Some Questions For Scientists Re Evolution and Belief in a Creator/God?

Question

This is an earnest inquiry. Please explain how an "Intelligent Entity" of some sort (i.e., Energy / Life Force or an actual Creator Being referred to as their "God") could NOT be responsible for setting the universe in motion - devising and putting into motion the Laws of Nature for our planet (at least) - and then everything since that point has been "cause and effect" - including what Darwin and other scientists discovered about the evolutionary tree.

I do believe in a Creator because everything on the planet is so intricately complex and amazing, and if it is human BEINGS who are DISCOVERING these intricacies, then maybe a higher BEING devised them. Of course it is not an provable hypothesis, but who is to say it is absolutely false either?

Is it just Atheists + other Christians that believe the 2 schools of thought have to be mutually exclusive? Couldn't the story of Creation be allegorical? For those scientists who believe both - how do you explain yourselves to others?

Occam's Razor would have me believe it takes as much faith to believe certain scientific accounts as it does some religious accounts of the existence of everything in the universe.

Fair enough comment about all the "gods" that different cultures have - but isn't it interesting that in the absence of science and in the presence of scientific discovery - much of the world still senses there is something greater than humanity that was responsible for starting everything in motion.

If something is far too complex to have been 'designed' - then did it happen incidentally? Are things not 'designed' to adapt in order to survive or procreate, etc.?

I am very much HOPING FOR A REPLY FROM somebody like "TIMEPONDERER" who can at least reply without belittling the question and at least acknowledges scientists are not all atheist.

Not even scientists can learn without asking question so please no rude comments about the question.

Re the Creator being Created or not... Who could ever make the claim that the Creator God was NOT a created being by something else or that nothing came before our universe began? What is there that disproves that other universes and other Beings didn't exist prior to humankind and our universe - or that they don't exist now? It's not that it's a steadfast belief - it's just that anything seems possible until proven impossible - not the other way around.

Answer 1

Yes, it is entirely possible that an entity put everything in motion. It is possible that an entity started life off here on Earth. It is even conceivably possible that that entity occasionally interfered with evolution. There is no evidence against it. But there is no evidence for it (if the entity would leave evidence?). Science is based on evidence so can say nothing on the subject.

Science can say though, based on the overwhelming abundance of evidence, that systematic evolution of form did occur throughout geological time, and that Evolution by Natural Selection does occur and is by far the best explanation for at least the vast majority of this evolution that we have observed. And at least the vast majority of the complexity of life (which in my view makes it no less amazing).

This in no way rules out God. I struggle myself to see the reason for the difficulty that some people have in reconciling the two (but I live in Australia which is mainly influenced by the more liberal churches). Yes, I agree, the Creation can be allegorical (in fact I was always told that). And even if God left evolution to it for 4 billion years and didn't interfere at all, "souls" could still have been gifted later (or be a metaphor for something else).

I think the conflict comes from the fearful unbending Protestant principle of every word in the Bible must be strictly true, vs the atheist principle of only believing what there is material evidence for (permanently having a 'science' hat on). At least in my country, many scientists in the fields of biology and geology are religious.

Answer 2

Here are a few of the flaws in your thinking:

1 - Where did that "creator" come from?
You're starting with the problem of explaining the existence and behavior of the universe, and then adding to the problem by positing that there is ALSO something else out there. That's moving away from an explanation, not towards one (see Kathryn's response for more on this).

2 - You wrote that you believe in a creator because everything is "so intricately complex". You have it exactly backwards. Everything is FAR too complex to have been the product of intelligent design. Design produces only relatively simple things. I think you're overly impressed by human-designed mechanisms, and that you're failing to see how much more complicated life is. It's FAR too complex to have been produced by a design process.

Answer 3

"There are two contenders for the history of life on earth: some form of naturalism (evolution) or supernatural creation." No, there's one. Supernatural creation is about as disproven as is possible. "Since evolution and creation are both based on religious beliefs, why should one be taught in public schools and not the other? " That's a load of crap. Evolution is based upon mountains of evidence. If evolution isn't true in some form, none of biology makes sense. "Should there be a distinction between experimental (operational) science and historical science? " There is. They use different methods. They're also both testable, however, something which is not true of theology. "Since a naturalistic approach to science can only refer to materialistic explanations, how can naturalists use logic if logic is not a material part of the universe?" Logic is as much a part of the universe as math. It's the same everywhere. "Is it necessary for science to allow only naturalism? " Yes. If something can't be tested and doesn't affect the universe in any way, it might as well not exist. "Would all scientific thought and advancement end if supernatural creation was accepted as a possible model for how the universe and life on earth began? " Pretty much. If "Goddidit" became an acceptable answer in science, the scientific method would become worthless and no one would strive to understand anything we currently don't. It wouldn't be immediate, but the last time that happened we had the dark ages. "Why is supernatural creation considered to be a “science stopper” and not a “science starter,” considering that most of the founding fathers of science believed in the Bible and a supernatural creation event? " This makes no sense. So what if Newton and Galileo believed in a form of creation, they lived long before we had the ability to test the age of the earth or figure out genes. They also did not believe that their god was interventionary, they believed that the universe worked according to a set of rules that were discernible by man. Current creationists believe no such thing. "If an all-knowing Creator God exists, wouldn’t it be logical to say that He knows about the scientific laws He created? Why not use what He says as a foundation for scientific thinking? " Because the things that the Bible says on the issue are demonstrably wrong. Pi is not 3, insects do not have four legs, the world was not created in six days. "Creationists and evolutionist have the same evidence it depends on how you interpret it." No, it's a matter of how much you're willing to lie about it. There is nothing about creationism that is honest, there is no evidence at all for creationism. I assume you're not lying and that you're just woefully under-educated or brainwashed, but stop spreading misinformation. Take an actual science class, you might learn something. EDIT: "It is religious because evolutionist weren't there just like Christians weren't there for creation we believe then we look at evidence and observe seeking knowledge to confirm if it is true." Did you know that forensic evidence is many times more trustworthy than eyewitness accounts? Everything that ever has happened leaves a mark. This mark is verifiable by multiple sources. Human memory is terribly fallible, I'd rather take the word of a blood stain that I can test and get the same answer every time than ask an eyewitness and get five different answers over five years. "Yeah to bad the Bible is INSPIRED by an infalliable God. I rather trust an all knowing being who can't lie and test if He is right than a falliable human like your self." Yeah? Provide some evidence for that. Really, anything will do. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, and it's an extraordinary one. "You talk as if I din't look at the evidence is your religion that blind?" From what I've read of your post, the closest you've come to the evidence for evolution is the AIG website. It contains no truth whatsoever.

Answer 4

You still have the problem of infinite regress. If the world is so complex then it must have had a creator capable of creating it then that creator, USING EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT, must also have had a creator and so on ad infinitum.

If there is some special property assigned to that creator such that he does not need to be created that property could equaly be applied to the known universe, ie an uncaused effect, so why go one step rather than none or infinite.

All arguments about god carrying his own causes within himself or that he is a necessary being collapse into sophistry when actually examined, they may impress first year divinity students and Christian apologists but they are utterly meaningless.

Answer 5

Read this quote...over and over and over and over....ok

"Any creative intelligence,of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. " Creative intelligences being evolved necessarily arrive late in the universe, therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. Think about it as hard as you can. Things are not all intricate and amazing....if we were intelligently designed like Christians think then why do we have two holes in our throats so close together that under circumstances we can choke on our food and block our airways? Thus resulting in death? If god Created us with intelligence he wouldn't have done that...also How come God Can grow back a salamander leg after it has been cut off...yet he never grows back one amputees leg or arm??? yet people claim to see miracles all the time?

Answer 6

You can not prove an unprovable. Also, you must remember that it is the responsibility of the person making the assertion to prove what they assert, not my duty to disprove it.

With that being said, lets look at your arguement. I will allow you an advantage - I will agree that the universe is intelligently designed. Now, I need for you to explain to me why that Creator can only be the Christian God, and not the Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Pagan or Jaine Gods? WHY??? Perhaps the creator of this universe doesnt even approve of Christianity. Perhaps, we exist as a simulation on a supercomputer of an alien....none of it adds up to YOUR GOD.


There is your proof.

Answer 7

The fact of the matter is they can't. All the current versions of the 'theory of everything' have the same fatal flaw. That is, the t=0 problem.

In each of the theories, somewhere in the equations, time is the divisor. When t=0, the equation is unsolvable and undefined. You can't divide by 0.

Until the t=0 problem is resolved (and I don't believe it ever will by science) science has proved nothing.

Answer 8

It is possible. But since it is not falsifable, then science cannot address the issue.

To test something scientifically, one must be able to say, "Well, if we can show this, then we know our idea is wrong." For example, I state the hypothesis, "The moon is made out of cheese." I now think to myself, "Hmmm, how can I prove this wrong." Of course, a sample of the moon's surface would be sufficient disproof. So I send a probe up, it samples, and finds rock. I've disproven my hypothesis. Let's say my probe went up and found cheese. I haven't proven my hypothesis -- that spot might be cheese, but there may be somewhere else that it's made out of chocolate. So I have to test multiple locations, in different ways, and even then I can only say, "In all known tests, it appears the moon is made of cheese."

Science does not prove. It only disproves. Science is not the building up of known facts, it is the removal of false facts from the list of all possible facts.

Answer 9

Evolution is the most documented thing in the world, as per the fossil record. So you might consider a different approach.

Like how did macro evolution happen, or how did life originate?

Natural selection is fact, happens all the time. However, a beginning is needed. To select, you need something to select. A lot of biology has to be in place for natural selection to work. How did that happen?

Answer 10

"Please explain how an "Intelligent Entity" of some sort (i.e., Energy / Life Force or an actual Creator Being referred to as their "God") could NOT be responsible for setting the universe in motion"


You have your scientific burden of proof backwards.

Ask a legitimate question and I'll respond.