reply to post by Edrick
(Sorry for how long this is)
I think we are at last beginning to understand one another, but we just need some fine tuning. We will probably never agree, but if curious minds
where one directional we would not have made it very far. So I do respect you own sovereign opinion, and everyone else’s. I just thought I would try
and explain it from a different view point.
Like you mentioned any intelligence behind creation cannot be (at our current level of understanding) directly observed, or measured. We cannot be
sure of any conclusion based on our observations, but we can stand by one idea or the other as most probable based on the given information. (At least
until a better hypothesis is formulated or more information becomes available.)
The two hypotheses before me are this (I will use the If/Then hypothesis format for simplicity):
1. If the universe was created by a random act of chance, then the current state of the universe is a probable or possible outcome.
2. If the universe was designed by intelligence, then the current state of the universe is a probable or possible outcome.
In order to make a choice about which hypothesis is most likely to be “true” we have to look at their potential effects on the variables.
It would seem to be impossible to measure such a beings influence verses randomness, we can however, observe potential interactions with the universe
and such being(s) verses randomness. While this is not “undeniable truth” it can be used as evidence when considering which hypothesis to choose
as most probable.
(I will just give a quick example of both)
First we can measure the predictability/unpredictability of randomness with an experiment commonly used for genetics. Take two pennies, label them #1
and #2 or just flip them separately to keep track. Next flip both pennies 32 times as a pair. Record/tally each penny and how it landed. Then find the
ratio for both as heads: heads and tails: and both tails. The mean ratio is 8:16:8 or 1:2:1. Do this as many times as you feel it necessary, you will
find that randomness is fairly predictable and that unpredictability through randomness is uncommon.
Now even if you do not agree with me I am sure you can see how I find it unlikely for randomness to be the driving force in the universe. The sheer
number of insurmountable odds that had to be overcome for our present existents, I believe, lends evidence towards the idea of an intelligent
Next let’s examine the “Flynn Effect” combined with what we know of genetics. The I.Q. mean is increasing linearly throughout the world, yet the
number of people with alleles for above average I.Q.s does not match this growth. Nor do the areas of growth match the likely explanations. As this
goes against our current understandings of genetics and evolution there must be an unseen variable in the equation. I find it a perfectly acceptable
possibility (but not the only possibility) that some unseen force is guiding our evolution, and see this as potential evidence toward intelligently
Looking at the mechanisms, rates, values, and variations of the universe from beginning to present (as best as can be understood presently)we come to
the conclusion most logical to us as the most likely hypothesis by our own viewpoint, or simply, we pick the one that makes the most sense to us.
Some people will pick #1, believing that the probability of a higher intelligent being is more improbable than random chance.
Others (like myself) will pick #2, believing that the probability of our current outcome is too unlikely to be chance and randomness, so must be the
product of design.
Still others, (after researching the data for the above hypotheses) will think neither is appropriate and will formulate new hypotheses based on the
There is no way to prove which hypothesis is better, and their probably never will be. But my purpose here is to show that even while using the
scientific method, and reviewing all we now understand through science about the universe to date, there is still room (and reason) based on data, to
believe in a creator of some kind.
Of course any way of viewing that being(s) such as through Christianity, Buddhism, and Agnosticism etc. is pure faith. It is in this that I agree with
you; given the currently available information no religion deity or related spiritual views can be proven or even rationalized by scientific means.
[edit on 21-7-2009 by NRA4ever333]