Chance or Intelligence?

Question

This Universe indeed displays a remarkable vista of order and consistency. We can observe, for example, the great regularity with which the celestial bodies follow precise orbits, and marvel at the way in which water from the seas is brought to the land by wind-driven clouds, which are in turn formed by the evaporation of water: without this replenishment, life would be impossible. We are also amazed by the migration patterns of many species, including newborn eels, that trek through thousands of miles of ocean, to nestle in their own local streams, and of bees, who use sunlight for navigation in their quest for nectar. We may ponder as to why all living things exist in pairs, and contemplate on the optimality of the processes which comprise the whole universe.

Even incredibly minute changes would disrupt the balances in nature: after all, had the earth's orbit been slightly offset in either direction, water and the resulting forms of life would not have emerged. In fact, we observe great unity in the laws of the cosmos; through the spectrum of life and non-life ranging from the microcosmic subatomic particles to the macrocosmic expanse of the universe itself, integration is manifested on every level.

Reflection may lead us to pertinent questions: Could such encompassing order have arisen purely by unintentioned accident? Or could there be an intelligent originator to this spectacular array of living and non-living forms —a designer that may have developed them through processes which have yet to be fully determined? What conclusions are evidential?

Is it probable that all the letters on this page unscrambled themselves by chance to form these meaningful and structured sentences?

Full reading from this site: http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=75

Answer 1

On the contrary - the universe is a hugley chaotic place, which is makes our planet remarkable.
In all the disorder, this one place in the infinity managed to sustain life. A chance in a million - but not evidence of a creator.

Answer 2

The problem with this, as is the problem with every anti-evolution rant, is that you actually don't understand evolution.

Could the letters on the page randomly rearrange to form something good. No, of course not. Does it have anything to do with evolution? No, of course not. I would suggest you read up on the relationship between evolution and chance. Any google search will work, and if you can't find anything -- just email me.

As for the fine-tuning of the world -- that's hardly true. With or without the sun, there would be life at the bottom of the ocean, feeding off the thermal vents there. Go see Aliens of the Deep at an IMAX theater to see that life in 3d. (Wow!). If that's not technical enough for you, there are many peer-review biology papers that detail the life processes of non-sun-based life.

To further burst your bubble, the celestial bodies do not follow precise, unchanging orbits. The orbits are elliptical, not circular, and they change based on a number of different factors. The moon recedes away from the Earth by about 4 centimeters every year.

Further, not all living things exist in pairs. There are many species which reproduce asexually. And we don't ponder why paired species exist -- because it's a genetic advantage against disease. Sex was invented a long time ago by two identical single-celled organisms, and the benefits of having a faster beneficial mutation path (by combining genes) was so successful that it stuck with many species over the millenia.

Moreover, using the word "design" to desribe nature is using the word out of context. It's like saying "the shape of that building is red." Humans do not identify design by PURPOSE, we identify designed objects in contradistinction to nature. To expand the concept of design to include all of nature is incomprehensible. Your assumption that "undesigned" nature is some chaotic mess is just that -- an unqualified assumption. Show me why you think "natural nature" is chaotic.

Finally, even if I were to grant that nature exhibits "design" (used out of context), this design would be a mark AGAINST an all-powerful deity. For what is the purpose of design? Contrivance. You only design things when the tools and methods available to you are not good enough. What need would an all-powerful deity have of design? None whatsoever. Their word is enough means for any end. Even if it existed, every evidence of design would be that much evidence against something all-powerful. It would be much more evidence of a creator if life existed in a universe whose conditions were NOT suitable for life.

Your argument has multiple fatal flaws. And those are just the ones I cared to write about.

Answer 3

According to a new book titled "The Project", God evolved and then created everything else. This unique concept is presented from a somewhat science-fiction perspective, but that's not what the book is about. It logically shows that it makes more sense for only one thing to evolve (The Creator) and for him/her to meticulously design and create everything else. If you'd like to see how this was explained, go to iuniverse.com and type in the author's name, James Joseph, and you can read the book's first chapter for free.

Answer 4

Oh, goody... the 'Argument from Incredulity' fallacy again... a sub-set of 'Argument ad Ignorantiam' (Argument from Ignorance).

"I can't understand how all of this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

... also including elements of the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy, also known as 'The Divine Fallacy'.

You might want to look those up.

What your question expresses are limitations in your own cognitition and intellectual prowess... NOT limitations in nature.

Answer 5

Obviously you've never heard of the weak anthropic principle! If the earth were different and didn't support life, there would be nobody to comment on it!

Answer 6

THE GOD is at work at all times.




The URL below is fast becoming my favourite!