The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
hardcover
Molecular Machines webpage (thanks Val)
Posted on 01/14/2015 10:01:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I’m not a scientist, and I don’t play one on TV. But I can examine scientific evidence and ask the question, “How is life possible?”
This past Christmas, the Wall Street Journal ran an essay of mine entitled “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.” The content will be familiar to those who have read my latest book, “Miracles,” or heard me talk about it here at BreakPoint.
I noted that the initial euphoria over the possibility that there were a septillion -- that’s one followed by 24 zeros -- planets capable of supporting life in the universe was followed by the sober fact that such planets, never mind evidence of extraterrestrial life, are exceedingly rare.
That’s because science has learned just how “fine-tuned” the universe has to be in order to support life of any kind, never mind intelligent life.
As I wrote in the Journal, “Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met,” or our existence would be utterly impossible.
Yet, not only do we exist, we're discussing the fact that we exist, which prompted me to ask, “What can account for” all of this? and “Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions actually require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?”
Well, the response to the column was overwhelming. The piece really went viral and garnered more “likes” on Facebook than any article the Wall Street Journal has ever published--over 350,000 as I read this now! I find that amazing and more than a little humbling.
Not surprisingly, the piece had plenty of critics. One scientist wrote to the Journal complaining about “religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments” and “allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist.”
This objection, which I’m told figured prominently in the comments section at the Journal, essentially amounts to saying that only scientists should be allowed to talk about the religious implications of scientific things. Scientists, it seems, can dabble as metaphysicians, philosophers, and theologians, but not vice-versa.
This is the foregone conclusion even when the person of faith is merely citing scientific findings, as I did. However, this objection is not rooted in science but in scientism, which holds that “empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.”
The criticism wasn’t limited to comments from atheistic scientists. Several religious believers, including those whose work I respect, took me to task for saying that science can “prove” the existence of God, much less the God of the Bible. As one Christian philosopher put it, a god whose existence can be proved scientifically isn’t God.
That is true, which is why I’m happy that I never said anything resembling that. What I did was point to the sheer improbability of our existence and ask whether it might not be reasonable to infer, like Fred Hoyle, who coined the phrase “Big Bang,” whether the universe might be, as he put it, a “put up job.”
The scientific findings I cited aren’t “proof” that compel belief in God’s existence but “signs” pointing to that possibility and inviting you to follow them to see where they might lead.
In the end, belief in God, especially the biblical God, is an act of faith. But so too is believing that our existence is simply the result of chance. Like it or not.
I don’t. Many do.
Just observing that what we see in the sky doesn’t fit in a “young Earth” universe, as nothing we see could be more than 10,000 light years away. (Unless one subscribes to the theory that God put photons in motion to look like they came from billion-light-year-distant stars, at which point I suggest that He made the universe 20 minutes ago and ask why not ... but I digress.)
the paradox of science is it assumes a rational universe
..so before anything else (big bang, whatever) there was just pure functioning rationality that created everything into existence....and that rational function is a eternal constant.....
Sure sound like that fundamental elements of what we take as a given in a self aware mind...
Either the universal function from a rational start or you believe its irrational and from some kind of random arbitrary serendipitous event...
Why is that?
He is only half right. Belief that there is a transcendent God who created the universe does not rely on "faith", it is revealed by and within his creation itself. This is called general revelation. Even the Apostle acknowledged that God's existance is revealed in his creation to the extent that nobody has an excuse for failing to acknowledge his existance. Of course the author is correct that the "biblical" God can only be established by faith in the bible that reveals him. That's what makes him the "biblical" God. We call this special revelation. God's attributes transcend the material so we can only know about him that which he chooses to reveal. He reveals these attributes by way of scripture.
If the universe is 10,000 years old, any light originating more than 10,000 light years away hasn’t had time to reach us yet.
Everything we see would have to fit within a 10,000 light year radius sphere.
Reconcile that with: the Milky Way galaxy alone is, as far as we can sensibly determine, about 120,000 light years across.
Also, the number of objects we see in space, and the size/mass of them, would not fit within that 10,000 ly sphere without severe effects profoundly incompatible with what we experience.
From the other extreme, on a non-cosmological-scale:
10,000 years is 100 hundred-year lifespans back-to-back.
That’s not very long, especially when your own lifespan is a large fraction of a century. Certainly not long enough to explain much of what we see without holding that God made things, on a very large scale, to look like what they aren’t - to wit, I reject the notion that God lied.
The problem, of course, is that the age of the Universe (however it may have occurred) differs depending upon where you may be and what you’re doing.
I think.
Was Jesus born of a virgin?
When Mary was waddling around pregnant, did she look like a virgin?
Am curious how you arrive at that conclusion, and how you reconcile it with the speed of light (which imposes hard limits on size).
Huh? Not following your non-sequitur.
They’re simple questions, not requiring a great deal of contemplation.
I’m sure it won’t take you long to figure out the point of my questions. So I’ll understand if you decline to answer them. :-)
Assuming that everything began with the Big Bang, the age of the universe differs depending upon where the observer may be relative to the point of the bang.
That’s the Theory of Special Relativity.
Ah, point taken.
My point still applies: earth would have to be moving at nearly the speed of light (relative to most everything else) for the 10,000 year model to fit the 16,000,000,000 year model.
Good points. Ones that I like as well. Gödel’s theorem, and “the sensation of being watched”.
I’m curious if you’ve read anything by Stanley Jaki?
” Or they say that it was all here forever. Thus they can believe that the universe was eternal, “
That argument collides with Olber’s Paradox, the “problem of the dark night sky”.
Unfortunately not.
I will have to find the time...
;-)
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
hardcover
Molecular Machines webpage (thanks Val)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
