Wednesday, December 1, 2010

The quest for a chance beginning

According to recent findings, scientist's have found bacteria that feeds on arsenic for the purpose of photosynthesis. This represents a breakthrough discovery, because if this can occur on earth, why not on Titan, which is a moon of Saturn, or other places in the universe? The conclusion of this recent finding is that life is no longer unique to earth. For those who espouse a naturalistic view of science the implication is, life can evolve by chance processes alone. One of the angles that the naturalist would take is that God is not necessary anymore, for life will find a way.

One of the big illusions of naturalism is its handicapping of possible truth. If supernaturalism is ruled out a priori, then the possibility of truth may be lost if anything is supernaturally caused. In this case with the discovery of bacteria, it must be assumed by naturalistic science that it came to be by a chance creative process. Another problem arises when the naturalist takes the position that life comes into being by a chance process, but how does he know this? What evidence can be given to show this is the most logical view? How does he know this bacteria was not created supernaturally in the past? When naturalism jumps to this conclusion, the the jump is merely a jump of faith.

Further problems exist when the assumption is made that because bacterial life can possibly form outside of earth, Darwinian evolution must be true. Several questions need to be addressed for life to even start and evolve. For example, How did something come from nothing? If you have chance creation of the universe, then how did the living arise from non-living material? How did the first DNA chains arise by chance? These questions have to be addressed first, but naturalistic science assumes not just chance evolution, but that conscious beings can evolve by a random chance processes.

What the naturalist does not want to address is explaining these fundamental questions to chance life beginnings. The reason why these questions are not addressed is because there is no way to show that life arose by chance. Science can never test this, but that doesn't not seem to slow the advocates of a purely naturalistic ideology. If naturalistic science claims that this discovery proves Darwinian evolution, they are swimming in the water of preconceived, philosophical, pseudoscience. If naturalism is crowned the champion of truth based upon this discovery, then the science of the gaps is inserted and real truth has been deleted.

1 comment:

Tylor S. said...

Part 02

"the design arguments (moral, mind, biological, astronomical)"

The designer doesn't need to be YHWH. It could be anything. And that's assuming there is a designer. Maybe there is something else going on completely beyond our imaginations. Maybe there is a multiverse. I also find it hard to find design arguments convincing because one would need to know what the universe was actually for. Sure, if it was designed for human life maybe its constants are improbable. But there is no way to know whether the universe was designed for human life. That's an unprovable assumption. Maybe, if the universe was designed for stars, the constants are slightly less probable. Maybe it was designed for something we don't even know yet.

"and revelation."

Not sure why the Bible should be considered revelation from a super being. Even assuming the resurrection happened (which is what is needed to even begin to think the Bible may be the "Word of God") this wouldn't prove a thing. Maybe Jesus was resurrected by an evil God. Maybe Jesus was brought back from the dead by a powerful God, but not the classical Christian God. Maybe Jesus was brought back from death by mistake. Maybe Jesus was brought back from death by aliens.

Also, it doesn’t establish that, say, Esther is the Word of God. Or which form of Isaiah is the Word of God. Or whether 3 John is the Word of God. It just shows that a man who was resurrected believed some undefined collection of books could be used when making points to people. Just in the same way Jude or Paul quotes sayings and writings not considered to be divine.

Then there are all the reasons to think that Jesus actually didn't come back from the dead. Maybe the disciples lied. Maybe the disciples were mistaken. Maybe the disciples were fooled. Maybe it was a combination of these things. And that's assuming the accounts are accurate. What if they aren't? What if the Jesus mythers are correct and the whole thing is largely a fabrication?

"All of these arguments placed together are pieces of a puzzle that reveal a positive case for God's existence."

Maybe it's a positive case, but it doesn't lead one to the conclusion that the trinitarian YHWH exists. Even if it succeeds (which it doesn’t).

"However, it was a design argument (DNA information) that convinced Flew to change from atheism to theism."

To deism would be more precise. And Flew didn't believe the design argument led to trinitarian YHWHism.

"The cumulative approach brings many arguments together that support one another in order to show that theism is the most rational approach."

Not by a long shot.

"Like the cumulative approach for theism, the historicity of the Christian worldview offers cumulative evidence to show it is the most logical view."

Not really.

"The cumulative evidence of Christianity rests on the person of Jesus."

The character of Jesus may be great. Christianity may have done some good things. But it doesn't mean its core teachings are true.

I continue my comments in the next comment.