DarwinPropertyInsight.com

First off, let me say that I’m not attempting to convert anyone here, nor am I extolling any particular religion, or indeed faith in God itself. However, I’ve seen many so-called "proofs" of God’s existence, but few that are convincing. Most arguments both for and against are based on rhetoric, not evidence. However, these three are rather difficult to explain, so I’m running them by others to get more insight. Please don’t start flaming just cos it’s a controversial subject, and please answer with logical explanations or counter-arguments to the 3 arguments present. PLEASE don’t bother trying to "disprove" or prove anything using other arguments. I’m only interested in the 3 shown here. Right:

1)This comes from information theory in biology. You see, DNA is a piece of information, a code, much like computer code. Evolution has moved on since the days of Darwin. Most evolutionary biologists are struggling to understand the basics of how it works today. The problem is that random mutation does not lead to a stable workable gene. Rather, it leads to what a layman would call "noise". Random variation of a gene only produces unstable mutations, which are incapable of functioning, or even surviving. So how does any evolutionary change occur, when random mutation, mediated by natural selection, does not work? The thing is, with regard to the origin and continued functioning of life, no one has been able to understand how a code came about by accident? Although randomness and uncertainty rule in the natural world, a code is a thing of high order. And so far, no evidence has been found anywhere of a code occurring naturally. It seems to be scientifically impossible. All codes that we know of, such as computer programs for example, have been designed by a conscious mind. Even compilers design programs based on a set of instructions given by us, and are incapable of making large changes without us intervening. So how did this come, and continue to come, about?

2)We’ve all heard of turbulence. An example is when you leave a matchstick to burn out. Once the fire is gone, the smoke spirals in a random fashion on it’s own. It would do this even in a vacuum out in deep space, away from any gravity or any other force(this has been scientifically accepted for decades). That’s not a problem. What is a problem is when turbulence leads to a highly ordered pattern. A dramatic example is the Aurora. We know what causes the Aurora, and how the different colors of light in the night sky are generated, but what we don’t understand is how the shapes are generated(those ghostly curtains). The Aurora should be composed of random specks of light all over the place, yet it isn’t. The particles arrange themselves in a highly ordered pattern, producing those beautiful curtains. Just like the second law of thermodynamics, it is statistically impossible for turbulence to produce a pattern once, let alone over and over again. There are other examples of turbulence producing patterns for no apparent reason as well. How do you explain this?

3)Scientists have discovered about 18 constants, ranging from the speed of light to the strength of gravity and the other 3 forces, that govern the universe. These are not laws, rather they are exact numbers going back into decimals even. These numbers are the parameters which governed the universe from the beginning. Yet, they have no idea how these numbers were selected. If any one of them were to be even a little different, the universe we live in would also be very different, in fact, in most cases it would cease to exist. But who could have chosen these numbers, apart from Creator?

There is, of course, the problem of infinite regress. Who created that Creator? The thing is, one has to assume that he either came into existence from nothing or that he has always existed, or the problem does not go away. BUT then, you might argue, why not simply say that of the universe itself, instead of privileging God? That’s where these three findings come into play. There’s growing evidence that there is an as yet unknown force at work here. The universe, explained by science, seems to be suggesting that there is a greater force that tweaked it, and so we cannot say that the universe itself has just come into existence on it’s own, or that it has always existed(the Big Bang). This and other evidence suggests a higher power at work, both creating and tweaking the universe.

Please note, this DOES NOT say anything about religion or religious practices. It does prove that prayer or any other belief is true, or that any form of theology is right. It does not confer any particular "human" properties on God such as him being "good" or "merciful", but does suggest that he has to be at least intelligent and conscious. I am simply suggesting the existence of an impersonal "Force", not the humanized God of religious lore.

I want counter-arguments, people. I didn’t put this up to convince anyone, but rather to

1) That point is based upon a few unsubstantiated assumptions. First of all, the existence of order and patterns doesn’t necessitate some intelligence being at work. We live in a universe where natural laws exist. Gravity, magnetism, etc. The specifics of those laws aren’t important, but it really isn’t surprising to see their effects. As for "codes" (a loaded term if ever there was one) not existing in nature, what would you call pi? Or chemical bonds? Ohm’s law? These are simply properties of the universe that we’ve discovered. Because gravity exists it’s not surprising or unnatural to observe moons orbiting planets- that’s what we expect.

DNA actually provides more of a rebuttal to arguments for directed design than support. Molecular biologists have determined that HUGE amounts of DNA information in higher organisms is junk. Not simply dismissed as junk because "it doesn’t seem to serve any purpose that we’re currently aware of" although that’s part of it. Some of that information appears to be left over from earlier stages of human development, we’ve also got retroviruses polluting the mix. If we’re talking about a computer program, it’s a messy one full comments, abandoned revisions and corrupt information which seems more consistent with a model of development based upon random mutations at some point in the past. That is, the current functional system arose out of a much larger bunch of code rather than being a neat, clean program designed for a specific purpose. DNA also provides strong evidence for common ancestry among primates, but that’s a separate issue.

2) That isn’t a proof, simply an observation. The answer would be quite simply, "physics". The existence of patterns is commonplace in nature, not some exception to the rule. Sunrises and sunsets are cyclical, yet are simply a matter of the own earths rotation and orbit around the sun.

A pebble hitting the surface of a lake causes ripples extending out in an orderly fashion, whether it was tossed by an intelligent human or was blown by a strong gust of wind. Just because we don’t understand all the mechanisms of how particular phenomena work doesn’t mean we assume it’s proof of design. It took a long time before we understood how the honeybee was able to fly, long after we had fighter jets in the air and satellites in space.

3) Interesting choice of words… "how these numbers were selected", "who could have chosen". Why would anyone presume there was any selection or choosing at all? Maybe those values just happen to be what worked given conditions at the time of the big bang, or perhaps earlier. Perhaps the first particle to hit the edge of the universe caused a fractal pattern based upon it’s velocity and direction which then propagated onward, creating the framework for what we see today. Or perhaps some being snapped her fingers and willed those constants into existence based upon her mood at the moment. Either way, it’s beyond our ability to examine for now, and thus outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

I agree we have no idea why these specific values are what they are… and that’s not a problem. In a different universe with those values being different, the inhabitants there would be asking exactly the same questions. Whatever the values happen to be, they simply are. Whatever develops and is subsequently observed simply reflects the existence of those specific constants. Why does the sky happen to appear blue and not pink, even though I prefer the latter color? It’s just the way light, our atmosphere and and our eyes work. On another planet results may be different, or maybe not. In any event, this "blue sky problem" doesn’t cause me to lose sleep- neither does the speed of light.