Intelligence in Nature and Outer Space

[fenwar]

Something that came up on the "6,000" thread:

do you think biologists should study the “evidence gathered through various different methods” for signs of intelligent design in biological systems? Many biologists regard this endeavor (looking for intelligence) as illegitimate. Of course these same biologists have no problem with the ongoing search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) from distant space – they in fact consider such research as scientific. But why do these same biologists discourage research for signs of intelligence in biology?

Now I've generally not bought into the whole "Intelligent Design" movement as it seemed to be a bit of a "God of the gaps" approach; Behe's irreducible complexity didn't really work for me and seemed to be basically saying "well I can't see how that could have evolved, therefore it didn't".

But this is a completely different angle on it; could there be evidence in nature that could be considered evidence of a creator? If so, what is it? If not, what's the difference between this evidence and the evidence SETI are looking for?

[Keith]

fenwar,

If you were walking in the middle of a forest, in the middle of nowhere, and came upon a pocketwatch sitting on a rock, how would you suppose it got there? Most people would assume that someone had put it there. I think it's safe to assume that you would too, right? But how can you be sure someone put it there? You didn't see anyone put it there. Why wouldn't you think that it came to be there all on its own? Most responses would be, "Because it didn't just get there by itself, someone had to put it there." But couldn't it have just gotten there by itself? Couldn't there be a chance that at some time all the exact pieces to make that pocketwatch were floating around and suddenly came together in exactly the correct way to form that watch from nothing? Of course not. There isn't any sense to that reasoning is there? The same reasoning applies to the earth and all of creation.

How, in all possible odds, could the world have been formed by this same chance? That everything would just happen to come together perfectly, without error, so that trees take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen and humans do the opposite? The earth's tilt and rotation are perfect. Scientists have said that if there had been even one more bit of dust used in forming the earth that it would not have been inhabitable. (No, I don't have the resource for this currently because it's been years since I was given this illustration and didn't keep the references.) What are the chances that all of the correct molecules, and the correct number, make up a human being? A single strand of human DNA, if it's information were written down, would contain something like over 600,000,000 pages? Scientists have also said that the chances of the earth coming together accidentally in this same random manner would have the same odds as if you were shooting an arrow at a one inch square target on the other side of the entire universe... and hitting it bullseye. Those odds are incomprehensible!

In the same manner, logic says that the earth had to have been created. One other small illustration. Have you ever been out somewhere and looked up at the infinite number of stars (or some other form of nature) and, having enjoyed it so much, that you felt like thanking someone? I have, and I know many people who didn't believe in God/Creation and have answered yes as well. Well, doesn't it then make sense that there would be Someone to thank?

If you are looking for absolutely positivity to the question if God exists or that the earth was created, I'm afraid I'm not nearly wise enough to give you that assurance. If I could, it would be yours for the asking! But the Bible says that every person has the knowing of the Creator inside them. Everyone is seeking fulfillment. The shape and size of that space inside us is God-shaped, if you will; meaning that only a relationship with Jesus can fill. Everything else we try to fill that space with slips through that space without satisfaction. Something may temporarily appease our desire to be fulfilled, but it's never lasting because only Jesus is lasting. Everything else is due to perish.

The Bible also says that if a person is really seeking the truth, they will find it, with God. He is Truth. If you ask God to make Himself evident to you and show you who He is, He will. It may not be in the way that you might "demand" Him to, but you will know it's Him. That's why seeking the absolute, honest truth will lead you to Him. God is not One who can be coerced into doing something. If you are seeking the truth, He will show it to you in His way... but you will recognize it because He is longing for a relationship with you, too. We were created to have a personal relationship with Him through Jesus. It's the only way to the Father.

I am not a wise, scientific person, fenwar. I got through my science courses with a "C". Perhaps that's why I (myself) found the truth. Because I desperately wanted to know it and if I were a scientific scholar, my own brain would get in the way. That's why it's called faith. We can't see the wind blowing, but we believe it's there because we can feel it. It's the same with God. We can't see Him, but we can see the evidence/effect of God all around us.

If you've read this far into my post, I thank you graciously. You honor me with your time. I'm not very wise nor a great debator. I only know that God has accepted just as I am, warts and all imperfections, and made me His child, to live with Him for eternity. I don't deserve it by anything that I've done. I received this as a gift He offers freely to everyone who accepts the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. I could never have earned it. I don't often write long posts, but I really desire for you to come to know Jesus as I, and many others here, know Him. It's the most important decision you will ever be faced with making. Your eternity is your decision, God won't force you to accept Him. I pray that your eyes would be opened to see the truth you seek.

If I may offer a suggestion. There is a man who can explain God better than anyone I know. His name is Ravi Zacharias. Here is a link to his website and one of his broadcasts called "Why I am not an Atheist". It's a two part message. I can promise that you will not be disappointed in listening to him. He is a Christian Apologist who can "defend the faith" much better than I can. He has spoken to dignitaries and college students. The faithful and the most devout atheists. His archive is filled with hundreds of messages. If you listen to the topics that interest you, I'm sure you'll find him fascinating. He is not preachy. He is factual. I know you'll find his website most useful. http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=L...v=detail&id=235

[fenwar]

before we get into this discussion please clarify your position

The first thing I want to make clear is that this is not a discussion of the mechanics of creation.

I don't really have a solid position on ID, and I don't know much about SETI, which is why I was so interested in your question and what ScientificAtheist (or anyone else) thought about it.

I certainly disagree with the idea of irreducible complexity as a disproof of evolution, or as proof of the existence of a creator. It seems to be an argument from incredulity as I stated in the OP; this I do not believe to be scientific.

However "intelligent design" goes beyond this. Are there patterns in nature that could be considered "evidence of the existence of intelligent design"? (Patterns that could be shown to have evolved, or even patterns that could be involved in evolution itself, may well fall into this category.)

The study of nature for observable patterns and repeatable behaviour is precisely what science does; what is the difference between these "patterns" and the "patterns" that ID researchers are looking for?

And what is the difference between either of these and the patterns the SETI project is looking for? Are they relying on the argument from incredulity or improbability? Will they regard what they find as "proof that aliens exist" or as "possible evidence that intelligence may exist"?

I don't know the answers to these questions, which is why I'm asking them.

How, in all possible odds, could the world have been formed by this same chance?

Hi Keith,

I do believe God created everything, so of course I do not believe the Earth's formation was down to "random chance". This question is not about "did evolution happen" or about "odds" of evolution; I've stated my position on this on three other recent threads - "Evolution", "Origin of Life" and "6,000?".

Thanks for your post though,

-Fenwar

[Mikeyjay]

i believe that the only logical explanation for the creation of the world in all it's facets, too complex, for any real explanation...is that there is a God and Creator!!!

i can't explaine it any other way...besides can anyone prove that there isn't?

[Keith]

Hi Keith,

I do believe God created everything, so of course I do not believe the Earth's formation was down to "random chance". This question is not about "did evolution happen" or about "odds" of evolution; I've stated my position on this on three other recent threads - "Evolution", "Origin of Life" and "6,000?".

Thanks for your post though,

-Fenwar

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Fenwar,

I completely misunderstood what you were asking. I'm sorry about that. I haven't been in the other threads that led to this one, so I probably should have just stayed out of it altogether. LOL After reading this thread, I'll just bow out graciously... It's too intricate a topic for me to add any value. Have a great discussion.

[mrs]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..."

Is it not possible for adults to have a discussion with graciousness, without all this backstabbing and name calling?

[Bread_of_Life]

Smiles,

Why do you think I stay away from discussions involving certain people?

All the best,

Nik

[his-servant-too]

Smiles,

Why do you think I stay away from discussions involving certain people?

All the best,

Nik

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems that many here think character assassination serves much better than facts

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.

Mark Twain

US humorist, novelist, short story author, & wit (1835 - 1910)

[Artemus Prime]

..."And of course, this raises a very big question. If a good God made the world, than why has it gone wrong? And for many years as an atheist I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling, 'whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?' But then that threw me back into another difficulty.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be a part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies.

Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of this reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. 'Dark' would be without meaning."

(This quote taken from CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, Book II Ch. 1, pp. 45-46)

[halifaxchristian]

Read THE CASE FOR A CREATOR by Lee Strobel. Unbiased and balanced and powerfully convincing. It's common sense folks...stuff didn't get here by itself...and not only did stuff get here...it got here with laws and complexity. God is not the author of confusion the Bible says and, ironically, the laws of physics are proof of this to the utmost.

The fool hath said in his heart there is no God (Proverbs somewhere).

Don't kid yourself...you believe in God...there's no such thing as an atheist. I've never yet met an atheist who, after being pressed, maintained their full denial of God.

Not once...and i've met some hardcore "atheists".

They all falter.