Help Spread the Word
Bookmark and Share Now
UnintelligentEvolution.com

Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p488)


Can an Un-intelligent Cosmic Origin Be Challenged in <500 Words?

Why intelligence/un-intelligence? Intelligence is where scientific analysis can begin. Intelligence has a wide range of definitions. We will assume that intelligence is a complex and diverse combination of processes characterized by, but not limited to, perception, reasoning, learning, planning, and creativity, etc. Un-intelligence will be defined as simpler processes such as DNA or evolutionary processes or by a void of process. However, we will not assume that the apparent un-intelligence of a process implies that it did not require an intelligent cause. For example, the apparently un-intelligent DNA process of egg development is caused by intelligent human reproduction.

Process: a sequence of actions, changes, or functions, etc., towards an end.

Falsification is the main tool of scientific proof (i.e. tangible testing of predictions in the present). If a hypothesis can't make a tangible, testable predition now in the present, then it is un-falsifiable and non-scientific.

Let's try the scientific method...

Observation (Atheist/Agnostic): Everything seems to have emerged from random, un-intelligent natural processes.

Question: Where does intelligence come from?

Hypothesis/Prediction (Atheist/Agnostic): If everything emerged from un-intelligence, then your intelligence also came from un-intelligence and thus un-intelligence causes intelligence (i.e. a word like "causes, "makes" or "produces", etc., is required in order to make a prediction).

Experiment: Observe un-intelligent things to determine if it is testable that new intelligence emerges without any need of intelligence. Examples: one could observe random chemical or atomic processes, the DNA process, a stream of water, or things like a paper cup or a piece of wood, etc., to see if some new intelligence emerges.

Testable/falsifiable observations: Repeatedly throughout nature there seems to be a pattern of intelligent life emerging from intelligent origins (parental reproduction) through un-intelligent chemical/genetic DNA processes (single cell [egg] to birth, etc.)

Analysis: 1) Since our origin can never be directly tested, we depend on falsifiable, tangible testing of predictions, now in the present, based on observations of tangible indirect evidence (the same methods scientists use to believe in the "Big Bang"). The hypothesis above is about proving the intelligence/un-intelligence of our origin that caused "everything" (including all natural processes). The un-intelligence of ancient natural processes, including natural selection or abiogenesis, etc., that apparently emerged from the origin, may have nothing to do with determining the actual intelligence or un-intelligence of our origin itself. These are two different things. Thus, claiming that our intelligence emerged from an un-intelligent origin because of ancient un-intelligent processes that emerged from the origin, without much actual understanding of the origin, is apparently circular reasoning, or a leap of blind faith. One could also claim evidence of an un-intelligent origin of children because children apparently emerge from un-intelligent development processes in the womb (while being ignorant of the earlier stages of reproduction by intelligent parents). 2) Any test must be repeatable and produce actual results now. Claiming that more time is needed or millions of years are needed to produce a test is not science (i.e. not falsifiable). If un-intelligent things can not actually produce new intelligence now, then the hypothesis fails and is just imaginary.

Circular Reasoning: Abiogenesis/evolution tells us that un-intelligence made intelligent life, un-intelligence made abiogenesis/evolution, thus no need of God. This is like saying, The Bible tells us that God made intelligent life, God made the Bible, thus there is a God.

Conclusion: There is no falsifiable evidence to support the atheist/agnostic hypothesis. In fact, it is predictable that intelligent life will appear to emerge from un-intelligent processes not because of un-intelligence, but because that's the way all intelligent life develops after reproduction by its intelligent parent(s). Thus, intelligent life begetting intelligent life is falsifiable and threfore apparently contradicts the atheist/agnostic hypothesis. For one to think that their intelligence emerged from un-intelligence simply because they don't understand the actual origin of the universe is apparently false circular reasoning and an unscientific leap of blind faith. Evolutionary processes (and even abiogenesis if it is proved) are a product of our origin and therefore cannot be used to replace what one doesn't understand about the actual origin of the universe. Most scientists already concur that all tangible tests fail to observe any new intelligence spontaneously emerging from any un-intelligent thing or process. In fact, that's not the way we observe things to happen in the real world... We observe intelligent life emerging from the choices and actions of intelligent parents (reproduction) through un-intelligent (DNA) development processes. Thus the fundamental atheist/agnostic point of view, that there is no reason for a Creator or Designer and that there is likely an un-intelligent origin of their intelligence and the whole universe, apparently fails. It seems to depend on logical fallacies and blind faith. It apparently fails to make useful predictions, fails all falsifiable tests, lacks common sense, is contradicted by testable evidence, as we will see more of next, and is unsupported by scientific principle, or even Darwin's Origin of Species...

Darwin said: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" - Origin of Species, p. 188

Can an Intelligent Origin Be Proved?

"...we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would...not lead us to the wrong conclusions."
- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Revised Observation: Everything emerged from something that was not entirely un-intelligent.

Same Question: Where does intelligence come from?

New Hypothesis/Prediction: Since we have already falsified that intelligence emerges from, or is caused by, un-intelligence, it is reasonable that an intelligent designer makes intelligence.

Logical Assumption: Mankind's intelligence, creativity, and design abilities, characteristics, and behavior, etc., are a product of our origin and can be tested just like anything else to determine the intelligent origin of the universe and it's processes and laws.

Experiment: Observe mankind's intelligence and design characteristics and behavior to test and determine the intelligent origin of the universe. Testable/falsifiable observations: 1) Designers made artificial intelligence. 2) Designers make processes, like the scientific process, and the printing process, etc. 3) A designer is not intrinsically detected when observing their completed design. 4) A designer is present during the design process. 5) A designer cares about their design and watches over it and may also have other agents caring for and watching over their design. 6) A designer makes themselves available at some point to demonstrate their design or answer questions about it. 7) A designer documents their design and leaves tell-tale signs like assembly instructions and manufacturing processes. 8) A designer is born of intelligent parents.

Analysis: 1) Since our origin can never be directly tested, we depend on falsifiable, tangible testing, now, of predictions based on observations of tangible indirect evidence (the same methods scientists use to believe in the "Big Bang"). 2) In order to prevent an equivocation fallacy, there needs to be a common definition: All processes, man-made or natural, such as evolution, or the thinking process/intelligence, or the scientific process, have a common meaning: Processes are a sequence of actions, changes, or functions, etc., towards an end. 3) If no tangible intelligent designer can actually produce new intelligence, then the hypothesis fails or is just imaginary.

Conclusion 1: Testable evidence supports the intelligent Designer hypothesis and apparently contradicts the fundamental atheist/agnostic hypothesis... Intelligent designers made artificial intelligence and intelligent life comes from intelligent life via reproduction and un-intelligent development processes, etc.

Conclusion 2: Testable evidence demonstrates that one can not reasonably use an undetected Designer to disprove or exclude a Designer of the universe, because a designer is not intrinsically detected when observing their design. We don't intrinsically detect a designer when we are observing their design. Thus, we can predict that a Designer of the universe would not be intrinsically detected when observing nature.

How Could an Intelligent Designer Exist Before Time Began?

Logical Assumption: The beginning of time means the beginning of our "arrow of time" which is unidirectional, moving from past to present and characterized by cause and effect, and limited by Planck time of 10^-43 seconds (quantization). However, many scientists believe that processes may occur within Planck time (e.g. the Planck epoch) or even before the universe began (e.g. string theory), etc. Thus, there could be infinite time that has no limits and not even a beginning. In fact, our experience of limitations on time, etc., leads to the obvious question, how could our time be limited in direction and quantization, etc., if there was nothing to limit? Thus, our physical laws seem to predict or require an unlimited/infinite default version of things such as time, energy, force, space, dimensions, information, etc.

Hypothesis: The laws of nature, and also mathematical infinity, seem to be the most fundamental, rational evidence of something infinite beyond our laws such as the possibility of an infinite Designer/Lawmaker/God.

If God exists, Who Made God?

This is a fallacy of anthropomorphic reasoning. Our "arrow of time" is responsible for our experience of cause and effect. Why would an infinite God who created the arrow of time and other physical laws be subject to our finite arrow of time? Thus, in eternity with no beginning of time there would be no need for cause and effect and thus an infinite Designer/Lawmaker/God would not need a cause.

Testable Evidence Supports a Cosmic Intelligent Designer

Testable Hypothesis 1: One can not reasonably use an undetected Designer to disprove or exclude a Designer of the universe. A designer is not intrinsically detected when observing their design. Reasonable example: Observe any man-made design and you will likely not detect the designer as you observe the design.

Testable Hypothesis 2: An intelligent designer makes intelligence. Reasonable examples: artificial intelligence, human intelligence, etc.

Testable Hypothesis 3: A process is made by a designer. Reasonable examples: scientific process, educational process, printing process, computer programming processes, etc., process of evolution, reproduction, chemical processes, atomic and sub-atomic processes, etc.

Testable Hypothesis 4: A designer leaves tell-tale signs like assembly instructions and manufacturing processes. Reasonable examples: semiconductor manufacturing processes, DIY kit instructions, DNA/RNA processes, process of evolution, atomic and sub-atomic processes, etc.

Conclusion: There seems to be un-contradicted, testable evidence, that is useful for making predictions, that intelligence and other processes are made by an intelligent Designer. In diverse areas of life, one can confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent, or to increase intelligence or knowledge. And it apparently takes an intelligent designer to make processes. Thus, it is rational to think that there is an intelligent Designer of the universe (and all of its natural processes, etc.).

Let's see what the Bible had to say 2000 years ago about observing, testing, and understanding reality: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things..., 1 Peter 3:15 ...give [a] reason..., Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [i.e. science], so that men are without excuse. - NIV. So, let's use real science, like the Bible says, based on observing, testing, reasoning, and understanding "what has been made", not basing ones point of view on imagination or blind faith or assumptions.

What is an Intelligent Designer of the Universe Like?

"...all physical theories...break down at the beginning of the universe."
- Stephen Hawking.

su-per-nat-u-ral: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; - Dictionary.com

Logical Assumption: Mathematical infinity, singularities, the "Big Bang", extra dimensions, and parallel universes are not able to be directly tested and are beyond and unexplainable by the laws of nature, yet scientists believe these are possible, showing that super-natural qualities, like a God's infinite nature, can exist. This is not proof. It's simply enabling the possibility of a super-natural God.

Logical Assumption: Since by definition a law or rule implies a law maker/enforcer, then it is logical to think that the laws of nature have a cosmic law maker/enforcer.

Testable Hypothesis 5: A designer is present during the design process.

Testable Hypothesis 6: A designer cares about their design and jealously watches over and protects it and may also have other agents caring for and watching over their design.

Testable Hypothesis 7: A designer makes themselves available at some point to demonstrate their design or answer questions about it.

Testable Hypothesis 8: A designer is born of intelligent parents.

Conclusion: It would be rational that a Designer of the universe who could design atomic and sub-atomic processes, etc., and cause our arrow of time, would be super-natural and able to operate outside of our laws of nature including our "arrow of time" (see more below). Our time is unidirectional with limited time slices called Planck time. These limitations could have been imposed by a cosmic Designer at the point we call the beginning of time while a cosmic Designer's time could be bidirectional, etc., with no limitations. Since human designers make themselves available, it would also make sense that a Cosmic designer would make themselves available to mankind. There is written evidence of people observing such a designer. In the Bible, the Designer of the universe was present during the design (Genesis 1), was called a jealous God who jealously cares about his design and watches over it, and also has agents caring for and watching over the design (i.e. angels), has made himself visibly available, in the form of Jesus Christ who reportedly commanded the weather, walked on water, and raised the dead, instantly appeared and disappeared, etc., in front of many witnesses. Jesus also claimed to be born of super-natural parents and then later was born of a human mother in order to be present on the earth in human form, making himself available to be questioned and proved. The Bible says that Jesus created all things and that he was born of the Spirit and the Father making a super-natural Trinity: Colossians 1:15-18 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... John 3:6,35 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit...The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

What Else Can Be Understood?

Logical Assumption: Mankind's law making and law enforcing abilities, characteristics and behavior, etc., are also a product of our origin and can be tested just like anything else to determine the intelligent origin of the universe and it's laws.

Law: the observed regularity of nature - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Logical Assumption: In order to prevent an equivocation fallacy, there needs to be a common definition: All laws, man-made or otherwise, are all part of nature and have a common meaning: Laws cause physical regularity.

"A law of physics is a pattern that nature obeys without exception." - Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology

Logical Assumption: Man is fallible, and human lawmakers and law enforcers can't enforce laws perfectly. The fact that the laws of nature are followed perfectly and "without exception" by every particle in the universe seems to be evidence of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect God.

Testable Hypothesis 9: A human lawmaker creates laws and human law enforcers or man-made mechanisms then enforce the laws. Thus, it is reasonable that the laws of nature have a Law Maker and Law Enforcer.

Testable Hypothesis 10: An intelligent human being creates effects and forces. Thus, it is reasonable that magnetism, nuclear forces, gravity, or any other natural forces, or stored forces contained in inertia and nuclear and chemical processes, are ultimately caused directly or indirectly by an intelligent Being (Law Maker or Law Enforcer).

Testable Hypothesis 11: A human being creates, senses, processes, and stores information. Thus, it is reasonable that any information discovered, stored, or processed in nature was ultimately caused by an intelligent Being.

Testable Hypothesis 12: Intelligent human designers, lawmakers, and scientists are applauded for their intelligence if they can develop the most "elegant" or simple process, design, or law to accomplish a complex solution or outcome. Thus, it is reasonable that a cosmic Lawmaker or Designer would make the most simple and elegant laws or processes to accomplish a complex outcome, i.e. the simpler the process, relative to the complexity of the outcome, the more intelligent the designer. Therefore, the process of evolution would be evidence of an intelligent Designer, not any evidence against one.

Testable Hypothesis 13: Laws are generally a limitation on something and a reduction in complexity in order to form "physical regularity", such as speed limits, roads and tunnels, etc. Thus, because of this apparent dependency, it seems reasonable that the laws of nature may be proof that the super-natural does exist. There may be unlimited speeds infinitely faster than the speed of light, unlimited distances infinitely smaller than the Planck distance, bi-directional, infinite time, and a super-natural Designer/Law Maker..

Conclusion:Laws apparently imply a reduction in complexity. For example, our arrow of time is only unidirectional and apparently has a minimum time slice (i.e. Planck time = 10^-43 seconds). Thus, whatever is making/enforcing our laws of nature likely can operate between Planck time and Planck distances and would therefore likely be more complex than we are. One can try to imagine an intelligence that could operate infinitely faster than the speed of light, in infinitely small time increments bi-directionally (i.e. no beginning and no end), and think in infinite dimensions of time. In fact, information, like math and other forms of communication, and also our thought processes, seem to be able to represent or describe perfection and infinity. The ability to conceptualize in our minds and then communicate infinity and perfection may be the fundamental characteristics that differentiate humans from other life, making us self-aware and conscious, etc., feeling like we can imagine things outside of our finite existence. These qualities could also motivate our creativity as we seek to make things better than what they are and feel that we can reach beyond the natural.

These testable principles have apparently never been contradicted, apply universally, and are always useful for making predictions.

Thus, since intelligence, laws and processes are found in the universe, and we don't detect a Designer, it is logical and predictable that there is an intelligent Creator. And a super-natural Creator/Lawmaker/Enforcer would apparently be necessary to limit and maintain our natural space-time and cause the laws of nature to exist. By definition, random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied laws or limitations.

Conclusion: There is no evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or natural processes or the laws of nature, etc. In fact, testable evidence and predictions apparently completely contradict atheism/agnosticism. Therefore, confidence in atheism/agnosticism seems to be blind faith with no scientific basis. A plethora of diverse, uncontradicted, testable evidence, useful for making predictions, demonstrates that God is logical and based on science and his son Jesus Christ is responsible for the laws of nature and creation of the universe. In addition, the Bible contains the only scientifically accurate creation account (see Bible Integrity). It seems that we should thank God for creating us and our universe, and seek to find out what he wants us to do and to serve Him daily. In the Bible, John 3:16 seems like the best place to start: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. - NIV

Fred Hoyle said: "there is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible." (The Nature of the Universe, p.109.)

Copyright: UnintelligentEvolution.com 2006-2012

joomla 1.5 stats