Is life's efficiency a good or poor argument for the existence of a god?

Question

My sister's science teacher told the class that he believes some god or supernatural force must exist because of the high level of efficiency/order seen in life. For example, many plants are green, which is the most efficient color for photosynthesis. He probably also mentioned something about life's complexity.

Is it unlikely for natural selection to be responsible for this? It seems to me that green plants would simply have a better chance at survival. If anything, wouldn't some bizarre, inefficient form of life that has managed to survive and cannot be explained naturally be a better example of the supernatural?

Answer 1

"To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow pre-ordained for us, because we are so well-suited to live in it, he [Adams] mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle."

Richard Dawkins on Douglas Adams


"This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

- Douglas Adams

Answer 2

definately sounds like a good argument for natural selection for this.

Haha, this make me think of a video on youtube called "the atheist's nightmare". It was about a banana. The person in the video said that the banana was constructed perfectly by the Christain God. Then the video flashed to a seen of a real banana not changed by natural selection. It wasn't really "efficient".

Anyways, no that isnt a good argument since there are plenty of non efficient hings as well and since of course natural selection creates many efficient things

Answer 3

It's a rather poor argument, given that there are a number of alternative - and empirically supportable - arguments for the observed phenomena.

For example, the "higher power exists because many plants are green" statement is borderline farcical, especially from a science teacher. Natural selection has selected effective chlorophyll-based photosynthesis mechanisms, and since chlorophyll is green, most plants are too.

Answer 4

As other posters indicate, a change of science teachers might be in order.

I don't know of any theological doctrine in any religion that makes any assertion whatsoever defining any relationship between bioenergetics (or thermodynamics for that matter) and the divine.

So there doesn't seem to be anything keeping you from spinning it either way. You could say the Creator likes efficiency, or the Creator would intentionally leaves something inefficient and obtuse specifically to notify us that the Creator exists.

Answer 5

Your question is definitely thought-provoking! I like your concept in the second paragraph. As an agnostic, I simply just can not see how we can know with any degree of certainty how exactly the situation in the Cosmos came to be as it is except that if conditions (the physical laws governing the function of the Universe) were not as they are, the Cosmos would not have evolved as it has, could not exist as it is. But, that fact does not prove the existence of a creator to me. I am not certain that a science teacher should be expressing a belief (which is unscientific) in a creative deity!

Answer 6

In showdown of ideas like these, players must have a common arena where their reason could clash. There must be some common reference for convergence ( or apparent divergence ).

Both utopia and chaos could display the existence of God, because if there is God, then there must be another side of the spectrum, the devil. There is no such thing as monopoles (except in Physics). In practically in all this world , polarity exist.

The science teacher's idea was a compliment to the unexplained order in this universe, where evolutionists failed to explain. Science, as a discipline, which is being used by Darwinian primates, is not perfect to explain all the phenomena around us. Remember that scientists always use assumptions ( to make computations easier for them). It cannot be denied that everything is going into disorder., from the complex to the simple , and never the reverse as implied by the second law of Thermodynamics. To clarify , a mango will ripen , and finally rot , from its original green state . It won't simple turn green from the rotten state. I dare any scientist to do this. No amount of energy could turn a badly rotten mango into a ripe one, fit to be eaten by humans.

The point is, allow teachers to erase confusions in science classes , created by misguided pseudoscientists. True science won't contradict another science.

The truth is, It is more sensible to believe that all things came into existence by a God saying" Let there be light, and there was light". It is more sensible to believe that God created man , than believing that we existed by CHANCE. This is RIDICULOUS.

Answer 7

who says life is efficient?

purple(and other-) colored plants are not very efficient(i'm not a biologist or something, so that is just an educated guess) so there are very few, non-green plants

why is the teacher preaching in science class?

Answer 8

Poor excuse. And your sisters science teacher shouldn't be talking about god in a science class.

Answer 9

This argument is basically this: "There is so much complexity in the universe that IT must be explained by an even MORE complex thing (i.e, God) which has no NEED for an explanation of its even GREATER COMPLEXITY, even though the former, of which has less complexity, does."

It's a load of junk.

Answer 10

That's a really bad argument.

The REAL issue that should be addressed here is that a SCIENCE teacher is preaching this drivel.