winner01:
Imagine you are walking through a field and find a watch lying on the ground. What would your first thought be? Would you think that random factors over time just happened to form a spring with no purpose that inadvertently came across a cog that was formed with no purpose and then were joined accidentally to a number of other gears, springs, and cogs, eventually forming a fully functioning and accurate instrument that could measure time? Of course not. You would assume someone had made it. This is because of its obvious design features. The precision and
intentionality of the mechanism are clear signs of purpose, of a plan. There must have been an intelligent being who conceived of the watch and its workings and then created the watch.
This analogy, which is often used to illustrate the argument from design, tries to show that when we observe nature, whether on a tiny level (like cells or proteins) or on a grand scale (like whole organisms or even the universe), we can see precision and intentionality. And from that
observation we can infer that there must be an intelligence behind it all with a purpose and a plan. Just as fingerprints are the product of fingers touching something, intentionality and purpose are products of a mind acting, not chance.
When we use design to argue for the existence of God we are making a teleological argument. “Telos” is a Greek world meaning purpose or ultimate end. Thus, teleology is the study of a thing’s purpose or design. The design argument has been made far back as Plato and Aristotle
and is one of Thomas Aquinas five ways of proving the existence of God. But in 1802 William Paley made what is probably the most famous version of the argument, which included the watchmaker illustration.
In recent years, the teleological argument has become known as “Intelligent Design” or “ID.” People like Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, William Dembski, and Hugh Ross have used use the latest scientific discoveries and advances to cast the design argument in the most contemporary terms. There are a variety of ways the design argument has been used to argue for the existence of God. We’ll look at three examples of these arguments: the fine tuning of the universe, the nature of information, and irreducible complexity.
FINE TUNING
Scientists have come to understand the universe as having a great deal of precision. In fact, the degree of precision is so great that to alter many of the parameters even minutely would destroy life as we know it. This precision leads some scientists to make an argument based on order that the universe was actually designed to accommodate life. Also called “fine tuning,” the anthropic principle uses two classes of parameters to make a design argument: one set for the features of the universe, the other for the features of our sun-planet-moon system.
In his book The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross lists parameters that must fall within a very narrow range in order to make life possible. The list includes things like the average distance between stars, the strong and weak nuclear force constants, and the velocity of light.
What would happen if any one parameter fell outside its narrow, life-friendly range? Take the expansion rate of the universe as an example. If the expansion rate was faster than one part in 1055, galaxies could not have formed; if the expansion rate was slower than one part in 1055,
the universe would collapse before galaxies had a chance to form. Without galaxies stars could not form, without stars planets could not form, and without planets there could be no life. The extraordinary balance and precision exhibited by each of the above parameters demonstrates an
order that chance and randomness cannot account for. This order points to an orderer, a designer of the universe..
The second set of parameters have to do with our sun-planet-moon system. These parameters include things like:
• If the gravity on the surface of the Earth was stronger, the atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane, which are poisonous. But if the gravity was less, the atmosphere would lose too much water.
• If the length of a day was greater, the temperature differences would be too great to sustain life. But if the day was shorter the atmospheric wind velocities too great to survive.
Again, each of the parameters in Ross’ list cannot vary by more than an extremely small amount without damaging the Earth’s ability to support life.
But is this nothing more than an egocentric view of the universe? Just because humans happen to require the universe to have these parameters in order to live does not mean it was made with us in mind, does it? Not necessarily. But think about the watch we found in the woods. The design and precision was not for its own sake; there was a purpose to it: to keep the time. The universe is far more complicated than a watch and displays far more design and precision. It’s hard to see why such design and precision should be seen as purposeless and life as accidental.
Given the uniqueness of Earth it seems far more plausible to see life in general and human life in particular as the purpose of this design and precision.
But what if there is life elsewhere in the universe? First, we have no evidence whatsoever of life of any kind anywhere else in the universe. In fact, rather than being an average planet, astronomers are beginning recognize just how rare the earth is. Second, if there was life elsewhere it would bolster, not detract from the view that the purpose of the design and precision of the universe is to sustain life. And third, that even if we did find life elsewhere in the universe, it wouldn’t change anything about the nature of human beings or the truthfulness of Christianity – we’d still be sinners in need of salvation.
DNA
In addition to design in the precision of the universe, the existence and nature of information in the universe can be used to show the existence of God. To understand this form of the argument we must first understand the different kinds of order. Specified Order is simply a string of repeating information, CAT CAT CAT, for example. This is a naturally occurring kind of order and can be found in things like crystals, nylon, or snowflakes.Unspecified Complexities are non-repetitive and random. They are also naturally occurring. Things like the sound of howling wind and the shape of a rock are good examples.
Specified Complexities are non-repetitive and non-random. They are not naturally occurring; they are the product of design. In contrast to the howling wind and the shape of a rock, examples of specified complexities would be music or a statue. Even the sentence you are hearing right now is an example of specifically complex order. The way we recognize a specified complexity by its contingency. According to William Dembski, one of the most prominent figures in the ID movement, “Contingency is the chief characteristic of information.” A rock’s shape is determined by the laws of nature that are brought to bear on it by its circumstances. There are no other possibilities for its shape given its nature and circumstance.
However a statue’s shape is contingent on the purpose of an intelligent being – a sculptor. The sculpture could take any number of forms and therefore is not determined, but contingent on the purpose of its designer.
If you were asked, “Is there any information on this screen?” what would your answer be? If you answered “no” then you are correct; there is no information on this or any other computer screen in the world. The only things on this screen are different colored specifically ordered pixels. In fact, you could have exhaustive knowledge about computers and the technology behind screen displays but still not know what was said on the screen. If there was information on the screen, then we would never have to learn to read; the information would just fly off the screen and impose itself onto our minds whenever we looked at it.
So what is information? It is communication between minds. But in order for minds to communicate, there must be a common language. The language must exist and be understood prior to any ability to communicate. For example, music may exist in a composer’s head but it cannot be communicated without the convention of music notation. The language of written music (like staffs, notes, and values) must exist prior to attempting to write or play the music in the composer’s mind. Every language is a set of tokens and a set of conventions for the use of the tokens. A token stands in for something intangible. For example, the number “1” is not really an actual number “1” but a token or symbol representing the number “1” which is a nonphysical entity.
There are no actual letters on this screen, just tokens representing the letters. Because letters and numbers are non-physical entities, they have no location or appearance. That is why we need tokens to represent them. Each token has a convention or way in which to use the token.
When those conventions are used properly we get words and sentences. The point is this: the rules of language were established before we could use it to communicate even on the most primitive level.
Imagine if you were to go to the Grand Canyon and you saw “STEVE WAS HERE” etched in the canyon wall and you knew it was made naturally with wind and water through erosion; you would also know it contained no information. In fact, it would not even be English, just squiggles cut into rock that resemble the tokens and conventions used in English. But this resemblance would be entirely unintentional and therefore communicate nothing.
What about an unlimited number of monkeys with typewriters? Given an unlimited amount of time, could these monkeys ever write Hamlet? The answer is no. Even if at some point they happened upon the exact same sequence of letters as Hamlet, it still would not be Hamlet. It would be a string of letters that resembled Hamlet, but it would be void of any information. This is because there was no intention to communicate behind the monkey’s actions; there was no true use of language, only its tokens. The tokens would be empty.
A great example of how scientists make use of this understanding of information theory is seen in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project. SETI listens to radio waves and searches for a specifically complex string of information. The idea is that specifically complex signals can only come from an intelligent agent wishing to communicate.
Recently, our understanding of DNA has given us a new avenue for the argument from design based on information. That DNA contains information is not in dispute. But, as we have seen, information is not intrinsic to naturally occurring physical objects.
Just as a sound is an agent that carries the tokens and conventions used in speech for communication, DNA is simply an agent housing a set of tokens used to convey and store information that is necessary for the body to develop and function. But before DNA could be useful, a language had to be established. The genetic code had to exist prior to the existence of DNA and come from outside the DNA. Information did not emerge from DNA itself any more than a bowl of alphabet soup can say “I LOVE YOU.” The best explanation for the information found in DNA is that it was imposed on the DNA by a mind.
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
A third example of the design argument is based on the complexity we see in living organisms. It says that some things are as simple as they could possibly be and still function. This is called irreducible complexity. These things could not have evolved through undirected forces or chance because the individual parts have no function apart from the whole and the whole has no function in a more primitive state. To illustrate the argument biochemist Michael Behe, pioneer of the argument, uses the example of a mousetrap. Which part of a mousetrap can be removed and still leave you with a functioning mousetrap? The answer is: nothing. It did not start out as a piece of wood that caught a couple mice and then evolved to include a spring, which caught a few more mice, which then adapted to include a hammer, which caught even more mice etc.
The mousetrap is made of individual components, which, apart from the whole of the mousetrap, are useless. And if any individual component is subtracted from the whole then the mechanism is rendered useless. The mousetrap could not have possibly evolved. It was first conceived of and then created by an intelligent agent with the power and will to act.
The implications of this are huge. If there are examples of irreducible complexity in biology then atheistic macroevolution, the idea that evolution explains life’s origins and that species evolve from one kind to another through random mutation and chance, must be false. Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, looks at some of the most basic biological mechanisms that we know of, such as the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting, and argues that these biological machines are irreducibly complex.
One biological machine often used to illustrate irreducible complexity is the human eye. The eye is made of over forty different components, each of which contains a number of sub-components. If any one component fails, then vision is impaired. Again the economy of parts and the precision necessary for vision betrays a designer.
A common objection to the use of the eye as an example of irreducible complexity is that there are a number of different kinds of eyes found in nature and they exhibit a wide variety of complexity. This observation is used to make a case for evolution. But what we see in nature is not a series of steps in an evolutionary chain. Rather, we see a variety of irreducibly complex biological machines that have the same basic function.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s say the eye did evolve as a result of random processes. What does that give us? An interface with no receiver—like a keyboard that is not attached to a computer. After all, just as there is no actual input without the keyboard being attached to
the computer, sight is not sight without a brain to receive it. The eye must connect to the brain somehow. But how does the eye know where the brain is or what a brain is or that it even exists or that it is required to make the eye useful? And how did the eye then wire itself properly to the brain? Why didn’t it connect itself to the nose or a knee? And even if it did connect to the brain properly how did the eye know how to speak a language that the brain would understand?
Again we need a language created prior to and apart from the existence of the things that will speak the language. And again, an intelligent designer is the best explanation.
It is important to remember, however, that the truthfulness of Christianity ultimately does not stand or fall based on the truth of macroevolution. Even if macroevolution was irrefutably proven to be true tomorrow it would not and could not rule out the possibility of God using it as the agent through which He accomplishes His design. An intelligent agent would still be required to initiate and direct the process. Nothing about human nature would be any different. We would still be sinners in need of a savior regardless of the process God used to create us.
Ultimately, the design argument does not show that Christianity is true and all other religions are false. However, it does reveal a picture of a personal, powerful God that is consistent with the Bible. Used as one part of a larger case it is a very powerful and important argument for the truthfulness of Christianity.
Source; Apologeticbible.com
cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman What do you want from me? |
. But I'm still waiting for your answers though . No one makes claims and runs away when I'm around . No one bro
Do you see why atheism is irrational and the atheists need to understand the Logic of God and EVERYTHING ?