Worldview Conflicts Part III

Just because I think your arguments are deeply flawed, ignore basic science, and possibly heretical too ... doesn't mean I think God didn't create the universe.

Heretical? How so? What basic science am I ignoring? How are my arguments flawed?

Mike, no where did I deny the existance of a "designer" as you call Him (I prefer calling Him "God", but that's just my preference -- I think it's less "cute" than the frankly disingenuous "Intelligent Design" language, and "Our Designer who art in Heaven" sounds a little clunky to me.

How is it disingenuous to call God the designer? Obviously I believe the God of the Bible to be the Designer of the universe. I prefer calling Him God as well, so I don't know what that little fit had to do with anything. However, since this discussion was borne out of thoughts concerning science, nature and logic, that is how the discussion has formed. I can't very well just begin by saying, "Well, God just is and always has been. I believe it and that settles it." Well, my faith has a little more reason to it than just blind belief, Alan. To explain that to someone like Jim who is questioning, first, if there even is a god, and second, that if this god exists, can we even know him/her/it then the discussion has to begin at a more foundational, philosophical level.

Apparently to you, asking any question about God constitutes a lack of faith on my part. Or perhaps the real issue is that *my* asking *you* any question about God somehow constitutes a question of your authority or something. In any event, I'm not sure why you assume every question I ask is a challenge.

I haven't seen you ask any questions about God, Alan. However, the neo-Darwinism you seem to support does, indeed, raise questions about the existence or need of a god.

I'm not sure how you get beyond an idea like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which has a great deal of experimental observation to back it up. Do you see quantum mechanics as an inherently anti-Christian theory because of its emphasis on probability distributions?

No. Alan, I'm not Anti-Science. I just do not believe that good science is going to refute God, nor can it. What we're really talking about here in neo-Darwinism is not empirical science. It is a philosophy of science. Supernaturalism is not counter to science. Non-naturalism is counter to Naturalism. Naturalism is counter to Non-naturalism and Supernaturalism encompasses both. I believe that science will do nothing but continue to reveal how God has formed/is forming the world around us, or how it is decaying. As far as the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, probabilities are not a problem for me. As I stated, I'm not anti-science nor am I "Anti-probability" if there is such a term. With the Quantum Mechanics theory still being developed and incomplete, I don't suspect any earth-shattering blows to Biblical Christianity. Even in experimentation of the Uncertainty Principle we see certain laws extant.

Also, Stephen Hawking has shown, using wavefunciton equations, that matter can in fact, come from nothing. He has even gone so far as to calculate a 98% chance of our present universe occuring by "chance" alone. His theories are not universally (hee hee) accepted however, but stranger ideas have come from quantum mechanics.

Well, as I stated, Quantum Mechanics is far from a complete theory. Hawking has already been shown to be mistaken on his hypothesis of matter or information being completely destroyed by black holes (he had a lot of disagreement on his thoughts any way) and, obviously, this went against the established Laws of Thermodynamics, namely the First. Neither can it be actually shown that information or matter can be formed from nothing, and I would expect the established laws to hold up...even with Stephen Hawking attempting to debunk them. Obviously, Quantum Mechanics is not something I read and study a lot in my spare time or fill my head with just before bedtime :) but I'm somewhat familiar with it and fascinated by these theoretical thinkers. They are much smarter than I, that's for sure. Let's not kid ourselves, though. Hawking is an Atheist. He starts with that bias, just as I start with my own bias of believing in a Creator. It is disingenuous to imply that Hawking arrives at his opinion free from bias and arrives at his view purely from an empirically scientific standpoint.

Perhaps I'm just still not understanding what you actually believe about the Biblical creation stories: a 6000 year old creation? A 13-15 billion year old creation? Something in between? Genesis chapter 1 vs. Genesis chapter 2 (ie. were humans created first or last?), etc.

I believe the Biblical account is not just a story. I believe (I'm certain I'll be mocked for this :) that God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days. As I view the creation account and the language used, I can arrive at no other conclusion. I don't want to rehash the old Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2 argument here, but suffice it to say that I don't see them as contradictory. Certainly, I can go deeper into that subject, but I'm sure you've been through all that before. I will leave you with a quote/excerpt from one of my favorite thinkers, C.S. Lewis:

If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents — the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists... as well as anyone else. But if their thoughts are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist.... Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.