Found this while surfing the net tought share it here
The ‘Mechanism’ Behind Intelligent Design
I am providing this information in hopes that some way can
be found to use it in the battle against the atheistic,
Darwinian concept of evolution which has destroyed so much
of the original spiritual nature of human society, and help to
bring the attention of the people of the world back to the
increasingly obvious fact that God (Allah) created this
universe and everything in it. I was many years ago a
university professor with a background in theoretical
physics, but am now quite old and dying of cancer. I want to
do whatever I can before I leave this world to help humanity
come back from the disaster of secular materialistic belief to
a God-centered, spiritual world.
Intelligent design is a modern variation of the very
successful “Watchmaker Argument” for the existence of God.
This argument essentially says if you see a watch, which is
quite a complicated mechanism with lots of parts that must
act perfectly in harmony then you can be sure that watch did
not come to exist by chance, and that it must have been
designed and created by a watchmaker. Therefore if we look
at the incredibly complicated universe with a virtually
infinite number of parts all acting in perfect harmony then
we can be sure it did not come to exist by chance, and that
it must have been designed and created by a “Universe
Maker”, who could be no other than God.
I can see in the current trend toward the acceptance of
‘intelligent design’ a movement toward a more accurate,
objective understanding of God as our Creator. There was a
time when science seemed to be the enemy of religious
belief - that time is no more! Modern physics and cosmology
(science of the origin and development of the universe) now
provide firm objective evidence of the existence of God,
confirm the primary attributes of God, and show how God
created the physical existence out of ‘nothingness’. This
knowledge comes from a critical analysis of the ‘Big Bang’
theory, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, and work
being done in quantum physics. The concepts behind this
esoteric scientific knowledge can now be presented in such
a way as to be understood by any person with a modern
education and necessarily should become known by all. I
would predict that it will not be too long until the position
of atheism is considered to be scientifically naïve, logically
nonsensical, and philosophically embarrassing.
My presentation of these facts may not be in exactly the
theological language you might prefer, but this is not the
time to quibble over differences in form. It is the acceptance
of the basic truth of God’s existence and His role as Creator
of the physical universe and everything in it that is critical.
Although intelligent design is a powerful argument against
atheistic, Darwinian evolutionist ideas I think the one area
of weakness in intelligent design is that it does not yet
offer the ‘mechanism’ by which God did (or at least could)
create the universe and fashion each of the progressive
stages in the development of the matter of the universe,
including biological life. Believe me, the atheistic
evolutionists will be quick to exploit this perceived weakness.
The following is an example of the kind of attack that
intelligent design will face until the ‘mechanism’ by which God’s creative process takes place is offered.
“Intelligent Design, which has some claim to being based on hard evidence, remains woefully short on the required specifics. We are told that some unknown but all-powerful entity created, or rather designed life as we know it. How? And, in what way? Don't ask. Just take their word for it.” - From an article in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin
newspaper.
I will have to be exceedingly brief in this explanation since many books could be written on this most important and complex subject, so I will leave it to you to have these facts checked by scientists of your acquaintance, although I have already verified the facts with other scientists to my own satisfaction.
Allah revealed to us in the Qur’an that He created the physical universe out of nothingness, the Christian Bible presents a very similar version of the creation of the physical existence through Light, and I believe other religions also hold somewhat analogous views. This is confirmed by modern cosmologists who must now acknowledge the physical existence had a beginning from complete nothingness (no time, no space, and no matter) and at a singularity ‘Light’, a fair non-technical name for the full spectrum of photons of electromagnetic radiation, came into existence. This intense Light energy resulted in the creation of matter in the form of sub-atomic particles; of primary importance to us were the protons, neutrons, and electrons, the basic building blocks of all that now exists in the physical universe. Additionally, as a side effect of the creation of material particles was the simultaneous appearance of space and time.
This provides our first opportunity to see Light as the interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and the physical existence. These sub-atomic particles were sometime later transformed into atomic nuclei and the various atoms (all the different elements which still exist today). When asked why the sub-atomic particles joined together into the more complex arrangements of nuclei and atoms science answers that it is due to the ‘electromagnetic force’. This electromagnetic force is carried out through an exchange of photons (Light energy). According to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which is about the ‘special’ characteristics of Light, photons of Light energy do not show any of the three necessary characteristics to be part of the physical universe. They do not have mass, they do not occupy volume of space, and they are not involved in the flow of time; therefore, Light maintains non-material characteristics, once again indicating its nature as an interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and the physical universe.
From a religious point of view what I would say is happening is that we see how God, acting in an orderly and lawful manner, did command the necessary sub-atomic particles to join together into certain relationships we call nuclei and atoms. The ‘electromagnetic force’ is only the name science has put on these orderly, lawful workings of God as He goes through this early stage of the Creation. It appears God does this by sending Light as the messenger to carry information regarding His commands to the various sub-atomic particles and telling them how it is His Will that they relate to each other in this new, more complex manner. Here we begin to see the ‘mechanism’ missing from the intelligent design argument by which God’s Will is carried out in the physical existence.
We see exactly the same process taking place later in the development of the physical universe when various atoms begin relating to other atoms in another step toward greater complexity and becoming the various molecules, as in the simple example when two hydrogen atoms are joined with one oxygen atom to form a molecule of water. Once again science now knows that only certain atoms will form relationships with certain other atoms and the information as to which atoms can and should join with other atoms is determined by another exchange of photons (Light energy). Light again being the messenger from the non-physical (spiritual) existence telling the created matter how to carry out its role in the development of the physical universe. God’s Will is commanded to the atomic structures by the messengers of Light. This appears to be the ‘mechanism’ by which God transforms simple atoms into the various molecules of increasing complexity all the way up through the amino acids, and proteins to the highly complex DNA molecule.
Importantly, we see that God does not at each new stage of material complexity (sub-atomic particles, atoms, and molecules) create anew; He commands the rearrangement of the previous simpler stage into the next more complex stage. And to move from one stage to another in increasing complexity, God each time appears to use the ‘mechanism’ of Light as a messenger to transmit His Will from the non-physical (spiritual) existence to the various material forms of the physical universe.
At the sub-atomic, the atomic, and the molecular levels of material development science is clearly able to understand how the changes taking place are due to the information passed on through an exchange of photons of Light energy. Unfortunately, as we reach the next level of complexity, which is the progression from the molecular stage to the stage of biological life, the plants and animals, the process becomes so complex that from science we are as yet unable to fully perceive all that takes place to make that step. But through logic, extrapolation, and preliminary scientific findings we may fairly and rightly assume that it is only reasonable that the same method was used as in the earlier stages of progressive development. So we would expect that by an exchange of photons (Light energy) between the molecular entities existing at that time information was passed telling the various molecules involved to relate to each other in such a manner that a new level of material complexity is achieved, that being the simplest forms of biological life.
When God decides the time is right to create biological life He commands that His Will be done and sends messengers of Light from the spiritual existence to the physical universe instructing the necessary molecular forms He had already created to join together in the new, more complex relationship of simple biological life. These simple biological life forms are then made up of the even simpler material forms, the atoms and molecules, from the surrounding environment which are instructed by photons of light energy from a DNA type molecule to form themselves into the new, more complex relationship of biological life. Here we see the same ‘mechanism’ being used as in all the previous stages of creation.
Now we can begin to understand the ‘mechanism’ behind the final stages of increasing material complexity as God transforms simple biological life forms into all the more complex plants and animals we see in the world today. Beginning with the first simple forms of biological life which God had already created He now only has to send messages by Light from the non-physical (spiritual) existence to the physical world commanding that His Will be carried out and that all the necessary more complex forms of plant and animal life must come to be. These changes from one stage to another, from the simple to the more complex, require only slight alterations in the overall structure of the DNA molecule. These small structural changes in the DNA molecule are determined by information transmitted by photons (Light energy) to the atomic structures making up the DNA molecule, instructing them to move into slightly different arrangements in one or more small areas of the long and complex structure of the overall DNA molecule. The combined effect of these small structural changes to the DNA molecule are sufficient to bring about any desired modifications in the next progressively complex physical form to be expressed (all of the various plants and animals) which are required by God to facilitate the continued unfolding of the physical creation according to His Plan.
Through this new knowledge we now have a scientifically verifiable ‘mechanism’ by which God could have created the physical universe from nothing in the beginning of time. Conveniently, information transmitted through Light energy also provides the ‘mechanism’ by which God could have directly commanded the creation of all the different increasingly complex stages and forms of matter which we find today throughout the physical universe, including all forms of biological life. It will be very difficult, I believe impossible, for the Godless evolutionists and atheistic scientists to successfully argue against this understanding of God’s Plan for Creation.
Of course do not only take my word for this, verify what I have said with reputable scientists sympathetic to the cause of intelligent design, and use these ideas in any way and with whatever words you find most comfortable to help bring the world’s people to the knowledge that God does indeed exist, that He created the entire physical existence, and that He created us for a special place in His Grand Plan. This could be the beginning of the end for secular materialism and atheism, and the beginning of a future world fully recognizing its spiritual nature and glorifying God through peace and love.
Why is that a problem? Can not a mere human engineer concieve haw to build a three prong left handed blivet and then build such if he has the materials. So why is it any less to think that Allaah(swt) can build both the design and the building material? The thoughts of Allaah(swt) do have the solidity of what we call matter, when he choses for it to be.
Quite simply us humans can not do what Allaah(swt) does. Our inability to duplicate what Allaah(swt) does is no indication he did not create all things. I am not capable of doing heart surgery, does that mean if I believe heart surgeons do not exist is valid?
Salamualikum Woodrow,
I have to disagree with you on this one occasion. Not understanding how something happens is not a justification on pinning it to a supernatural cause. People believed that thunder was caused because of God's wrath a few thousand years ago!
Why is that a problem? Can not a mere human engineer concieve haw to build a three prong left handed blivet and then build such if he has the materials. So why is it any less to think that Allaah(swt) can build both the design and the building material? The thoughts of Allaah(swt) do have the solidity of what we call matter, when he choses for it to be.
Quite simply us humans can not do what Allaah(swt) does. Our inability to duplicate what Allaah(swt) does is no indication he did not create all things. I am not capable of doing heart surgery, does that mean if I believe heart surgeons do not exist is valid?
The ontological argument has been refuted as well. If god was simply a matter of intuition, there is nothing to stop us from imagining Laplace's demon as god, or whatever else we have thought of in our thousands of years in existence.
The ability to construct an idea, in and of itself, does not serve as its proof, unless you presume god is merely a mathematical equation thus being true in a trivial sense.
The problem I have with evolution without God is that this thought process relies on ridiculously low percentage chances of occuring (the exact number is something like 0.0000001 to the power of i forgot because it's so bloody long). Everything just becomes a statistical insignificance and IMO if you can swallow those amount of numbers after the decimal point, I don't see how not only can that not be considered a miracle but additionally you can reject God completely from the equation.
To put it into perspective; the neccessary conditions for humans to evolve to what we are today as many nations capable of advanced theorems, thoughts and thousands of advancements throughout the ages HAS NOT OCCURED on any other planet in our solar system. Yes bacteria has been found on mars, but so what? We're like 1000 lifeforms ahead of that!
In fact, Earth is the only planet capable of having such a system due to its proximity to the sun. Now, unless you again subscribe to the notion of no God, we have probability rearing it's ugly head into the mix. And by now that 0.x to the power of whatever, just multiplied a dozen or so times. Again, if you can swallow that amount of numbers after a decimal point - how can you, in your heart of hearts, completely reject God from the equation?
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
I have to disagree with you on this one occasion. Not understanding how something happens is not a justification on pinning it to a supernatural cause. People believed that thunder was caused because of God's wrath a few thousand years ago!
Very good point.
Also the converse is true, not believing in a supernatural cause is not a justification on pinning it to a material cause.
Yes, for most of what we see can be measured, qualified and shown to be cause for physical events. There is no questioning or should not be, of that. But, the question that can not be answered in physical terms is the existence of the physical things, not how they function.
The problem I have with evolution without God is that this thought process relies on ridiculously low percentage chances of occuring (the exact number is something like 0.0000001 to the power of i forgot because it's so bloody long). Everything just becomes a statistical insignificance and IMO if you can swallow those amount of numbers after the decimal point, I don't see how not only can that not be considered a miracle but additionally you can reject God completely from the equation.
Welcome to a universe of large numbers. How many planets on how many stars in how many galaxies would you like to work with? But that's not as relevant as the presumption you've made that our existence was the sole purpose towards which evolution was working. If we were sitting here with three ears instead of two we'd think ourselves just as lucky to be here making ridiculous calculations of our statistical insignificance.
To put it into perspective; the neccessary conditions for humans to evolve to what we are today as many nations capable of advanced theorems, thoughts and thousands of advancements throughout the ages HAS NOT OCCURED on any other planet in our solar system. Yes bacteria has been found on mars, but so what? We're like 1000 lifeforms ahead of that!
I was not aware that bacteria had been found on mars. That would be significant indeed, because once again evolution doesn't state we are of prime importance in this universe. We happen to be one of the immeasurable number of species that have existed. All the events in this universe will seem statistically unlikely, and that will largely depend on what you understand to be the functional purpose of the universe.
Moreover, if there was life on each and every planet, that would not help or hurt evolution in any way. If there was life on each and every planet, does that impact your acceptance of evolution or of a creationist origin theory?
Welcome to a universe of large numbers. How many planets on how many stars in how many galaxies would you like to work with?
Up to you.
But that's not as relevant as the presumption you've made that our existence was the sole purpose towards which evolution was working. If we were sitting here with three ears instead of two we'd think ourselves just as lucky to be here making ridiculous calculations of our statistical insignificance.
Our existence is a result of evolution to from as far as we can tell the highest point - this is what the staunch evolutionists are saying. As I said before no other planet in our solar system has evidence of evolution. To which one can respond that's because of their proximity of the sun making it (near) impossible for the neccessary climate and conditions to do so - again brinigng us back to probability and chance of things happening to fall into place....
I was not aware that bacteria had been found on mars. That would be significant indeed, because once again evolution doesn't state we are of prime importance in this universe.
You are missing my point. I am not talking about overall importance to the universe.
We happen to be one of the immeasurable number of species that have existed. All the events in this universe will seem statistically unlikely, and that will largely depend on what you understand to be the functional purpose of the universe.
Let's try dealing with one planet at a time because this is becoming nonsensical. Deal with what is i.e human evolution on this planet. It's something we can actually gauge and have a meaningful discussion on.
Moreover, if there was life on each and every planet, that would not help or hurt evolution in any way.
I'm not arguing against evolution entirely - just the fact that some people remove God from the equation, which I find rather ignorant.
If there was life on each and every planet, does that impact your acceptance of evolution or of a creationist origin theory?...
You are misunderstanding my position: I accept the theory of evolution. However, this does not mean God is automatically removed from the equation; there are far too many variables that have to be accounted for - ascribing them to mere chance and probability (at such a ludicrously low number at that!) yet at the same time outright deny the existence and/or involvment of God seems kind of silly to be honest.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Welcome to a universe of large numbers. How many planets on how many stars in how many galaxies would you like to work with? But that's not as relevant as the presumption you've made that our existence was the sole purpose towards which evolution was working. If we were sitting here with three ears instead of two we'd think ourselves just as lucky to be here making ridiculous calculations of our statistical insignificance.
I was not aware that bacteria had been found on mars. That would be significant indeed, because once again evolution doesn't state we are of prime importance in this universe. We happen to be one of the immeasurable number of species that have existed. All the events in this universe will seem statistically unlikely, and that will largely depend on what you understand to be the functional purpose of the universe.
Moreover, if there was life on each and every planet, that would not help or hurt evolution in any way. If there was life on each and every planet, does that impact your acceptance of evolution or of a creationist origin theory?
All the best,
Faysal
Evolution is not about how life began.
It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and obedience to Allâh, etc.) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west (in prayers); but Al-Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allâh, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masâkîn (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, performs As-Salât, and gives the Zakât, and keep their word whenever they make a promise, and who are patient in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of persecution, hardship, and war. Such are the people of the truth and they are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious).
You are misunderstanding my position: I accept the theory of evolution. However, this does not mean God is automatically removed from the equation; there are far too many variables that have to be accounted for - ascribing them to mere chance and probability (at such a ludicrously low number at that!) yet at the same time outright deny the existence and/or involvment of God seems kind of silly to be honest.
I'm sorry, and you're right, I didn't understand your position. How are you calculating these probabilities? Where does god fit in your opinion?
format_quote Originally Posted by Chuck
Evolution is not about how life began.
I don't think we disagree, in case I wasn't clear in the previous post I'll quote myself from an earlier post.
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. It’s a different field of science.
Cosmology has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. It’s a different field of science.
Surely even the strongest advocate has to accept that unguided evolution is slightly far fetched?
Nowhere near as 'far fetched' as the existence of something to 'guide' it; something infinitely more complex that mysteriously just popped into existence or has somehow always existed. In terms of the numbers, God doesn't solve anything; something supposedly improbable is just replaced by something even more improbable.
But let's look at numbers again. There are something like 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone; that's something like 75 for each man, woman and child alive on earth. And there are estimated to be around 80 to 125 billion galaxies in the universe. We are into the realms of total guesswork, of course, but let's assume one in ten of those stars has a planet with the potential to support life of some sort, and that in one in ten of those the simplest type of life gets started at some point in the planet's history. Let us further assume, as you seem to concede, that the evolutionary mechanism does indeed exist. It therefore has something like 400 billion billion chances over the course of 13 billion years or so to come up with a species intelligent enough to be theorizing about how they came into existence. I'm not seeing any 'ludicrously low' numbers. They are in terms of one particular planet, but in the context of our own that is totally meaningless; it's like asking a lottery winner what the chances are that they have won the lottery. Those odds are of course, 1:1.
What puzzles me is why, in debates like this, so many theists focus on a rejection of evolution in the face of all the evidence (of which there is truly a vast quantity). The 'case for God' is much stronger IMHO, if still far from convincing, when put in terms of 'anthropic fine-tuning' of physical constants, yet those arguments (which have considerably more support from real scientists of theistic persuasion) are ignored. I guess that's the power of popular culture.
What also puzzles me is why the idea of an evolutionary process designed by God is dismissed by so many who believe there is a God. Surely the design of a process that, once started, produces exactly what is required with further intervention is much more what one would expect of God than either some flawed version of evolution that needs constant 'tinkering' in the form of ID, or continuous 'creation' over the years to add or remove a species here or there? It makes no sense to reject the most elegant solution.
Nowhere near as 'far fetched' as the existence of something to 'guide' it;
There is a lie in quoting statistical probabilities from large numbers. Given the random way that meteors collide with each other, and the sheer number of cosmic debris out there, then there quite possibly is a meteor that is a carbon copy of Michelangelo's David.
Now should one come crashing down to earth, we could take the random chance argument, but really!
As far as the fine tuning aspect is concerned, the strong anthropic principle does a great deal in explaining the constants, so why would they be thrown up repeatedly, especially since most people simply would not understand the mathematics involved?
Even a complete moron can pick up the most advanced medical textbook and read away happily - after all, it is nothing more than fancy souped-up terminology, but the vast majority of the population would fall at the first sign of elementary mathematics in Physics (I'm not talking about high school Physics).
There is a difference between the people who swallow the creationist science garbage that are promoted on Harun Yahya type websites, and those that understand the methodology of evolution. I did not challenge evolution per se, but rather only one aspect. There is no evidence to directly support random mutation, and if there is, then please feel free to enlighten me...
Nowhere near as 'far fetched' as the existence of something to 'guide' it; something infinitely more complex that mysteriously just popped into existence or has somehow always existed. In terms of the numbers, God doesn't solve anything; something supposedly improbable is just replaced by something even more improbable.
Evolution cannot explain the proximity of earth in relation to the sun that ALLOWS for evolution to occur on xyz planet (in this case, Earth). The only answer to that (without using God) is a percentage chance ergo life is a statistical insignificance.
.....Let us further assume, as you seem to concede, that the evolutionary mechanism does indeed exist. It therefore has something like 400 billion billion chances over the course of 13 billion years or so to come up with a species intelligent enough to be theorizing about how they came into existence. I'm not seeing any 'ludicrously low' numbers. They are in terms of one particular planet, but in the context of our own that is totally meaningless; it's like asking a lottery winner what the chances are that they have won the lottery. Those odds are of course, 1:1.
I was talking about the context of this solar system - to date, only Earth has any real evidence of evolution. To use your lottery example; the probability of anyone person winning the lottery is no where near 1:1 (even then, that still has to factor in at least 10 more variables)
I'll repeat, I don't negate the theory of evolution. Just that without God (at least acting as an instigator in terms of prerequisites for evolution to occur i.e a planet capable of natural sustenance due to its proxmity to the sun!), all life is a statistical insignificance. If you can swallow that pill (and somehow still reject miracles and God), you might as well throw a dice to decide all your actions in real life and spend all your money on the slots!
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
There is a lie in quoting statistical probabilities from large numbers. Given the random way that meteors collide with each other, and the sheer number of cosmic debris out there, then there quite possibly is a meteor that is a carbon copy of Michelangelo's David.
Now should one come crashing down to earth, we could take the random chance argument, but really!
I'm not making any 'random chance' argument; evolution by natural selection is, by definition, NOT random whether elements of the mechanism by which it takes place are or not. It is, however, obvious that if evolution by natural selection is acknowledged the chances of an intelligent species evolving increase proportionate to the number of planets on which life occurs.
I'm not making any 'random chance' argument; evolution by natural selection is, by definition, NOT random whether elements of the mechanism by which it takes place are or not. It is, however, obvious that if evolution by natural selection is acknowledged the chances of an intelligent species evolving increase proportionate to the number of planets on which life occurs.
Mutation is essential in the evolutionary mechanism. A mutation which both gives survival benefits for an organism, while yet being possible through chance is in fact random.....
Are you asking for evidence of mutations or for evidence of their randomness?
Evidence for randomness...
If you found an icky jellyfish whilst surfing you wouldn't share it here, so why post annoying articles written by some 2-bit wanna-be genius instead?
I'm not sure what I'm arguing for/against. If there were a pattern for the mutations how exactly would you recognize that? Are we counting the intervals between certain sets of genes duplicating, deleting or transposing? How could we classify it as non-random?
If random mutations exist, a lack of selective pressures for a particular phenotype would result in the eventual decay of the genetic code responsible for producing that particular phenotype. Would you agree on that?
Perhaps we can use genes for our olfactory receptors (ORs). We have, in our DNA, the genes for many more ORs which are not active due to the lack of selective pressures. As we evolved from a nocturnal species, and gained the usage of our eyes (light detection), we required fewer receptors for detecting food and predators by smell. I'm sure we'll agree that using visual queues rather than odours would be more efficient during the daytime. Those ORs genes are there by many series of duplication and modifications which were beneficial at some point.
If we can agree on that, the steps required to have random mutations work towards the organisms benefit are just as easy to understand. The selective pressures from an organisms environment result in predictable phenotype drifts, which are a result of the genes. That is not to say we expect a particular order for the genetic mutations, but that the overall result would be to satisfy the demands of natural selection as best as possible.
I hope I'm on the right track in this explanation. Let me know if I misunderstood your concern.
Evolution cannot explain the proximity of earth in relation to the sun that ALLOWS for evolution to occur on xyz planet (in this case, Earth). The only answer to that (without using God) is a percentage chance ergo life is a statistical insignificance.
I was talking about the context of this solar system - to date, only Earth has any real evidence of evolution. To use your lottery example; the probability of anyone person winning the lottery is no where near 1:1 (even then, that still has to factor in at least 10 more variables)
Sorry, I missed this earlier. The probability of a lottery winner having won the lottery is precisely 1:1, it is a certainty. Note the tense, as it is that situation we are talking about 'in the context of this solar system'. The relevant probability is therefore not that of life arising in one particular solar system, but in ANY solar system, including as many variables as you like. But our own solar system had no significance above that of billions of billions of others until life did arise here, hence there is no 'statistical insignificance'. If life was going to happen at all it had to happen somewhere, and obviously the question could only be discussed where it did!
Sorry, I missed this earlier. The probability of a lottery winner having won the lottery is precisely 1:1, it is a certainty. Note the tense, as it is that situation we are talking about 'in the context of this solar system'. The relevant probability is therefore not that of life arising in one particular solar system, but in ANY solar system, including as many variables as you like. But our own solar system had no significance above that of billions of billions of others until life did arise here, hence there is no 'statistical insignificance'. If life was going to happen at all it had to happen somewhere, and obviously the question could only be discussed where it did!
Probability for winning a lottery depends on number of tickets in the lottery. If there are 1 billion tickets then there is 1 to billion. If a winner wins a lottery in 1/billion probability then the winner would be considered lucky. I guess we are lucky ones.
But there is another issue. In lottery even if there is 1/billion probability, somebody has to be a winner, because that what lottery is meant for. And that is why there is 1/billion probability. So looking at this as analogy, life meant to emerge in this Universe? just a thought.
It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and obedience to Allâh, etc.) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west (in prayers); but Al-Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allâh, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masâkîn (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, performs As-Salât, and gives the Zakât, and keep their word whenever they make a promise, and who are patient in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of persecution, hardship, and war. Such are the people of the truth and they are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious).
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
The ‘Mechanism’ Behind Intelligent Design (OP)
Re: The ‘Mechanism’ Behind Intelligent Design
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks