From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 16:20:57 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

> I think it is handy to remember here that time does not seem to be separate
> and distinct from the rest of reality.  Rather, it is current thought that
> time is warped by dense concentrations of mass.  

This has been measured experimentally, by the way.

> If one were able to survive
> being close to a black hole without being pulled into a string of neutrinos,

Neutrinos?

> one would find that many, many years had passed on the outside while only a
> few moments had passed from this perspective.  By this same theory, in
> conjunction with "big-bang" it is clear that all matter in an infinitely
> small volume would mean zero passage of time (i.e. the beginning of time, "in
> the beginning", etc.)  More on this below.

There are many popular books on the big bang that it would benefit you
to read.  One idea that you are missing is that it makes no more sense
to ask what happened before the big bang than it does to ask what is
outside the universe.  



> In a like manner, there is even less evidence that these surges _would_ have
> a natural tendency to occur.  Why would they?  While it is true that only the
> entropy of the universe must increase for spontenaity, chaos theory (although
> not yet well defined) expands this to sub-systems, which intuitively makes
> sense.  

Actually, I'm not sure that your sentence makes sense, intuitively or
otherwise.  One more time, chaos theory says nothing about the
likelihood of complex systems arising without intelligent guidance.
It contributes in no way to your argument.  All chaos theory says is
that the behavior of certain systems is difficult to predict.  It does
not even limit our ability to know the range of possible outcomes, it
just limits our ability to know precisely which outcome will happen.
You really should stop bringing chaos theory into this.


>If indeed we are part of a "surge" it is the most unlikely thing.
> Much more unlikely than God. (See below)

It is not necessary to think that the increase in complexity we see in
biological systems on Earth is merely a random "surge".  An increase
in complexity can also occur naturally because of an energy input into
the system.  The energy we receive from the sun is the driving force
behind the increasing complexity on Earth.  Thermodynamics actually
predicts such an increase in complexity when you have energy moving
through a system as we have here on Earth.  

The second law of thermodynamics (which is the formal expression of
the principle you are using to argue from) does not apply to open
systems like the Earth.  It also does not apply to open systems like
ecosystems.  Nor does it apply to open systems like populations.  Also
excluded from consideration are open systems like individuals.  All
this is carefully explained in the FAQ's, which I have encouraged you
to read.  Please do, it will save me a lot of typing.


> 
> Actually it is more along the lines of "God is the most probable cause behind
> that which we see, and should therefore be credited with it until clear
> evidence to the contrary presents itself".  After all, would you have those
> early scientists rejecting their findings only because they believed them to
> be incomplete?  Why should this be any different?
> 
> >And, last, but not least. If you really think God did it, and, amazingly enough
> >do not have a problem with it, let me ask you:
> >
> >W H O   M A D E  G O D???
> 
> In our understanding, limited as it may be, we must always conceptualize
> things within certain frameworks such as time.  I submit that time may be
> part of creation (linked to matter as it seems to be) and because of this God
> is above needing a beginning.  

Wonderful explanation.  Whew!  You just scraped out of that one.  But
wait!  You've fallen into a trap! (I told you you would in a previous
posting.)  Let's try it out:

you:  The beginning of the universe requires an explanation.
      Complex things don't just spring into being, so God must
      have personally guided the creation of the universe and of
      life on earth, since these things are complex.

us:   But God is complex.  Where did he come from?

you:  God is above needing a beginning.

us:   So is the universe.  There goes your requirement for God.  There
      is no longer a requirement that complex things have intelligent
      creators.
    

> Just because we are constrained to a certain
> set of rules (i.e. everything has a cause) doesn't mean that God is, provided
> that he also made the rules.

Just because we are constrained to a certain set of rules (i.e.
everything has a cause) doesn't meant that the Universe is, provided
that the rules came into being with the universe, and only apply
within its boundaries, both temporal and physical.

Anyway, no one is arguing that life came into being without a cause.
Simply that the cause is inherent in the rules of the universe, and
does not require intelligence.

We should really try to keep our discussions to the origins of life
here, by the way, since that is what the group is for.  The origin of
the universe is really a quite different issue, and it is possible
(and quite common, I imagine) to believe that God created the
universe, and that life evolved here on earth without his direct
intervention. 

> Think of our reality as a two dimensional slice of _the_ reality, and then
> place a three-dimensional being in _the_ reality with a pencil.  Not only is
> everything visible, but we need not see a cause for everything.  This being
> now lands his pencil squarely on the page with quite a force, and in our
> reality all of a sudden there is something from nothing.  From our
> perspective something came from absolutely nothing.  Little pieces of
> graphite break off and shoot out everywhere, and the being takes a particular
> interest in at least one and sets out to do his creative thing with it.  He
> jiggles the paper such that they all move about, and says "it is good".  I
> think you get the idea by now.

I think we had the idea before you started posting, and at least some
people here had it better than you did, and refuted it.  Read the
FAQ's.  So far you have not contributed anything to the group.  That's
not because you are not capable of doing so, it's because you are just
rehashing old ground.  Go read the FAQ's, at least the ones relevant
to your current line of argument.  Then come back and answer the
refutations to your point.  Then we can get on with the discussion.

-- 
*Eric Shafto             * The longer I live the more I see I am never    *
*Institute for the       * wrong about anything, and that all the pains I *
*    Learning Sciences   * have so humbly taken to verify my notions have *
*Northwestern University * only wasted my time.          --G. B. Shaw     *