Can a natrual process be creative enough to create mankind?

People who doubt that the universe could spring up from natural processes rather than a god often ask how happenstance could produce a creative creature like mankind as if the process of existence is all an accident.

This question has two parts. The first is about the idea that everything is an accident and the second part is about creativity. The first part is easy to explain: In a universe of cause and effect there are no accidents. One event follows another according to the rules of nature. A human may not be able to predict outcomes accurately but that doesn’t mean there are no specific causes for the effects we witness.

It is also usually followed by the related question of probability. Isn’t it funny that the world we live in happens to be in a perfect spot? Can that be a co-incidence? What are the odds? The answer to this second question is: The odds are 100 percent in favour considering it happened and here we are. Calculating odds is only a rational idea when the event has not yet happened.

If you ran the universe back to the beginning of time, assuming that the events that follow for some reason might not be exactly the same every time it was run, and asked what are the odds of an earth and what are the odds life will form from one, you might come up with odds against it happening. But since no one can run time backward to ask a question, and since the likelihood is that nothing different would happen because all events follow due to cause and effect, it is not only irrelevant, it’s a complete waste of time speculating about it. It happened so it was inevitable.

The next question is: So how can natural processes produce creativity without a god? Well what is creativity? Creativity only happens through conflict of some sort. That may come as a shock to some. Inner conflict, problem solving, art wanting to escape from an artist. Creativity is due to need and desire in humans. That’s where creativity comes from: our needs and desires. Creativity is for problem solving.

If all our needs were met and there were no conflict in our lives, there would be no need for creativity. Perfection destroys creativity by destroying the need for it. Is creativity really desirable? Well yes it is. But only when there are problems to solve.

So how does this relate to natural processes? For that we need to know a little something about physics. But before that we should talk about the standard proofs for god. There is only one logical proof. It goes something like this: You can’t get something from nothing. So if there were ever an instant where nothing at all existed, nothing could now exist. Therefore something must always have existed.

Thomas Aquinas said this something had to be god. Of course his god was a conscious uncreated being. Yet the proof does not require that it is. But back in Thomas’s time there was no other game in town. With modern science a new game arrived. The laws of Thermodynamics opened a whole new window on the world. Along with its sister laws, the laws of conservation, god was no longer the only possible answer to what has always been.

These laws tell us very simply that energy and mass cannot be created nor destroyed. That makes them eternal. But wait. Doesn’t science tell of a beginning? The Big Bang? It also says we cannot know the physics of a singularity and asking what came before the big bang is a meaningless question because there was no time or space. Time and space were created when the universe/singularity expanded.

Yet even though we cannot know the exact physics of a non-expanded singularity, we know what it was comprised of. In any big bang theory, you always start with a very condensed amount of energy. (all that now exists in the universe) It is never nothing, as some suggest. Even in the theories that postulate potential rather than actual energy at the beginning, the energy of the universe is always there.

So where does matter fit in? (To those who know a lot about physics please forgive me for simplifying this for those who don’t.) Energy has mass and all mass has energy. Mass is in essence matter. But the definition of matter is so diverse among different fields of science and philosophy that using M to mean matter in the equation E=mc Squared could lead to inaccurate conclusions depending on who's definition you use. And that formula is of very significant concern to the question because it tells us that mass/matter and energy are really two aspects of one substance: energy/mass or energy/matter.

How is energy/mass creative? Well look around. It has created all that exists. The reason it has created all that exists is due to the laws of conservation. They tell us that energy and mass cannot be created nor destroyed, but they can be transformed. And that is what they do: they transform.

If we go back a few seconds after the expansion of the universe we end up in a place full of subatomic particles like quarks. These particles formed the first atoms, starting with the simplest one, hydrogen. One electron and one proton. This happened as a result of what is known as the weak force and strong force in subatomic particles. As the universe cooled these clouds of new atoms condensed. When they condensed sufficiently to produce a critical mass due to gravity they became giant stars.

Pressure and temperature forced atoms together creating new types of atoms. When you force two hydrogen atoms together you get a new atom with two electrons and two protons as well as something new: neutrons.

This produces a new substance. The deeper in to the star the more pressure and the heavier the resulting atoms get. When those stars exploded due to being too large and unstable, they spread all those new atoms into the universe. As the clouds resulting from the explosions condensed they formed new smaller stars like ours, and the remaining cloud that wasn’t big enough to produce a star produced planets and moons.

Now remember that each time you add more electrons and protons you produce new basic elements. Now you have all these varieties of atoms interacting in space and on new planets.

Back to the laws of conservation. One of the most interesting laws tells us that every atom tends toward its lowest level of output of energy. Atoms are like couch potatoes at heart. If left alone, they will reach equilibrium at their lowest possible level of energy output. But they have a hard time achieving it due to interaction with other atoms.

An atom will merge with another atom in order to achieve a new lowest level of energy output. At times the mergers are violent. But most of the time they simply do something amazing. They produce a compound substance. Add two hydrogen atoms to an oxygen atom and you have something new and amazing: Water. And if you pass electricity through water you can separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. Then if you set the hydrogen on fire, the oxygen helps it burn. The combustion product of this burning is water.

All this from conflict. How creative can you get? Of course there are millions of possible combinations. Sometimes it is as simple as a stray electron getting caught in an atom’s attractive force. It suddenly has a much higher output of energy. What does it do? It is forced to fling the electron at the nearest atom. What happens next is an eternal game of hot potato that forces the two atoms together and forms a new substance.

So due to the nature of the atom toward its lowest output of energy, and conflict which makes it difficult for the atom to achieve its goal, mergers take place. Conflicts are resolved and new substances arise. From this we learn that chaos breeds order. (Chaos theory is in fact not about disorder, but about how things become ordered.)

Spin glass is a perfect example. Take molecules with wildly different spins. Throw them all together. You might expect an explosion. But no. Exact opposites cancel each other out. What is left is a super strong and stable piece of glass. Add energy and it becomes a teaming mess again. Stop adding energy, and after a time it settles down again. New order always arises from chaos.

A good human analogy is war. Either one side or the other runs out of resources, one side beats the other outright, or both parties run out of resources and will, and make a deal. In any event, the conflict always creates a new order through its resolution.

The atomic world is amazingly creative. The proof is all around you. And all it takes are a few simple rules to make things massively complex in no time. Compound substances subjected to electricity and pressure form new substances. Amino acids are formed even in space. (the basic building blocks of life) Proteins form; and soon you have cells. From there all the plants and animals form.

Evolution is again all about conflict and resolution. Catastrophe creating niches for new forms; times of stability that allows species to adapt and change. Natural selection. All order from conflict.

That’s why I said no outside god is required. Yes, energy/mass energy/matter is definitely capable of being what we could say metaphorically at least, is god, the producer of all things. That it isn’t conscious is of no concern at all. It isn’t required to be, considering its nature. Even all of Aquinas’s criteria are met.

More by this Author


16 comments

Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

Humans can not always reliably tell what came about naturally and what required a designer. In the book FLIM-FLAM by James Randi, "beach rock" was mentioned. Around places like Bermuda and Australia, formations which look like roads made of stone bricks exist below the surf, always in the water near the beach and always running parallel to the coast. Some paranormal enthusiasts claimed that people from Atlantis built these roads! However, they failed to explain that, even if the water-level were somehow lower than it is today, why these "roads" never penetrated into the interior of an island.

As it turns out, this example was caused by the perfectly natural effect of wave-action on rock, wearing them away and causing cracks first parallel to the beach, then at right-angles, and the cracks slowly filled up with sand that developed a mortar-like appearance. But it took some investigation to see that it was non-created.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Right you are. I saw a documentary once that made the assertion you are talking about. Then saw another one a while later explaining the same thing Randi said in his book.

As long as people believe a designer must exist, they attribute everything to it. It's only when you ignore or remove the idea of creator being necessary that you are free to see that natural process is an amazing and almost infinitely creative thing.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Time and space were created when the universe/singularity expanded.)

Slarty,

Excuse me for butting in, but you confuse me with the above assertion.

My understanding of time is that it is a scaler, used to measure differences in static locations. In other words, without memory, it is always now. How did the expansion of a singularity create memory, the intrinsic requirememt for the comparative concept we call time?

The second question involves space. If space is the void that separates objects, i.e., nothing, how can nothing be created? By what was the singularity surrounded if not by space?

Thanks.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(we cannot know the physics of a singularity and asking what came before the big bang is a meaningless question)

Slarty,

Sorry again but statements like this throw me for a loop. I understand that it is impossible to know the physics of a conceptual singularity. But to me, to simply call it a mystery and walk away is no different that the theist claim that we cannot know god because he is unknowably mysterious.

Even if the singularity claim is true, it's not very rational. To me, it is more rational to look at where our suppositions have led - to a dead end - and suspect that just possibly we have screwed up in the supp part of ositioning. Maybe what we need is not a singularity ouija board but simply a blackboard and chalk to start all over again at square one.

At some point it seems to me that we must guage our suppositions against known reality - guessing that physical laws stop operating simply because we get into tiny particles is not consistent - we are owed an explantion of why particles do not act consistently if we are to be sold that bill of goods. Observations are not especially relevant - the subjective nature and the need for interpretation forces them into the category of opinions rather than facts.

When confronted with the unknowable, all we have left is reason to propose a rational possibility. The very idea of a singularity fails at the conceptual level due to irrationality, doesn't it? All of matter somehow is compressed into an infestisimally tiny, unseeable dot that is suspended in and surrounded by something that is not space.

It just sounds like the god is mysterious explanation to me.

Thanks for listening.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Glad to see you here, Winston. ;)

"Excuse me for butting in, but you confuse me with the above assertion.

My understanding of time is that it is a scaler, used to measure differences in static locations. In other words, without memory, it is always now. How did the expansion of a singularity create memory, the intrinsic requirememt for the comparative concept we call time?"

Right. and before the big bang, if there was one, there would be no distance between anything. Current model of space and time are that they are one and the same thing, in a sense. So it is referred to as space/time.

Imagine all the energy/matter in the universe compressed to the size of a pinhead or an atom. No space. Therefore no distance and no time.

But your assertion is, I think, correct. At least I would agree with it from a philosophical point of view. There is no time except an ever changing now. There probably is no future waiting for us to catch up to it and no past for us to go back to.

I think you are also correct to say time as in future and past are more to do with memory than anything else. We get the feeling of time passing; as we age we see the changes in ourselves and it all looks and feels linear. We have clocks that tell time and we have appointments to keep. It looks for all the world like time exists in some manner. We measure time by the rotation of the earth.

So there is a time/distance connection. But not necessarily a linear past future. The way science sees time is as a dimension. The fourth dimension is space/time. Lots of good info on this on the net. But if you care to hash it out here I’ll try to explain it to you as we go along.

"The second question involves space. If space is the void that separates objects, i.e., nothing, how can nothing be created? By what was the singularity surrounded if not by space?"

Well the first part is easy. It isn't a void. But be that as it may. Imagine a balloon in space with a vacuum seal. Inside is a bunch of compressed powder. If you blow air into the balloon it expands. The powder expands and goes everywhere. There is then space/distance/time between the individual bits of powder.

But what is space since my model used air and no one is postulating air in our space? Well, we don’t know. But it acts like a fabric. As we already went through before, the only rational theory of gravity at the moment is topography. That may be wrong, or it may be right in a way we still don’t know of yet. But is space nothing?

Well there are ways to think about this. First one is that is a container. It contains everything that exists. So it isn’t empty. It is in a state of vacuum. So let’s imagine you build a dome over the United states and then suck all the air and gasses out of it. Put it in a state of vacuum. Is the distance between objects now nothing? So what if there is air in a bowel? There is still distance between objects in it. Is that nothing?

The second way to think about it is the fact that the supposed void has been shown to be full of quantum activity. It’s called quantum fluctuation. Particles of matter and anti matter are popping up and destroying each other the second they pop into existence. From what? From potential energy in the so called void.

There have from the beginning been theories of what the “void” is. There have been various ether theories. We don’t know yet. But it is teaming with activity. That we know.

What is the singularity surrounded by? We don’t know that either. We aren’t sure it is a meaningful question at this point from the point of view of science. Some have postulated a superverse. A place where universes are as numerous as stars in our sky. My answer is, we can’t know yet. Why speculate?

But it is an interesting philosophical question.

And even if the BB is nonsense, the question of what is outside this universe is still a valid one philosophically, though just as meaningless scientifically.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Winston

This is part one.

(we cannot know the physics of a singularity and asking what came before the big bang is a meaningless question)

Slarty,

“Sorry again but statements like this throw me for a loop. I understand that it is impossible to know the physics of a conceptual singularity. But to me, to simply call it a mystery and walk away is no different that the theist claim that we cannot know god because he is unknowably mysterious.’”

No one is walking away. There are two ways of looking at things. From the scientific perspective it is a meaningless question because there is no way to test it and there will not be for a long time if ever. If you claim time and space started with the big bang then time did not exist as time/space before the big bang. So what happened before is not even a rational question.

But for philosophy any question is up for debate, even meaningless ones. And science uses science philosophy to get around the meaninglessness from a philosophical perspective. That’s what forms interpretations and hypothesis that can’t be verified. But it can lead to another way of looking at things so philosophy can be a very valuable tool. There are all kinds of theories of what happened before universe time. I’ll go through a few shortly with you.

Still, saying the question of what happened before time is meaningless, is to me, like an atheist saying they lack belief. It is the strongest position because the strong atheist can’t prove no god exists and he theist can’t prove it does. So lacking the belief a god exists is not a belief that a god doesn’t exist. If the question cannot be proven either way, it becomes pure speculation and meaningless.

I mean, how can one rationally ask what happened before time? It’s like saying forever and after that. What after that? See what I mean?

“Even if the singularity claim is true, it's not very rational. To me, it is more rational to look at where our suppositions have led - to a dead end - and suspect that just possibly we have screwed up in the supp part of ositioning. Maybe what we need is not a singularity ouija board but simply a blackboard and chalk to start all over again at square one.”

Well we could. But where do you want to start? I have no problem with you going to blackboard and starting over. But why not look at where we started first and why we are in such a mess? Use all the information others have gathered. Debunk it if you like and build upon it.

“At some point it seems to me that we must guage our suppositions against known reality - guessing that physical laws stop operating simply because we get into tiny particles is not consistent - we are owed an explantion of why particles do not act consistently if we are to be sold that bill of goods. Observations are not especially relevant - the subjective nature and the need for interpretation forces them into the category of opinions rather than facts.”

Well, you are getting the explanations. That they don’t satisfy everyone is little wonder. But do you really think you are owed an explanation?

All we have is observations. I’ve explained this before. I agree. How you want to interpret them can be subjective. But the best way to interpret without being subjective is not to interpret at all. Look at the patterns the observations make.

Here is where interpretation has gotten us so far:

Einstein, through his theory of relativity, figured out that if the universe was static and no other force existed as a repelling action, the universe would have to contract due to gravity. It shouldn’t exist anymore if that was true. But he thought for sure the universe was static, and knew it still existed, so he devised what is known as the cosmological constant. The amount of force inherent in the vacuum of space that would keep the universe static.

But around in 1927 Hubble noticed red shift happening. Einstein said the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder. The universe was expanding, not contracting, and not static. He didn't like the idea but the evidence was there in the red shift. And it explained why the universe s till existed.

From that little bit of information, scientists said ok, if the universe is expanding, it must have been smaller at one time. How small? They thought about an expansion and contraction scenario. But then they tried just going back to a super condensed state of energy/matter and worked backward from there to see what would happen.

Well they found out it perfectly explained the universe we see now. It would have started with a rapid hot expansion, then partials like quarks would cool and start interacting. Weak and strong force would pull them together. As the cloud of hydrogen cooled it would condense, and when it reached critical mass it would become a giant hydrogen star. With the pressures and temperatures in the star, hydrogen would be forced together to form new types of atoms with new properties. The deeper into the star, the heavier the atoms would become. Since those stars were so big, they had a relatively short life span and went nova. The clouds from that formed new smaller stars and the clouds that did not reach critical mass condensed into planets and moons etc. The planets like earth would be rich with new atoms, chemical reactions would take place, and the rest is history.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Winston

Part two

So it proved to be a great model after the initial big bang. So it was battered around a lot. Some accepted it, many didn't. The singularity started the size of a basketball and got smaller and smaller with every revision. It looked good but there was no other proof.

In 1963, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which convinced most of the other astronomers that the Big Bang theory was correct. Why? Because it was a prediction of the BB theory. It meant we could look back in time to 500000 year after the BB.

Since then, astronomers have not been relying just on red shift. We can now measure distances between galaxies and have estimated that some are moving away from us at 3 quarters the speed of light. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation backs up other measurements which together imply the universe is accelerating. So not only is the universe expanding, it's accelerating. It is expanding, from what they believe, faster than it ever has in the history of the universe.

Now some people don't understand this idea of expansion very well. We know there are galaxies on a course that suggests they might intersect ours. So why are they moving toward us? The answer is, the expansion is on the large scale. When galaxies are closer together such as within a cluster (like us and Andromeda) gravity becomes the dominant force.

So why? Well, here comes Einstein’s cosmological constant again which turns out, according to current theory, might have been not too far off the mark.

But others were lead to the search for a repelling force other than the cosmological constant, and the proposition of dark matter and dark energy was brought up.

Now, they call it dark matter and dark energy because they don't have a clue what it is. It has not been proven to exist. But it is the model some scientists are now using. Others are using cosmological constant, and some turned the cosmological constant into evidence of bark matter and energy.

Along comes Robert Penrose. He has seen the same data and is proposing that the universe grows in spurts, and has been doing so for much longer than 13.5 billion years. He is proposing not one bi g bang but many small ones. No dark energy or matter. And his theory is very interesting. We will see.

But the BB is not the only game in town. There is the holographic universe everyone except scientists is flocking to. There are several Many Worlds theories. 6 major ones I know of. All of which disagree with each other. Some use their own version of BB, some do not. There are at least two or three Black hole theories. Each has a massive black hole as the main character that explains expansion. One is from string theory and tells us the universe is a membrane at the event horizon of a black hole bigger than our universe. Another says we are riding through a black hole, and one says the big bang happens when a super huge black hole eats a universe, recompresses all its energy/matter and spews it out the other end to start expanding all over again. We have a plethora of interpretations of what is happening to the universe.

So what do we do?

While I won't say the BB doesn't have problems, it is the best model we have. A model does not have to be absolutely correct as long as it is a rational explanation of what we observe and if we can use it to predict the behaviour of the universe. I'm not even saying the BB does that, only that it is the best model we have for the evidence at hand.

Everyone agrees the universe is expanding. Very few doubt it, like very few doubt global climate change. But what is really happening is still not clear. Let’s wait and see.

“When confronted with the unknowable, all we have left is reason to propose a rational possibility. The very idea of a singularity fails at the conceptual level due to irrationality, doesn't it? All of matter somehow is compressed into an infestisimally tiny, unseeable dot that is suspended in and surrounded by something that is not space.

It just sounds like the god is mysterious explanation to me.”

Sure. But life is like that. What is outside our universe? Anything? Can we know? No. Is it a meaningful question? It’s a mystery. But that doesn’t mean it will always be a mystery. If you are looking for all the answers right now we haven’t got em. But science is young. If wasn’t so long ago we were still in the trees. What answers did we have then? You are free to go back to the drawing board. I wish you would. Where you start is up to you. I am starting by not believing anything, but not discounting anything completely either.

You are right though. Rationality and logic is all we have. That’s all anyone has. And while we can’t get all the facts right now, there are a hell of a lot of them do have.

“Thanks for listening.”

Thanks for asking my opinion.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Winston

Just wanted to give you the modern version of the definition of the word Vacuum as used by science in regard to space.

"The concept of "vacuum" is not the same as "empty space", as all of space is filled with the quantized fields that make up a universe. Vacuum is simply the lowest possible energy state of these fields, a very different definition from "empty".

I found it while looking through notes. Not sure where it comes from but it explains it better than I did.


just_curious 5 years ago

I liked your hub. Very nice read. Wouldn't say I agree completely with your conclusion, but you present your argument well. Thanks for sharing.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Thank you for reading it.


jcnasia profile image

jcnasia 5 years ago

Hi Slarty,

From reading your hub as well as your forum posts, I can tell that you can write well and are very intelligent, but I just don't think naturalism is defensible.

"One event follows another according to the rules of nature."

But in order for naturalistic causes to be the sole source, you assume that different laws work in the singularity. There is no evidence for this claim. It is purely speculative. If everything has a cause, what caused the Big Bang?

Your idea about probability is interesting. Imagine that we are in a courtroom. The defendant's name is Naturalistic Causes, and 'she' (mother nature) has been accused of causing everything. The jury has to decide if she's guilty. The judge tells the jury that they must be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that she's guilty. But then, the prosecutor jumps up and exclaims, "The likelihood of whether she did it or not doesn't matter. It happened. As long as there is 1 zillionith of a chance that she's guilty, then she's guilty." I think your probability argument is like that of this prosecutor. It's nonsense.

Lastly, your explanation of where order comes from leaves out a crucial fact. Whenever order increases in one part of a system, the overall order of the system decreases.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

What caused the big bang? The current theory is Quantum Fluctuation. But we aren't sure a big bang happened. Naturalism doesn't depend on it either. It's a model which in the last few months has come under some revision. We'll see where that goes.

But to get to your point, I did not say there were specific laws at work in that singularity. I said that what ever BB theory there has ever been it began with the total energy of the universe compressed to what ever size the theory suggested we start from.

So energy is eternal by these theories just as it is by the laws of conservation. There is no something from nothing as some people seem to think. Even in the Hawking version which reworks the idea of Quantum Fluctuation being the source of the "rapid expansion" of the universe, where QF is potential energy, it all starts with energy.

But Penrose has another idea which seems to be gaining some recognition. That one says there was not a single expansion but many. Each is considered an eon and so we can know some of what happened before that kind of expansion.

BB has been the most popular model but there are others. It really doesn't matter which one is correct in the end. We already have the laws that explain the process from the beginning on if there was a beginning as such at all.

This is all going to take a lot more explaining and I am working on a hub for you that will, I hope, be some what more enlightening than this one was.

As for my view of probability, I don't think your example is accurate. Say you are standing on a street corner and some one asks what the probability is of seeing a man walking down the street with an ape, hand in hand? Before you answer you see a man walking down the street hand in hand with an ape. The probability has become one hundred percent. It happened. If it had not happened then you might give it a million to one. But once it has happened probability is irrelevant.

What is the probability of you doing exactly what you are currently doing? 100 percent. It is silly to say you might have been doing a million other things. You are not, and this instant can not be played back or taken over again.

I'm not even sure why you are making me say that if there is but a zillionith of a chance that nature did it it must be so. I did not imply that. Nature does things on it's own. That seems obvious. There are systems within systems at work and they produce all we see.

The question is, is there a god's hand in it? Did that god set it into motion? Right?

I know nature exists. That is one hundred percent certain. Your god existing is not certain at all. I won't even put odds on it. But there is no evidence to suggest nature needs help.

You are the defense telling the jury about a possible alternative person who did the deed, but you can't produce him, can't find him, don't know his name or where he lived and you can't place him or anyone else at the scene. You just assume he did it because according to you he is smart enough and nature isn't.

As to entropy you will have to wait till my next hub. Probably be ready tonight or tomorrow. A clue is, what ever you though about entropy is likely false. The over all order of a system always increases, and I will show you how.


jcnasia profile image

jcnasia 5 years ago

I'm looking forward to the new hub.

Concerning the probability discussion: I think the court example is very appropriate. We want to figure out which explanation is most likely to explain where our current reality comes from. In other words, we want to know the past, not the present. Your ape example is a description of what we might currently see. Do we see species evolving into new species? No. Do we see we see life spontaneously starting? No. Because we don't see where life and the universe come from, we need to evaluate whether our explanations are likely or not.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

My point was just about the argument that ID people or creationists tell us how unlikely it is that the world is where it is in the universe and how fine tuned it is. They tell us it can't be that random acts could produce this because of the odds against it. Even some real scientists have made this mistake.

You can't get to the bottom of how it happened by laying odds on how unlikely it is that it happened. It happened. The odds are one hundred percent in favour. So the only question is how.

Some people then say yes, but life can't spring up spontaneously from random events. But there are no truly random events because all events have a cause. There are no causeless events. So we can see it happened and we can see it happened through cause and effect, not by accident.

So modern physicalism (what used to be called materialism and which you call naturalism) is not claiming much of anything different from the creationist.

The only difference is as to what did the deed? What set it all in motion?

So I agree that it was not an accident and not random chance. But that does not imply a third party. Creationists, which is what ID is, have to show that it is impossible for nature to do it on its own.

Even then they do not by default prove their version of a god exists. or any version for that matter. Creationists have not yet proven that nature needed help or a push.

They assume it must be so because the universe is so complex.

But the physicalist sees the laws of physics and realizes where this complexity came from: the nature of the process of existence. Energy/matter itself.

As it happens there are new species that pop up once in a while. Bacteria and virus mutate into different creatures almost every year. Some evolve into air born virus and change shape radically. We see how atoms evolve substances.

What you are talking about is in a sense an end result. The earth is no longer that hotbed of conflict it once was where millions of species were developed and most went extinct. The world has stabilized and evolved from having no oxygen to having a great deal of it. That in itself changed the game because to early life oxygen was poison. Yet those early life forms that adapted because of it were able to become much large and more complex.

The primordial sea doesn't exist anymore. Yet the species that are left still evolve and some still go extinct. Species do split off from each other. We have plenty of evidence for evolution. It is a fact like change is a fact.

What we can't know with certainty is whether we evolved from atoms to single celled beings and eventually to humans. We can't know that for certain because evolution is slow for the most part.

But we have a good model that agrees with current evidence. We can predict probability of how it happened though not the exact details step by step as yet.

But the creationist has not proven the very basis of their claim: the existence of a god. So until they do t hat, anything they say about what he does or did is pure speculation with no basis in fact.

Physicalism has a basis in fact and reason. We are not waiting for you to prove a god exists. The odds against you proving one exists are pretty big, since by your own accounts the likelihood of the creator of the universe showing up is slim.

To me, the creator of the universe is probably right in front of your face: Nature. Or to be more specific: The process of existence. There seems to be no other god required. And why should anyone assume that there is until you show that there is and until you produce an outside force that admits to doing it all?

It's like telling me yes, your car's motor turns the wheels, but it isn't the mechanical systems of the motor that do the deed, its an intelligent spirit that does it.

Where is your evidence of this intelligent spirit? Until you can give me that, your claim is not worth a second thought.

The process of existence seems to do fine on its own without outside help. So for now, why should I even entertain the idea that it really does need outside help?

It's up to you to who believe it does to give us convincing evidence. So far as I have seen from ID, there is no such evidence as yet. Most of ID is based on misunderstanding of science and confirmation bias.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

By the way, you may be interested in related comments I made on another hub at the author's request.

http://hubpages.com/education/Galileo_and_Science


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Just to let you know, I have just published the hub: Entropy Explained

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working