[quote]pabergin wrote:
…So I came across this posting. I liked it. Any thoughts about it?
Max Planck, Nobel Prize winner in physics and the founder of quantum theory, on science and religion:
"No matter where and how far we look, nowhere do we find a contradiction between religion and natural science. On the contrary, we find a complete concordance in the very points of decisive importance. Religion and natural science do not exclude each other, as many contemporaries of ours would believe or fear. They mutually supplement and condition each other. …
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and friend of Stephen Hawking (they co-authored the book, The Nature of Space and Time), calculated the odds of the Big Bang producing by chance a universe so low in entropy (disorder) that the emergence and development of life was even a possibility to be 1 in 10^10^123. How big is that number? To write it out without using exponential notation would require writing so many zeros after the “1” that even if you wrote a zero for each proton, neutron and electron in the observable universe, and a zero for all the other elementary particles in it as well, you would still fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
Modern science has revealed to us that life consists of digital-information-based nanotechnology the functional complexity of which is light years beyond anything modern science knows how to build from scratch. Philosopher of Science Karl Popper on the the digital information in DNA:
"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.
There is a “disturbing riddle” only when an a priori assumption is made that intelligence cannot have been a causal factor in the emergence of the information in DNA. Without such an assumption it becomes obvious that a mind knew how to construct the machinery by which the cell translates the code outside the DNA molecule, and how to code the instructions for the construction that same machinery within the DNA. Intelligence is a known reality and it is therefore entirely legitimate for science to consider it among the possible causal factors in a given phenomenon coming about.
In light of the above, it is entirely reasonable to assume that a transcendent, supernatural mind is the primary and ultimate reality. It is unreasonable to just assume that the Universe popped into existence out of nothingness, then we just “got lucky” in that it accidentally configured itself such that the ultra-sophisticated nanotechnology of life would become a possibility, then mindlessly arrived at massive quantities of digital instructions required to assemble that technology, then – again, mindlessly and accidentally – actually assembled that technology along with the environment it requires to function and to be sustained. Such is atheism’s creation myth. It is easier to believe computers could accidentally assemble themselves and then mindlessly write software that, through self-replication, could evolve into programs of ever increasing functionality and complexity.
Neo-Darwinism has no explanation for the origin of that first, single-celled reproducing life form, nor for the emergence of the information it required, nor for the source of the new information required for the addition of new tissue types, body plans and so on which macro-evolution requires.
The discoveries of modern science have brought us to a point where the debate among the intellectually honest ought to be about the nature and the intentions for humanity, if any, of the transcendent intellect that is the ultimate origin of all that exists, not about the assertion that such an intellect is not there at all, which is merely the fanatically held, unfounded by the facts, blind-faith-based belief of atheistic zealots. Was Christ the revelation to humanity of the nature, and of the intentions for humanity, of that transcendent intellect? That is an interesting question to minds capable of objectivity and neutrality.
It is time to move the discussion to where the light shed on reality by modern science compels us to place it.[/quote]
Good article. I tend to agree.
When one argues for Intelligent Design I think presenting the probability ratio of “1 in 10^10^123” is important to present as it provides prospective on the argument.
Of course the way around that is to invoke the multiverse theory. But that theory has a litany of problems on it’s own even if you disregard the fact that there is not a shred of evidence for it. Which is an odd thing for scientists to do, to purport a theory that doesn’t have any evidence at all. I could even ‘feel’ it if it had a very tiny amount of evidence, but absolutely none I find problematic.
