraterrestrial life. Many, many scientists want nothing more than to find the proof of extraterrestrial intelligence. I'm not talking about lunatic sci-fi obsessed Astronomers, I'm talking famous, NASA funded professionals. Perhaps you've heard of Dr. Carl Sagan? One of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century, Dr. Sagan deeply valued the belief in extraterrestrial life, but if one asked him whether or not "aliens" had "visited" Earth, he'd quickly say "No." Why? Because there is no evidence. In fact, all reasonable calculation and consideration of the nearest star system suggests that it is, in fact, very unlikely that there even are any life forms anywhere near Earth locally. He, like many, wanted it to be true, but until observable evidence is produced it is blind and irresponsible to believe so.

The same is true for a scientist's relationship with "God". Scientists "believe" (accept) what has been proven and what can be reproduced through experimentation. The reason that most do not believe in Creation or God is , simply, because there is no evidence. If there was observable, reliable evidence that clearly suggested the existence of a Superbeing, then that would be the accepted status-quo among scientists, as crazy and ironic as that concept may sound. Coincidentally, this does not fall in line with what the churches believe. The disagreement that God does or does not exist between the science community and the religious community can be described as a contrast between value (and this is a real key point that must be considered when saying that science "does not believe in God"): Religion values tradition and faith, whereas science values the truth through research, logic and evidence. The Christian church will have you believe that Jesus Christ (as they call him, it wasn't even his 'real' name,) was the son of God. Yet, to date, there is not a shred of proven, credible evidence that suggests that Christ even existed at all. That same Church took over 400 years to admit that Gallileo was wrongfully persecuted in the face of new, scientific logic and research and that the Earth, does in fact, orbit the Sun. Why is this so? Beacuse it is tradition. It is comfortable and convenient to assume that all that has been written in The Bible is true and that everything that has been taught during their history is fact. They value their beliefs so highly that in the face of scientific rebuttal, hersey and fallacy are quickly assumed and science is labelled a destroyer of truth, when, in fact, it is quite the opposite. I cannot stress enough that science presues the truth, and that if that truth is the existence of God, and it can be proven, the science community will support it just as you think they now support Darwin's Evolution (which, as it turns out, is not so true...)

2. "Yet supernovas have a devastating effect on anything nearby. A very precise equilibrium was either created or is a coincidence which enough supernovas go off that other types of elements are spread throughout the universe, such as carbon, and few enough that species like ourselves are non-existent."

It is not any single event that is responsible for evolution of life on Earth. Here's why, and it's a my brief explanation of stellar evolution: Supernova explosions do create every element in the universe, but the truth is that supernova explosions are not delicate coincience or inexplicable phenomena, but can be explained by high school physics and the laws of gravitation. Supernova explosions are the end of stars. When stars run out of hydrogen to power themselves, they then collapse. As they collapse, pressure increases proportional to increasing density, and as pressure increases temperature increases- increases so much, in fact, that the helium atoms that were before the 'garbage' of hydrogen fusion are moving at such high speeds that they now themselves are being fused together. When this nuclear force takes over, the outward gravitational force of the star's core grows larger than the inward, collapsing force and causes the star to expand into what's known as a Red Dwarf. Remember that, at this point, helium is being fused into other atoms, but eventually the Red Dwarf's outward gravity takes over as the core runs out of helium to 'fuse'. The star then collapses back inward. This process continues, and the star will fuse more complicated atoms with each iteration until it, in fact, does actually fuse carbon into new elements (all the way up to iron in neutron stars). Two things can happen at the end of the star's life: it can either collapse into a Black Hole, or brilliantly explode as a supernova. The conditions for both can be explained. Simply, if a star is big enough (since gravity well strength is dependant on mass,) it will collapse into a single point in space, or a singularity, forming a black hole. If it is not big enough, it will either exhaust its fuel and become a white dwarf, or, if the built-up outward gravity after collapse is great enough, explode as a supernova explosion. This is not coincidence, whether it is the creation of a superbeing or not.

3. "Another fine example is water. Water is so necessary to life, and it is very unusual. When water is freezing, instead of becoming more dense like every other compound, it becomes less dense. The less density allows ice to float."

Water is not unusual. Water obeys the laws of density and buoyancy just as every other liquid does and is, in fact, a prime example of the different states of matter. It just happens that on our planet, under special conditions, water happened to be very good at supporting carbon based complex organisms. It is no different than on another planet where far different, say, silicone based life forms will evolve. It is a mix of random events and planetary conditions that made water our "base", not coincidence or mystery.

4. Darwinism and Evolution

You have said that darwin's evolution is the widely accepted theory right now, but the fact is that over the past few decades Darwin's theories have been reconsidered and are slowly being drastically changed. One popular theory is called the Red Queen effect which says that evolution is not a means for advancement, but a looping circle that propogates the selfish nature of genes. I will borrow your use of examples: The early bear that hunted the seal had no problem doing so. It could easily run up to the seal, as it was much faster and was a skilled predator. As time went on, the cautious, more careful and aware seals which ran away at the sigh of danger were the ones that survived. The ones that were too slow were caught and eaten. The surviving seals then lived to pass on their genes. At first this sounds like Darwin's evolution-- survival of the fittest. But wait. The bear then evolved, too. Adapting not to his environment, but out of necessity to survive and hunt, the bear's fur turns white. The bears that have white fur are easily disguised in the white, snowy environment and have an easier time sneaking up on the now aware and cautious seals. These bears feed and survive. The old, outdated brown colored bears die out. The bears are now hunting the seals, and the seals now must find new ways of evading capture. Millions of years worth of evolutionary advancements have passed, yet the wheel has come full circle. What I'm trying to show you is just that Darwin's theory on evolution is not considered absolute truth among the entire science community, for the same reason that God's existence and Creation are not accepted among the science community: new evidence or lack there of.

My point is that religion rejects new thinking and advancement while science embraces it. The difference is inherently because science is based on fact and proof. God may very well exist, and many scientists would like it to be proven, but until then believing so, in the absence of proof, is more the way of religious value than scientific reason.