Thanks for taking the time with such a complete response, Umie. I'm somewhat familiar with the argument of creation by chance vs. by design - the Christians I was surrounded by also subscribe to that line of reasoning. I can appreciate the power of the argument since you're absolutely correct that forming a complete enzyme by chance is so small as to be pretty much impossible.
I think that most micro-biologists would point out is that in fact this is a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of natural selection and chemistry. The very first stages of could have been no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. But as soon as those come to be, then the process is no longer random. Although the odds of forming an individual peptide are incredibly small, if you take the size of the oceans and the number of molecules available, there would have been several billion "rolls of the dice", so to speak every year. On that basis, he first enzymes could have appeared very quickly. This process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance. Now, is that what actually happened? Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to say yet, but it does offer a plausible scenario which really doesn't require that there be God for it to happen.
Yes I am also familiar with this argument. But even that is really not that plausible as you think. from chaos does not come order on its own. that is why I gave you the example of the marmelade jar...a jar already has all its components together...just melted sand and given form...but it does not happen. The world should be full by now with objects we use nowadays, but naturally formed...deserts should be full with glass pots and vases, wine bottles, whiskey glasses...I am sure no one ever found one.
Mountains should be full with statues of people or animals....naturally eroded in stone...we should find paved roads (even just a few meters) with perfect square stone or marmor tiles in equal size...not of that is ever been found...because chaos does not form order just by its own.
every time archeologes find a part of pots or pans, it always belogs to some sort of ancient civilisation...never natural formed...
or forget all about this...just random rocks in such a formation like the Stonehedge to form a usable year calendar can not be found...just some rocks in a formation..
So, that is the first objection.
The second objection is: you can divide 1 infinite times by 2...the result will be a fracture so small it will aproach the zero...but it will never be zero...always something more than that...likewise, no matter in how small you make your incremental steps, the difference between hardly alive and dead is still too big. the question that rises about your hardly living molecules is: what exactly causes that dead molecule to hardly live? is it something automatic? so if as soon as this molecule gets formed it starts to hardly live automatically? and then the next question...can that molecule die?....and why?
What is exactly the difference between the hardly alive molecule, and it exact dead copy? what element is missing?
Do not get me wrong...I am not against science. I am an electrical engineer and have a great trust in science and technology. If there is anyone on this forum who will defend science and its various theories, it would prabably be me.
This scenario you gave may have happened...but only with the element God in it, the scenario is plausible. God does not have to create in an instant...He may have used these small incremental steps in time to create the Earth...He even can have used the evolution as a tool to create all the diversive life.
What I am saying is...The big bang, and the evolution theory and both very plausible theories...But God is still in the background...those theories still do not exclude God from it.
As for the Quran .. maybe it's just me, but I did come across contradictions. Maybe not as many as the Christian bible, but enough for me to suspect there may have been quite a bit of human involvement in its writing. Maybe I have to read more still, but I can't say the book is convincing to me as proof. At least no more than other religious books, anyway. I'm not saying that I know it's wrong or anything because I don't. I'm just saying I'm not seeing the level of evidence you and others see.
That is because you are still missing a lot of basic information.
One time in my younger years I also was occupied with searching for contradictions in the Bible...We Muslims know that the Bible is corrupted and not available in its original form and language.
on the internet, I found many contradictions. some of them looked very obvious. one of those contradictions caught my attention. It was
Leviticus 11:3–6 saying:
- ‘Whatever divides the hoof, and is cloven-footed, chewing the cud, among the animals, that you shall eat.
- ‘Only, you shall not eat these of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: the camel, for he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.
- ‘And the rock badger, because he chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.
- ‘And the hare, because he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.’
My immediate thought: Silly Christians...If this was the word of God, than surely He would know that the rabbit does NOT chew cud...a rabbit has just one stomach.
But I got curious how the rabbit digests his food, and it turns out that a rabbit poops out soft edible pellets first...eats those to digest for a second time and then poops out the harder pellets.
It is not exactly chewing cud...but again...the Bible has undergone too much corruptions and there is this translation error etc...
So there is definitely something true about this.
I no longer search for errors in the Bible anymore after that.
Why I am telling you this story? because contradictions you may find, may look obvious at first. but there is definitely an explanation if you are interested enough to look for it.
Maybe share your contradictions and we go through it together.
As to the morality, I see where you're coming from here too. I would agree to the plausibility of the test. Of course, make me lose my money and see if I still remain honest, or tempt me with an affair and see if I'm able to remain true to my vows, heck make me go blind or lose my lims and see if I'm still faithful - sure I can see that. What I can't see is why small children need to die horrible deaths, for example. My brother in law is a policeman and he witnessed some horrific things that I wish he had never told me about. The ones that bothered me the most and the ones that really affected him psychologically were seeing small children being victimized. I've never heard of a good explanation for why any God would allow such a thing. The children are surely too young to be put to a test like that and to react with anything other than abject terror and despair before dying. I don't expect an answer to this from any theologian of any faith - this has been a nearly insurmountable problem despite many religious scholars bravely tackling this issue. I'm just saying that this is one reason why I don't believe there is a God.
I apologize in advance if this seems morbid, but I didn't know of any other way to express it.
No, no need to apogize. you are correct. those kids are too young to be put to a test like this...no doubt about that...but the fact is...it cannot be ruled out. for the suspect is in a difficult position where he needs to get out of. and that innocent child is in his way...so he has the choice what to do with that child...it is His test, not the childs.
In Islam Children untill a certain age, people with down syndrome or other people with brain capacity too small to distinguish between good and bad, are free from the burden of the test. So for them, the test is very easy, but they still come to Earth as a test for some people else.
Again, the concept of this world is unfair...but it is made deliberately like this, and it is just temporary.
Was God able to create a perfect world where no one should have to suffer? yes He was, and He even create it...it is called the Heaven.
Why did God create the bad people? wasn't God able to create people who just automatically choose for the good and not for the bad?
Yes He was. Look at his other creatures, the angels...very powerfull creatures...very strong, fast as lightning...never disobedient.
But despite of that, Humans have a higher rank than the angels, and why?
Because there is one attribute that humans posess and Angels not...and that is free will.
Despite of our weakness and laziness and our freedom of will...we CHOOSE ourselves to believe in God and to be obedient.
Angels cannot choose....they are not programmed to choose...but we humans have a choice, and we choose for the good...and that exactly gives us the higher rank than the angels.
That is why the bad should be present on this world...so we actually have a free will.
That is why those innocent children suffer...because some idiot chooses for the bad and victimises them....he will get what he deserves eventually...if he gets away with it in this world, he will get it in the next but then much much worse.
But eventually, there will be justice for everyone.
