Origins of life and the universe... please serious answers only.?

Question

I personally see no reason why science and religion cannot get along. Scientists tend to come off as pushing athiesm, while Christians tend to come off as purely ignotant. Despite what Christians try to say, Evolution and The Big Bang are almost to the point of being undeniable, except that niether can say what happened at the very beginning.

So is it too hard to even contemplate that maybe, just maybe, God did create the universe but used the Big Bang and Evolution?

If God did create the universe then he must have also created science. And if God created science and gave us the remarkable intelligence to discover and unravel the mysteries of the universe. When one takes the time to look at the processes of Evolution and the Big Bang they are so perfect and remakable that, in my opinion, they are the brushstrokes of the creator.

Is it possible to say that maybe science proves the existance of the creator?

Please no "because thats not what the Bible says" answers.

Answer 1

Since you made your question sound real with intent on getting an answer even if you don't except it I will try to explain.
Arthur Conan Doyle for his character Sherlock Holmes wrote and I quote loosely.. "You solve a mystery by removing possibilities. What ever is left no matter how improbable is the truth.."
That leads me to chirality. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear
identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing
in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes. If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not
function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the
same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time.
This is evidence straight from the labs of Science. The Bible has nothing to do with these facts. Yet the magnitude of the problem indicates that there WAS a creative force behind all life and that the spontaneous life generation that most scientist hold up as fact is at best far fetched and worst impossible..... Jim

Answer 2

>> So is it too hard to even contemplate that maybe, just maybe, God did create the universe but used the Big Bang and Evolution?

This is the "SOMA" argument from Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion". I won't pretend to state the problems with this in such elegance as Dawkins, but I can restate a few things:

If this is your god's role, your god is lazy. Lazier than every theist's god that creates life, intervenes with miracles, talks to people, sends people to hell, etc. God is so lazy in this capacity to the point that it's superfluous to put such a creature in the model.

So god did what, start the big bang initially? There's no need to assume this - god must exist 'prior' (what does that mean outside of our four dimensional time-space?) to 'cause' the universe into existence. Furthermore, the argument from probability: if it is so impossible (improbable?) for such a complex universe to spontaneously 'appear', how improbable is it that a 'god' spontaneously appeared to 'cause' the universe into existence? Your supposition that god belongs in this model adds complexity - breaking the famous, but not official, Occam's Razor of theories.

>> When one takes the time to look at the processes of Evolution and the Big Bang they are so perfect and remakable that, in my opinion, they are the brushstrokes of the creator.

Actually, I'd strongly disagree with you on this, mostly on the grounds that it's well known that evolution isn't 'perfect', nor was the Big Bang. Perfect implies no wasted resources - but 'evolution' 'creates' things just to throw them out - continuously! If evolution was perfect, there'd be no random genetic mutations and genetic drift - it'd be purposeful, directed, and efficient. That's a good solid philosophical reason not to believe in the 'perfection' of evolution. (Which goes along with the theme the theist's god typically takes - a god that does things in mysterious, inefficient ways).

Argue from SOMA if you must - I know that the world needs to understand and accept evolution, and this is probably the closest anyone is going to come to it and not feel that their faith is threatened, but know that if what you proposed was true, things would not occur the way they do.

Answer 3

God did create the universe, and He is, was and always will be, so He didn't "come from" anywhere. How can you say you don't believe what the bible says when you obviously haven't read it? It says right at the beginning how he made earth and the universe. He's powerful enough to just say the words and it happens. So He pretty much made the earth from nothing, and put the sun, moon and stars in the sky to give light and look pretty. God gave us a choice whether or not to love and follow Him, and so man started sinning, and this caused the world to start falling apart with all its disasters, sickness, disease, crime, etc. So it's not His fault, it's ours for doing wrong and having bad people in this world ruining it for everyone else.

Answer 4

Science is inherently Agnostic. A chain of cause and effect breaks down when you just put in steps where "God did it". No where does science actually claim God didn't do it, either. The Agnosticism is called Atheism if it contradicts the Bible. By definition as there is no test, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent creator.

Answer 5

I believe that science proves the existence of God to the point of being undeniable. The conflict that exists is that if you don't recognize that God exists and you are trying to answer creation questions you are only looking at part of the puzzle.

If we accept that God created the universe and all life in it then God is outside of the box that the universe is in. This would also mean that all of the cosmos and life is inside the box.

As a scientist if you are only looking inside the box for your answers you are limiting your research. You are somewhat able to figure out how something came to be by discovering the principles that were used in its development not its creation. Since you are only looking for answers that are inside the box and ignore the possibility of "something" that is outside the box that is able to effect the things inside the box, alot of your conclusions are faulty and lead you in the wrong direction.

When on the other hand if you accept that there is something outside the box that effects things inside the box you open up a whole new area of possibilities and can actually start to have understanding that was not possible before due to self imposed limitations.

When man only looks inside the box he trys to deny the existence of God and trys to find answers based on truth claims of men discovered by men. The problem with this is that as mans knowledge increases, societies acceptance and political climates change, these all seem to effect the "truth claims" of men that previous truths were based on.

It is when we accept that God does exist and we can accept the truth claims that He makes that we really make scientific progress in understanding our universe. The reason for this is because the truths of God don't change as we gain knowledge and understanding and our opinions or acceptance does not effect them or their validity.

Answer 6

I think there is a power that we are unaware of in the physical world.. and I totally agree with Evolution because there is just too much proof to say the least.But still have a deep down feeling there is some force driving behing the scenes... but not the Christian GOD ( that's hogwash....hope this helps :)

Answer 7

Science does not "come off as pushing atheism." If the evidence science provides somehow makes someone doubt the existence of an invisible magical supernatural being, it's still not science's fault or intention.

The best you can do is try to justify irrational beliefs with even more logical fallacies. Of course, the best thing *I* did was to think rationally and quit trying to justify my childhood irrational beliefs by denying reality.

Answer 8

No, because the more we learn of quantum physics, the more the evidence points to the existence of an eternal NATURAL source. Look up inflationary theory and in particular the inflaton hypothesis.

In essence, the visible universe had a beginning, and nothing in it is causally related to anything outside the visible universe, but the whole universe, visible and beyond, is eternally existing.

Answer 9

I have no problem with that.

My problem is that those things are inconsistent with the Bible. Thus the Bible is flawed and the product of humans. That makes it not divinely inspired and thus not evidence of anything other than people like to make up stories.

I find just what you said to be rational and logical, although I disagree with it. But that only advocates deism, not Christianity, Islam or any of the others.

Answer 10

The God you are talking about is "the God of the gaps", which basically means "if we don't know something, lets say god did". Scientists has no use for a concept like that.
And religious folks usually don't worship the creator of the universe. Their god is usually much smaller - the one who hates gays and stem cells.