понеделник, 17 март 2014 г.

The Possible Reasons - Reflections And Emotions

In this article I will try to take a stand on an dispute that recently flared up in the United States, but could soon appear  on a global scale as well. Its outcome could turn out to be decisive not only for the American education and culture, but also for the whole "civilized world". The question is about a lawsuit that has been widely discussed lately.  A group of parents from the small town of Dover,  Pennsylvania, prosecuted the board of the local school. The parents opposed the school board decision to study the so called "Intelligent design" theory together with the theory of evolution in the biology classes. The parents claimed that this alternative is a religious one and that it violates the USA constitution, which states that teaching religion in school is forbidden. The trial ended with the parents' victory - the federal court announced the "intelligent design" theory a theological (i.e. non-scientific) concept.[1]
At a first glance, the argument on the origin of the living beings and the human brings the conservative Christians against lecturers and scientists with naturalistic beliefs. But whether it has not also another more distanced perspective, i.e. whether it does not concern all people? If Darwin has not misled us, then everything, from the formation of the cosmic systems to the origin of life and its evolution, is due to self-organization of the matter.[2]After all the Universe, as well as any form of life in it, is destined to death and the best implication for us remains "let's eat and drink for tomorrow we die" (I Cor. 15:32). But what will follow, if we assume for a second that the Sufferer from the Golgotha could be right? Then His cross turns into a demarcation line for the whole humankind - to some for eternal life, for others ... Thus, wouldn't it turn out that we are all in the same team, since the truth about the world is equally important and valid for each of us?

What is the aim of science?

As paradoxical as it may sound, according to the words of an astronomer I know: "it is namely scientists with Christian beliefs who have created the so called methodological materialist, which applies observation and experiment and searches with priority the natural explanations of natural phenomena." The figures of the Enlightenment, with their fight against the Church, and after them a number of atheistically minded philosophers gradually turned this approach into an ideological one.Finally, an equation mark is placed between materialism and science. But here I will dare note that the task of science is rather not so much to find the natural causes of phenomena, than to discover the objective truth of the things in reality.
Let me use a paraphrase of the classical example of William Paley's watch. A skilful craftsman has invented the first (pocket) watch, but he has lost it while rambling in the wood. You come across this beautiful, copper-made object. You open it and carefully study its parts. Finally, you grasp that all its mechanisms are set in such a way that it reads time with great accuracy. Then, you decide to show your finding to a professor you know and ask him to provide an explanation on how the watch have appeared. You find the professor in his study, talking with a colleague. After long deliberations he starts the explanation as follows: "You have found something in nature. Consequently, nature has created it. This object originated as a product of a prolonged and complex evolution of copper". And the theory starts: "At the beginning the Earth formed as a planet in a gigantic gas-and-dust cloud which thickened ... and it was heated up to thousand degrees. During its slow cooling down copper dissociated from the other substances as a pure metal, due to their different points of hardening ... In a particular type of crystallisation of copper atoms various small springs, rings, cogwheels, screws, dials, and watch hands formed. The primary matter was filled with these ... In a complicated way they have grouped in a clockwork and gradually, as a result of something like "natural selection" the more accurate ones continued to exist, until this species that determines the time with absolute accuracy appeared."
-But the possibility to have this object formed by chance in nature is negligibly small,objects the other professor. - Why don't we assume, then, that it was contrived by an intelligent creator?"
What do we get in practice? If the criterion for a scientific discovery is to find natural causes for the origin of everything, then the first explanation is scientific, but not true. The second one is true, but not scientific.[3]
Therefore, is it not better to assume that in fact the task of science is to discover the objective truth? Then everything comes in its place. That is, where natural phenomena and law function, they could be used to explain things, and if there was intelligent intervention somewhere, this should be acknowledged. The watch hands are actuated by the elastic force of the spring, but the watch itself did not appear as a result of a "complex evolution of copper". By analogy: all processes in nature are due to natural causes, but whether nature as a whole is not the work of a skilful Creator?

If we cannot prove the Divine intellect, how shall we then confirm the presence of human intelligence?

Try to embody yourselves in the role of a genius scientist. You have made a great discovery. Based on it you have constructed, let's say, an engine with very high efficiency. You take your theoretical treatment and the model of the engine for approval before the respective patent committee. There they tell you that they will appoint an appropriate expert who will examine your work. After the implemented check, to your greatest surprise, you hear from him the following conclusion:
- The theoretical treatment is correct and does not contradict the laws of nature. The practical tests also showed that the engine actually possesses the stated characteristics. But can we be sure that all this is done by our colleague, because it could have happened by chance.
- How come? - you are asking perplexed.
- Very simple. It is possible, for example, that your cat rambled along the keys of your typewriter, as a result of which the concept of this invention appeared on paper. Also, a potential explosion in the workshop could have become the reason for assembling the engine presented here.
- What are you talking about? - your indignation is increasingly growing. - Don't you understand that since I have the intellectual potential and the physical capability to create these things, the probability for me being their author is completely one hundred percent possible? And the probability for them to be accomplished by chance is negligible. Besides, there is a great number of witnesses, who have seen me while working on them.
- Look, it it possible that the events that I have pointed out to you happened before that. You have only reproduced all this for a second time before other people, to convince them that you are the real inventor of the machine.
- It takes a long time, however, for a negligibly small chance to be realized - you keep insisting.
- Not necessarily. According to the probability theory it could be realized from the very first time. Even more, if we admit the contemporary concept of a multi universe (a multiverse), then there is no problem at all in some of the worlds to obtain any objects by chance.
Listening carefully to both parties, the committee adjudicates, as follows:
- Until there exists a trifling probability for all to have happened by chance, there is no way we can be sure that you are the author of the item. Therefore, you cannot gain any recognition nor reward for it.
Then, a brilliant response comes to your mind:
- In that case you will probably say that all achievements of mankind that are considered a product of our conscious activity could have originated by chance. According to your logic, people who claim that they have created them have to give up their copyrights, their titles, and also to return their remunerations. Do you agree to do that?
God is the One Who expressly states that He Himself is the author of the creation. Besides, all His "products" - atoms, celestial systems, living organisms, etc., are unmeasurable in their complexity as compared to any of the products of human intelligence. For that reason the possibility that they originated by chance is tremendously smaller. Materialists, however, have always strived to spread the concept that if there exists even an infinitely small probability for the world to have arisen by chance, it is exactly this probability that was fulfilled in practice. Therefore, according to most of them, by no means it could be assumed that God has created the Universe. Although, on one hand, they do not have any sure factual evidence of the evolutionary origin of the Universe, life and human being, and on the other hand - the possibility that things evolved in this way is also completely insignificant, they require that the contemporary public believes their "theories" almost unquestioningly. But whether they will agree that the gauge they use to measure is related also to themselves? If there existsa possibility for the achievements of our civilization to have happened by chance, according to the above contemplations it turns out that there is no way to prove that they have created anything at all. But, if this is so, they should not claim to be scientists at all. Why then is it necessary to believe thir claims? On the other hand, if there are no sure evidence supporting naturalism, consequently it is also taken only on credit, which makes it a peculiar form of religion.

Possible reasons

"The intelligent design" is declared by some a pseudo-science, because recognizing the possibility for a supernatural intervention is equal to repudiation of knowledge.[4]
Indeed, when God makes miracles they are related to some breach of natural laws, in consequence of which such phenomena cannot be repeated and studied in our laboratories. The creation of the space-time continuum ex nihilo is a drastic breach of the law of energy preservation and since this act is unverifiable, philosophers are forced to accept the primacy of Consciousness or of matter only as a postulate. Man creates items which cannot arise through natural processes, but at the same time our activity is in agreement with the natural laws. In some cases, however, God does the same and this will allow us to apply the method of analogy in seeking the answer of the origin of the universe.
We will use a wider quotation from an article of the American physical chemist and science historian Charles B. Thaxton:
The empirical science theoretically acknowledges both natural and intelligent reasons.
Although both natural and intelligent reasons reveal themselves to us through experience, modern empirical science of nature usually acknowledges only the natural reasons. Is this a prejudice on behalf of scientists or is it some sort of a conspiracy for eliminating intelligent reasons? Not at all. Science assumes any reason, natural or intelligent, for which there exists uniform sense experience. In the history of modern science, however, uniform experience relates the natural reasons only to regularly recurring events. That is why today we do not include intelligent reasons in science. This, however, is not a prohibition. If the intelligent reasons can relate to recurring events, they would be admissible in science.
We don't have the grounds to assign a reason - whether natural or intelligent - to any phenomenon, as a substitute of the uniform experience.[5] As an example, let us assume that we are detectives who investigate the death of a person. Whether this is a murder or natural death? We are not in a position to know the answer in advance. We have to investigate the case. If a detective, at the very beginning of his investigation, declares that human death could be only natural, we would object that this imposes illegitimate restrictions on the possible reasons. If what we hope to find out through our investigation is namely whether the death was a result of an intelligent reason (murder) or it was natural, we need a working method which is equally open for both explanations. We need a method which allows us to determine with the greatest probability possible what actually has happened.
As we have seen, throughout the whole history of experimental science the recurring events are related to natural reasons. Other events, especially such as the events of occurrence or origination of something, are not recurring and they could be unique. What we need is a methodology which goes beyond the a priori binding with the reason and which provides us with criteria for the simultaneous construction of the natural reasons case and the intelligent reasons case.
How could we make a decision in favour of an intelligent reason for some event in the past? Generally, in order to establish an intelligent reason, we use the same method that we use for the natural reason, i.e. the uniform sense experience. This is the so called method of analogy.
In the 19th century the astronomer John Herschel further developed the analogy method for arguments from observed reasons to unknown reasons: "If the analogy between two phenomena is very close and striking, while at the same time the reason for one of them is obvious, it is hardly possible to turn down the presence of an analogous reason for the second phenomenon, although it is not so obvious in itself." Scientists have been relying on this method for more than 150 years. The enormous success of science at least partially attests to it ...
Let us consider archaeology as a clear example of the analogy method. The principle of analogy is frequently used in archaeology to determine whether some discovery or other has an intelligent reason. The reasoning goes as follows: In the present we see a craftsman who makes ceramic products. Consequently, when we comb the dust of some settlement mount in Mesopotamia and we discover a broken earthenware pot, we can logically conclude that its source is also such a craftsman - a potter ...
By the way, the same arguments are used by astronomers when they seek intelligent life in Cosmos. This is a usual practice of the NASA teams when they process data from the planets and their moons. These teams use various criteria for acknowledging the proof of intelligent life on the planets - some distinctive mark of a product of an intelligent source ...
Astronomer Carl Sagan asserts that even one single message from the cosmos would ascertain the existence of extraterrestrial life. He wrote: "There are others who believe that our problems are solvable, that humankind is still in its childhood, and that some day that is not far off we will grow up. One single message from the Cosmos would show that it is possible to experience such technological adolescence. Yet, the Civilization that sends these signals has survived."[6]
If we actually discover radio waves that have the characteristics of a message, wouldn't we have the grounds to assume that their sources is an intelligent being, referring to the analogy with the messages for which we know, based on our experience, that they were engendered by intelligent beings, namely humans? In other words, the analogy method could register general intelligence, not particularly human intelligence."[7]

Let us apply the analogy method

In the article "Farewell, Darwin!" we have already deduced three principles, which bespeak of the impossibility for the universe to have originated as a result of natural reasons. But is it possible for a rational and active being to satisfy these principles in his creative activity?
The first principle for the provision of suitable parameters for the work of a system is comparatively easy to accomplish. We calculate in advance the optimum conditions for the running of the production processes. After that we set the instruments to maintain them constant. The constants, laws and interactions exactly required for the functioning of the Universe, the living creatures and the human being are selected and fixed in an analogous way.
Secondly, there is no way a football ball can change its state of repose or its direction of movement on its own. But the players can change its impulse, by giving it some speed with their force, directing it according to their will. Also, there is no hindrance for the intelligent and almighty Creator, after creating the celestial bodies, to "push them along their orbits" (according to Newton).[8] If we trace the ball's trajectory without taking into account its interaction with the football players, then we will account non-fulfilment of the laws for preservation of the impulse and the gravitation. In the same way, the dynamic principles (of the impulse, and in a hidden form - also of the gravitation) seem breached in the cosmic systems, since the external intelligent intervention is not acknowledged (which intervention is evident also from the wonderful harmony in the bodies' organization).
It is not difficult at all for the intellect to realize processes with infinitely small probability of realization. The automobile is a product of our intelligence. Is it possible that it is assembled as a result of natural elements? We will look at only one of the engine parts . Let us say that we have a ready cylinder. What is the probability for the piston that goes with it to arise by chance with the appropriate form and dimensions? Simple considerations show that it is (1/∞)2, since forms are infinite in number, as well as the dimensions. And if the cylinder itself should emerge in the same manner, so that these two elements can be assembled and the system can work, the total probability is (1/∞)4, i.e. less than an "absolute zero". The designer, however, with no particular efforts, can immediately determine the appropriate parameters of the elements, out of the infinite number of possibilities, and by making some calculations he can assemble the above items. (We are very seldom aware of the extraordinary capabilities of our mind!) For the origination of the universe we also get probabilities by the order of 1/∞ raised to some power, but the further construction of the surrounding realities is much more complicated. That is to say, it is one hundred percent possible for a conscious God to create the world, whereas no prospects are brought out to the blind case ("watchmaker" - according to the words of R. Dawkins) to cope with a similar task.
On the third place, let us assume for a moment that we do not know how automobiles appeared. One day, we visit an auto salon, which exhibits different brands of passenger cars, presenting samples from their first to their most recent models. What would be our conclusion then, if we are led by the contemporary scientific precondition to search only for the natural reasons for their origin. Taking into consideration the organization that becomes increasingly more complicated. We could assume that the whole variety of forms is due to a prolonged and complexly ramifying evolution. That is to say, the resemblance in their structure and functions could force us to come to a rather misleading conclusion. If the above two principles are followed, we will find that there is no way even for such simple systems to have originated through a series of accidental processes (and natural selection!), but a purposeful and planning intelligent activity is required. In that case, why don't we assume that plants and animals were also "created according to their species" - a conclusion that is substantiated also by the total lack of transitory forms.
In a famous passage of his book "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" the philosopher David Hume, who has lived in the 18th century, and whom we can hardly reproach of bias towards Christianity, contemplates on the analogy between the human and the God's mind. Cleanthes, one of his characters in the book, says: Look round the world. Contemplate the whole and every part of it. You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human ... intelligence. Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer ... that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man,, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed."[9]
The British astronomer James Jeans further developed the thesis in accordance with the point of view of science at the beginning of the 20th century: "Phenomena in the Universe are performed not according to mechanical principles, as was considered until recently, but according to purely mathematical principles. Comparing nature to an enormous machine should be discarded due to the stream of scientific knowledge on the non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. If this world is a world of thought, it is clear that it should be the thought of some Creature, That thinks, and His creations should have been an act of the thought of that thinking Creature. We, scientists, begin to suspect that the Spirit has to be hailed as Creator and Governor in the realm of matter. Contemporary scientific theories compel us to think of the Creator of the world as working outside time and space. The Universe provides us with an evidence of a controlling power, which has worked with a view of a certain goal and has something in common with the human mind."[10]
The same is confirmed also by Albert Einstein (as well as by a number of other scientists): "Anyone, who has been seriously engaged in science, is gradually persuaded that one Spirit reveals himself in the laws of Nature; a Spirit, Who is infinitely more powerful than the spirit of the human being and before Whose face, we, with our modest capabilities, have to humble ourselves. Thus, scientific studies lead to a specific religious feeling, which is fairly different than the naive religiousness."[11]
Richard Lewontin, a geneticist at the Harvard University, admits that naturalism was brought in artificially in science: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations …"[12]
Therefore, is it not time to break off with the established naturalistic paradigm and to accept that things in nature can also have an intelligent Reason for their genesis?!

"He catches the wise in their craftiness" (I Cor. 3:19)[13]

Naturalists assume that it is possible to have focal points of life on other planets in the cosmos, as well. Researchers, as part of the SETI project, have scanned the sky all over the world in search of signals from intelligent beings. Cosmic spaceships, directed beyond the borders of the Solar system, carry phonographic records with golden plating as a message to the galactic brothers in intelligence. Quite a lot of scientists are even prone to consider our biosphere as an experiment of their advanced extraterrestrial civilization.
But here springs up a contradiction that is difficult to explain. The same authorities, who are flatly against the Divine origin (and have declared any such doctrine as non-scientific), readily accept the intelligent interference by another civilization?! Blaise Pascal poses the question: "Why so many people do not believe in Divine truths? Is it because they have not been proven to them?" And he replies: "No, but because they do not like them."
We are constantly asking the questions "who are we?", "where do we come from and where are we going to?". A popular newspaper once explained this strong will for answers as follows: "Some suppose that it is possible for an extraterrestrial intellect to have emitted enormous streams of coded information, one virtual galactic encyclopaedia, containing insights on the origin of the Universe of on immortality."[14]Human being desperately needs someone to tell him/her where s/he has originated from and how to find immortality.
As some other scientists note: "An infinite Intellect has already sent "streams" of information, one "universal encyclopaedia", regarding where we come from, who we are, why we exist, and also insight regarding immortality - and this is not coded! It has been revealed by the One Who has created everything and is translated to almost any language in the world. The Holy BIBLE.


[1] The court decision was delivered in the end of December 2005, and the articles was written just a few months later - in the spring of 2006
[2] See note 1 in the article "Farewell, Darwin!":
[3] If some reader argues that the things which have appeared as a result of an intelligent design could be easily distinguished, we will ask what is the criterion for that? For instance, the bacterial cell, the simplest form of life, has a much higher degree of organization than a mechanical (or electronic) watch. Then, which of them is the work of an intelligent creator and which - a game of the chemical molecules?
In a number of areas it is necessary to create clear rules allowing us to distinguish the products of the conscious activity. Otherwise, how can we determine that a stone is a tool used by the pre-historian man, and not just a piece of rock with a bizarre form? Or, that the located radio emission from the Cosmos bring a message? And why this approach is considered anti-scientific?
[4] The Intelligent design  is conceived as a lighter form of the creationist doctrine, because it tries to draw the reader's attention to the rational plan in the construction of nature, without revealing Who and how has realized this scheme.
"The Intelligent design is considered by a number of sociologists and philosophers of science as a "science-like theory" which is not supported by valid arguments, does not set a scientific programme or possibility for an experimental verification.
We have to admit that the stated objection is sound, to a certain extent. Most of the arguments of the "Intelligent design" creators were refuted by the ones who adhere to the opponents party. As regards the goals and tasks, we are convinced that its advocates can develop in the future a better scientific action programme (still, the movement has been into existence for comparatively short time). It is a question of time to have proposed also  empirically verifiable cosmological models of the Creation, and the data of the contemporary satellite equipment will very soon show us the reliable scientific hypothesis.
[5] David Hume introduced the phrase "uniform experience". What he meant with this is what I call  uniform sense experience, an objective experience of the five senses, not a subjective or religious experience (author's note Ch. T.)
[6] Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain, 1979. New York: Random House, p. 275
[8] The Bible tells us that we have been created "in God's own image", that is why there is a certain analogy between our own rational actions and His. But He is not after "our own image", therefore He does not need "hands" to make one thing or another.
God is Spirit (John 14:26) and is transcendental (outside the material space and time continuum), as well as immanent (omnipresent), i.e. His presence is everywhere at any time, but as separate and independent from everything.
According to the Holy Scripture, the creation and the arrangement of the celestial bodies in beautiful systems happened by an order by God (as actually did everything else).
[9] The main features in D. Hume philosophy are scepticism and naturalism, and he appears to be one of the most influential personalities in the Scottish enlightenment. The quote referred to obviously appeared as a result of some passing insight of his, since it does not fit into the content of his other creations.
[10] Popov, S. "WHY DO I BELIEVE IN GOD", Sofia, 1992, pages 35, 36.
[11] EINSTEIN, whoted in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side" by Dukas and Hoffmann, Princeton University Press, 1979, 33.
[12] Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997
[13] The quote is according to the Protestant translation of the Bible dated 1940
[14] Union-Tribune, San Diego, California, 5 November 1993.

The article is based on excerpts from the book "Faith and Science"

Farewell, Darwin!

At the time of Darwin the knowledge on nature was quite limited; therefore he made some hasty and erroneous conclusions. If we try to systematize and summarize the contemporary information on the surrounding world, a couple of conclusions, which are an antithesis of the evolutionary formulation, become indispensable.[1] Below we will lay down these in a few points, making a short clarification on each of them:
1. A primordial matter in a state of absolute chaos cannot reach by chance the observed contemporary level of arrangement. 
Scientists consider as "chaotic" those systems whose behaviour is subject to radical change caused even by negligibly small events. Thus, long term forecasts become impossible. The discovery of the ability to measure the chaos parameters is often cited as the third biggest achievement of the 20th century, along with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Examples of such chaotic systems are the turbulent streams in the atmosphere, the stormy movement of water, biologic populations, etc. Chaos in nature, however, is ordered enough and obeys specific laws, although finding them sometimes proves to be too complicated. Therefore, the purpose of studying chaos is to include the regularity in systems that seem disordered and unpredictable. When we speak about chaos in our world, that should only be in a relative sense.  Generally speaking, we could define this world as a world of harmony and organization.[2]
What will happen, though, if the so called "undetermined mutability" (according to Darwin) acts at the level of fundamental constants, laws and interactions? Let us try to imagine a world in which everything changes in a totally chaotic way. In this world some of the characteristics of the elementary particles might be constant, while others might transform permanently. For example, if the electric charge changes arbitrarily, it could take absolutely random values: +1; –1; +7/8; +14/3; –112/27, etc. The same is assumed also for the mass, the spin, the magnetic moment, etc., we should assume even a qualitative (evolutionary?) transformation of particles into something different from what they are in reality.[3] The law of gravity now could be written as follows:

and in a short while:

then it could change into some other type, etc. (Due to the lack of durability, in that case we could not talk about laws neither.) Having in mind the delicate balance of all forces in nature, it becomes absolutely clear that with whatever metamorphosis of the interactions, everything will fall apart "before our eyes". In such a world neither any stationary or dynamic structures could be created, nor could they be stable in time. If, in the primary matter that builds our world, a similar "undetermined mutability" existed, it would lead to an absolute chaos, which is not capable of producing any arrangement or organization whatsoever.[4]

2. No laws that lead to spontaneous formation of the celestial systems, self-generation of life and its evolution are observed in nature. On the contrary, the available dynamic and statistic laws prohibit (do not allow, render absolutely incredible) those processes.[5]
It is accepted that W. Ashby in 1947 in his "General theory of systems" introduced for the first time the term "self-organization". What is understood under self-organization in its most common meaning is self-structuring, self-development, self-determination of natural systems and processes. A number of scientists think that the world has come into being and evolved along an endless chain of such processes - from the formation of atoms, stars and galaxies to the biologic and social structures. The base of the so-called complex systems sciences is formed through the combination of various ideas and approaches of the self-organization concept:

 the synergetics of H. Haken;[6]
 the dissipative structures of I. Prigogine;
 the universal evolutionism of N. Moiseev;
 the auto-poiesis of H. Maturana and F. Varela;
 the hypercycles of M. Eigen;
 the evolutionary concept of development of the Universe of E. Jansch;
 the uniform transdisciplinary theory of E. Lazlo;
 the theory of self-organization of A. Samarskii and S. Kurdyumov;
 the cell theory of F. Capri, etc.
(Close to these is the theory of the determined chaos and the fractional geometry of nature of B. Mandelbrot.)

A truly staged arranging of the matter can be observed at the formation of the electron layers of atoms, the beautiful spatial grids of crystal bodies, Benard Cells, the putting together of viruses and a number of other phenomena in nature. For example, if an electron beam is passed in a proximity to a bare nucleus of some chemical element, a part of those electrons will be kept around it and will automatically form the stable configuration of the electron shell of the atom[7]. By analogue, some assume that there might exist still undiscovered laws, which help also for the structuring of the cosmos. If that is really so, we could establish their existence quite easily. It would be enough to launch the space crafts with arbitrary directions and speeds, and since they succeed every time to become satellites of the Sun or of some other planet, we could assume that the celestial systems are self-organizing. But the experience shows that such an ordering, alas, does not happen. Also, even if we mix in a suitable solution all chemical elements that build the cells in the necessary quantities and proportions, they will not join together into a live organism. In the genetic program no possibility is discovered for saltatory ascending transmutation of the species, for instance to have chickens hatched from snake's eggs. The aforesaid indicates that there are not existing ordering relations, which can spontaneously organize all spheres of our world.[8]

Now, we shall consider namely those areas, where the synergetic processes are not in force, to see whether here the dynamic and the statistical laws allow for any form of Darwin-type of self-organization, at all.  

                                          Fig. 1. The Solar System (artist impression)

Let us remember the paradox that exists in our planetary system (see fig. 1): The mass of all planets is hardly 1/750 of the mass of the Sun, but in the distribution of the general moment of the quantity of movement (the  angular momentum) over 98% of it falls to the planets, and less than 2% - to the Sun. 
Today several hundred hypotheses on the origin of the Solar system are known. We could divide them into three groups - nebular, catastrophic and synthetic. But none of these could cope with the above discrepancy. (The origin of the cosmic structures is related to a far more entangled and insuperable hindrances, but here we shall work only with this problem, since it will allow us to approach the task in general.) 
Philosophers with an atheistic frame of mind often mislead their audience with the assurance that sooner or later a naturalistic response will be found to all perplexities in science. But such a statement is incorrect, since objectively there exist two possibilities: 
1) A lot of the contemporary scientific and technical challenges shall actually obtain their solution in the nearer or more distant future, as the American writer Michio Kaku (Japanese origin) forecasts in his book Physics of the Impossible
2) However, we shall never cope with those things that contradict natural laws. We could point out, as the simplest example, the invention of a perpetuum mobile. 
Therefore, the question is to find a strict solution, with the aid of mathematics and physics, of the Solar system: whether it is possible to obtain in a natural way such a drastic breach of the angular momentum or additional intelligent interference is required? For if it is proven for at least one of the structures of our world that it was not formed as a result of the action of the natural laws, this would necessarily require the existence of an intelligent Creator. And we suspect that the brilliant concept of the atoms, the stellar formations and the living organisms will present plenty of other similar evidence. (In this case atheists cannot refer to their favourite argument for the "multiple universes", because, even if they exist?, they appear as "external", i.e. not having an impact on the systems in our world.)
Where does the balance tip to? 
The great Russian science communicator A. Tomilin somewhere notes that currently the planetary cosmogony "turns out to be in a state of the most profound crisis". (It could be definitely added that the same applies to an equal extent to the stellar and galactic cosmogonies.) Further on he continues: "Besides, the new facts obtained through observations have a decisive role for establishing such a situation. The basis itself, which lies in the foundation of all existing hypotheses, comes into contradiction with the facts. And, in order to take science out of this crisis condition, the scientists have to reconsider the basis, laid at the very treatment of the cosmogonic tasks, to search for new methods for their resolving". But do not these words, pronounced by an atheist, in fact contain the strongest recognition of the general impossibility to interpret things from material point of view?[9] 
Most of the scientists consider the statement that "God has created the universal order" as a rather primitive explanation of the phenomena that surround us. Let us remember, however, that this Divine creative act is with unimaginable power, beauty and perfection. On the contrary, the theories hitherto have an over-simplified approach, because they try to render the arrangement of the universe to elementary processes of matter self-organization. However, it would occur to no one to relate the appearance of a Boeing aircraft with "a typhoon swept over a landfill", and the Universe is far more imposing than the most significant piece of work of the human brain! 
Now, we shall try to formulate the statistical probability for the accidental origination of a stable and well organized universe. The fundamental constants, the characteristics of the elementary particles, etc., are measured with analogue quantities, therefore they allow for an infinite (∞) number of values of their settings. Let us assume that a system of n elements is required for the existence of such a world. Generally, the possibility for each member of the system to have exactly the  appropriate parameters is 1/∞, and for all n elements - 1/∞n. Even if the system has an endless number of stable configurations, the probability to have any one of them formed by chance is:

(where n is a whole positive number bigger than one). Thus, for systems that allow an endless number of values for their parameters, a peculiar paradox occurs. Although they could possess countless working conditions, even then the probability to reach any one of them by chance is smaller than infinitely small or, in practice, it could never be fulfilled (Fig. 2).[10] 

Fig.2 Possible configurations of the parameters' values, which ensure from I to ∞ working (steady and functioning) conditions. Systems I, II, III, etc. could be  other worlds, as well as physical structures that are formed within them.

With living organisms the variations are limited, since their components (DNA, proteins, etc.) are built in strictly determined number of discrete units (nucleotides, amino acids, etc.). But in fact, there appear to be negligibly small, practically unrealisable probabilities for an accidental formation of the protocell, which is able to realize all processes of life. In other words, in the highlighted areas, the existing dynamic and statistical laws forbid the self-arrangement of matter.

 3. The intermediate states are: а) unstable - with the atomic and celestial structures, and b) non-functioning - with live organisms. That points out that no evolutionary processes are possible neither in still, nor in living nature.
The system is a multitude of elements that are in relations and connections between each other and form a certain unity, a wholeness. All elements of the system are interdependent, i.e. each of them affects the rest, and vice versa - they also have an impact on it. The structure of the system determines its internal form of arrangement, i.e. it is an expression of the order existing therein. The full description of the order in the complexly organized systems is studied by a comparatively new science, called taxiology (logic of order), which is being developed  as one of the most fundamental and important logical theories. But its basic principles and categories are studied through too complicated extensional mathematical logic and theoretical computation methods. Therefore, we shall not examine them here, but will apply an extremely simplified approach, which will allow us to make conclusions regarding the possibility for an evolution of the aforementioned systems.
A principle known as "all or nothing" is valid with them, referring to the fact that the structure must be composed of suitable elements, which should be arranged in the correct order, so that the action of the system is not disturbed. If we change the parameters even of a single one of them, or we totally remove it, or we change places of some of the elements, a disturbance will occur in the functioning of the system that will destroy it or take it out of use. Therefore, either everything is fine and the system functions in a normal way, or otherwise, it is as if nothing is fine and the system is terminated.
This principle forbids the gradual "evolution" of one structure into another. Could a small mechanical watch gradually transform itself into a clock? Let us presume that one of its gears has grown bigger, as for a clock. Then, it will be incompatible with all the mechanisms of the small watch and the latter will not tell the time correctly, or will not be able to work at all. Let the other parts also transform and become as for a clock. While one part of its mechanisms is for a small watch, and the other - for a bigger one, its function will be considerably disturbed or could not be realized at all. The watch/clock will work normally only when either all its parts are small, or all parts are big.
And what will happen if one of the parts of the watch is replaced by a computer part?[11] For example, a transistor is put in place of a gear. It is absolutely sure that the watch will go out of use now. On the other hand, even the computer will not realize its function even when we have assembled all the computer parts, and only one part is left from the watch.
Based on the aforesaid we could make the following conclusion: when one object is gradually transformed into another object of the same type (but different in some way - by size, by model, etc.) the function is hampered, or even ceased. And when an object of one type is transformed into an object of another type the function cannot be realized at all. Therefore, either "everything" is in line and the system is functioning normally, or even if one thing is not in order, it is as if "nothing" is in order and the function is broken.
Of course, the relations between the elements of the systems in nature are significantly more complicated; we have taken these examples only to illustrate the principle "all or nothing". By analysing Fig. 2 we could make the following conclusion regarding the possibility for an evolution of the systems with an infinite number of values of their parameters: Neither gradual nor saltatory ("quantum") transition of one working system into another is possible. 
In the first case, i.e. with a gradual transition, if one of its parameters changes its value, it will not be in accordance with its other parameters any more, and the system will get out of order. But, the other system will not be fit to work until all its necessary parameters are completely built. As we have clarified, here the principle "all or nothing" applies.
The second case, of the "quantum" (sudden) transformation, is also impossible to be realized. The probability for all parameters of the system to suddenly change and to acquire exactly the necessary values of the parameters of any other functioning system is smaller than infinitely small (according to the calculations above - 1/∞n-1).
At the beginning we already mentioned that every metamorphosis in the parameters of the micro-world (characteristic of the particles, intensity of interactions, etc.) makes atoms unstable and results in their being destroyed. In other words, the atoms and the other chemical elements are discrete structures, which cannot pass one into another through a series of intermediate forms, but they require strictly calculated design.[12] We could think about the celestial formations - planetary, stellar, galactic in a similar way.
As it is well known, proteins have a very important role within living creatures. They build the cell structures, perform catalytic functions, participate in the realization of the genome, etc. But one part of them are  species-dependent. Therefore if a mutation occurs, that will lead to the formation of a different protein, its action will not be in unison with the work of the other proteins. In that way the genetic mutations impede the synchronization of the systems in the organism and for that reason, in fact, they appear harmful for the individual, i.e. they do not assist the individual in the fight for existence. In other words, the principle "all or nothing" does not aid the gradual evolution of organisms. There are no indications whatsoever also for the "quantum" (sudden) appearance of new species; because of that the leading authorities admit that "neither phyletic gradualism, nor punctuated equilibrium look applicable for the origin of new physical forms".[13]
From Fig.2 it is understood that God can create an infinite variety of ordered and stable worlds, but each one of them is rather hardly probable (1/∞  to some power), which precludes its origination by chance. (Thus we respond also to the question asked already by Einstein "did God have a choice at the creation of the Universe?", which is once again raised by St. Hawking and L. Mlodinow in their last book, "The Grand Design".) Let us add that the "intelligent interference" is actually the best explanation, since it instantly resolves all contradictions about the origin of the Universe, the living creatures and the human being.
In his pre-knowledge God has foreseen all erroneous theories to which we might come to. Therefore, the Universe was created in a way which unambiguously bespeaks of an intelligent planning.

See also the articles: 
A debate with Stephen Hawking in his absence 

God's Fingerprints (Is it possible to empirically test the cosmological model of the Creation, as described in the Bible?)



[1] According to C. Darwin the factors of biological evolution are brought down to mutability, heredity and natural selection. However, if we consider things in a strictly naturalistic manner, we could relate his doctrine also to the evolution of the inanimate nature. Russian physicist Andrei Linde (currently working in Stanford University) proposes the idea of the  "chaotic inflation". It states that the quantum fluctuations of vacuum permanently lead to the origination of mini-universes. They evolve in isolation, and initially they are inflated by inflation processes, while later on – they evolve according to the classical hypothesis of the Big Bang. With each appearance of a new world what is observed is mutability in the laws and the constants of the matter. The accidental recurrences of some of them are regarded as a type of heredity. The natural selection is also in force, since it preserves the physical structures - atoms, molecules, celestial systems, that, with the combination of appropriate parameters,  are stable.
But if Darwinism could be applied to animate and inanimate nature, then we have to accept it as a universal dialectic-materialistic concept, which preconditions the self-organization of the universe.

Fig. 3 Linde's model of chaotic inflation is illustrated as a tree-like structure, consisting of an infinite number of multiplying "bubbles" (inflationary universes). Each newly obtained universe could "sprout", thus forming new  mini-universes. (The change in colour presents "mutations" in the physical laws against the parent universes.)
[2] Chaos theory possesses a mathematical apparatus, operating on the grounds of the behaviour of  non-linear dynamic equations, sensitive to the initial conditions. If the initial data changes even with insignificantly small quantities,  comparable for instance with the Avogadro number variations (of the order of 10-24), the check of the final system state will show absolutely different values as a  result.
But the mathematical systems with chaotic behaviour appear determined, i.e. they seem to obey some strict law. There exists, however, such a field in physics as the quantum chaos theory, which studies non-determined systems, acting according to the quantum mechanics laws. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has a significant role in this field. According to it, the coordinates and the impulse of a particle cannot be measured  simultaneously, but  are described with a probability wave.  Nevertheless, the quantum theories are also deterministic in the sense that they provide laws for change of the wave with  time. Therefore, let us recall that the electrons, while moving around the nucleus, form the beautiful atomic orbitals. This suggests that here again a wonderful and perfect order reigns.
[3] If we take things at the "string" level, the evolutionary transmutations should lead to a change in the very nature of the matter (energy), of which they are built. Thus, it is not clear whether the strings will preserve their properties, i.e. whether they could continue oscillating at all, so that they would be in a condition to "turn into" elementary particles.
(According to a new theory all the elementary particles are in fact miniature fibres of energy called "strings".  It would be more correct to say that there is only one type of a string, which can perform an enormous variety of oscillations.  The particular way of oscillation generates strictly defined properties such as mass, electric charge, spin, etc, that allow us to differentiate one type of particles from another. So if the string oscillates in one way it shows itself as an electron, in another way - as a quark, neutrino, tau-lepton, etc.)
Some scientists state that the new string theory offers a powerful conceptual paradigm, which has the potential to respond to the question: "what is the reason for the elementary particles to possess exactly these observed properties". Therefore, let us say a few words on that. The strings can perform an infinite number of resonance wave oscillations, which means that they should generate an infinite row of elementary particles with all sorts of properties. In that case we can ask, why there exist only those limited number of observed particles, which, as we have noted in chapter ІV, resemble the elements of a perfect meccano (construction set), allowing the assembling of our world? The response given by the string theory is that there are at least six (or seven) additional dimensions of space, which at microscopic level are rolled into the so called Calabi-Yau shapes.  (Named after Eugenie Calabi and Shing-Tung Yau, who have discovered them in mathematics even before their meaning for the string theory is known.) The additional dimensions have a great influence on the way the strings oscillate, and, as a result,on the properties of the particles. But the equations show that there are an infinite number of Calabi-Yau shapes, and each of them is as valid as all the rest (fig. 4). That is to say that we come to a dead-end again - how were those shapes, which generate exactly the necessary elementary particles, selected? Or the question is only shifted, but not solved.

Fig. 4 a) One of the possible Calabi-Yau shapes. b) Big enlargement of an area in space with the additional dimensions in the form of miniature Calabi-Yau shapes.

[4] According to some observations, that are still not confirmed, it is possible that in the past the constant fine structure had a bit different value. (More detail on this discovery can be found in John Barrow's book: The Constants of Nature: From Alpha to Omega - the Numbers That Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe .)
Even if we assume that this is true, the mutation could vary within very narrow limits - otherwise, the rather fragile balance of the structures in the micro-world would be broken.
[5] Dynamic laws are manifested differentially in time, i.e. the consequences ensuing from them are realized in every particular moment. Statistic laws act integrally - their consequences are implemented only in a big enough time lapse or at a complete transmutation of the system. An example of the first ones are the gravity law, the momentum conservation law, etc., and for the second ones - the stochastic laws, which determine the state of a system not with a single meaning, but with a certain probability.
[6] During the 70s of the ХХ century the German physicist-theorist Hermann Haken laid the foundations of new interdisciplinary science, called by himself  synergetics. Synergetics studies the self-organization phenomena, i.e. the mechanisms leading to the spontaneous generation of spatial and/or time structures in inanimate , as well as in animate nature. Therefore, some specialists propose the term "synergetics" to be accepted as founding one for all processes of self-organization, which are studied by various schools in that direction.
Synergetic processes presuppose to a great extent an intelligent Creator, since the ordering relations in these processes are evidence of   planning and purposefulness. Consistently pursued materialism, however, requires Darwin type of evolution, which is based exclusively on the variety of accidental variations and the natural selection. 
[7] Let us illustrate this situation with the following example: If in the proximity of a bare nucleus, let us say of the chemical element iron, we pass an electrons beam, only one part of them will be kept around it and will be allocated to the atomic orbitals as follows -  1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d6. Thus, they automatically arrange themselves in an exactly defined stable configuration, building the electron shell of the iron atom.
Atoms interact with each other continuously - they collide, they form common electron pairs, they give and accept electrons, etc., therefore they would be easily destroyed at the lack of stable arrangement.
[8] If we should make a broader summary of the self-organization processes, we have to say that:
а) They are not manifested in all spheres of reality.
b) They always lead to the formation of a certain amount of structures which are characteristic of a given phenomenon.
c) They do not allow a qualitative leap from one level of order to another higher one - for instance, a transition from chemical to biological level is not possible.
[9] As we have already noted, out of the great number of models of the formation of the Solar system, none works, which makes us suspect that here an insuperable contradiction with the natural laws is hidden. That is to say, in a sense, they are analogical to the impossibility to build a perpetuum mobile.
[10] In theory, statistical laws allow for the realization of events with insignificantly small probability. However, practical experience shows that such events never happen. Therefore, some scientists assume that for each event there is a certain "probability threshold", under which its realization is unlikely. But, as unconceivably small, as these relations might be, such as for example 1/10537; 1/1065 720 etc., still, there are other people who argue that such probabilities could be materialized. However, when we get a probability 1/∞, it is infinitely smaller than the smallest probability that we could write or even think about. That is why we hope that even to such "optimists" a probability of 1/∞ most surely will show an absolute "prohibition" for a certain event to be realized in practice.
There arises the question whether it makes sense to raise 1/∞ to some power, since the 1/∞ ratio actually tends to zero and shows a total inability for an event to happen? We should follow, however, the rules in mathematical theory, according to which the total probability for two or more events to happen is equal to the product of the probabilities for each of them to be implemented separately. When a total probability 1/∞ to some power is achieved, this, according to us, shows more than an absolute impossibility for the realization of something.
(If we denote with an ∞ the points on a straight line, then their quantity in the plain will be ∞2, because in it there exist an infinite number of straight lines. In space the number will be ∞3, because it contains an infinite number of plains. Therefore, it is possible for one infinity to be greater than another , and also to use an exponent when comparing infinities.)
[11] Here it's not a question of creating an electro-mechanic watch/clock, which combines an electronic scheme with a mechanical part, but only for a simple substitution of the clock parts with computer parts. 
[12] Philosophers from the ex-socialist camp tried to present the atoms of the Mendeleev's tabulation elements as a confirmation of the dialectic law, which says that quantitative accumulations lead to qualitative transmutations. That is to say, the quantitative addition of protons in the nuclea leads to the emergence of new types of atoms with different properties in terms of quality. Let us pay attention, however, that atoms are not a mechanical sum of particles, but are extremely complicated discrete structures, whose equilibrium is achieved at a very precise balance of the forces in the nucleus and the electron shell (see chapter V). All this speaks that atoms as self-organizing systems have originated as a result of a very complexly plotted construction, and not of arbitrary processes. 
It is not by chance that the great German physicist M. Born, once said: "I was seeing in atom the clue to the most cherished secrets of nature, and it revealed to me the grandeur of the whole creation and the Creator". (MAX BORN, “My Life and My Views”, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968, 88). 
[13] Theoreticians propose two different explanations for the course of the evolutionary process in biology. The first one is called "phyletic gradualism". According to this point of view, the present living creatures have gradually evolved from earlier and simpler organisms. In that case, however, we should observe constant lines of transitional forms among the species, as well as among higher taxa. It is inexplicable why this line of intermediary links is missing not only with the contemporary organisms, but also with the fossils. In that direction, N. Heribert-Nielsen, Director of the Botanical Institute with the University of Lund, Sweden, has made a very indicative statement.  After 40 years of investigations in the area of paleontology and botany, finally, he was forced to say: "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleo-biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that … the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled." (Paul A. Moody, Introduction to Evolution /New York: Harper and Row, 1962/, p. 503. /Synthetische Artbildung, 1953/.) 
The second view is known as "punctuated (discrete) equilibrium". This term denotes a hypothetical process, with which mutations in the species should be made saltatory and to have a quick evolution in small populations. S. Stanley calls this "quantum" (in this case "sudden") emergence of new type. Such an imaginary process could explain the universal absence of transitional structure, but there are no genetic proofs of it whatsoever. 
Here is the evaluation that two famous evolutionists - J. Valentine and D. Erwin give to this concepts: "We conclude that … neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans".  (James W. Valentine and Douglas H. Ervin, “Interpreting Great Development Experiments. The Fossil Record.” An article at symposium published in Development as an Evolutionary Process, Alan R.  Lias, Inc., 1987, p. 96.)
In his works Darwin acknowledges that his doctrine is not in a position to explain either the absence of transitional forms, no the gradual origination of a complicated organ, such as the human eye, for example. The principles deduced here foresee that this is exactly what has to be observed in nature, but, as we have noted at some other place, an empirical verification is required in order to prove the theories.