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.
Analogy
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.
NOTES:
[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"
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар