Cell complexity and the death of naturalism

Diagram of the simplest known self-reproducing life form on Earth.

Naturalism is the idea that life on earth arose spontaneously, without outside intelligent agency, from simple proteins combining to form a living cell, able to reproduce itself, and able to evolve over time into the myriad of life forms we see today.

Did one or many gods create Earth?

It is commonly believed by followers of monotheistic religions that the original being (God /Creator) who began all processes of creation, single-handedly created the Earth and all life upon it.

This is a simple belief that satisfies many, but the reality is we have no way of knowing the truth of this matter, unless we have memory of this event occurring- which I know of none that claim to have.

In reality, there is no reason to believe that the original Creator is responsible for every individual act of creativity that has occurred since the original movement from formless being into the creation of worlds.

Clearly, humans are also creative beings, responsible for having a dramatic effect on the world around them, and so, similarly, it is possible that the original Creator may have given birth to additional creative beings who went on to create other beings, worlds, and forms of life to inhabit these worlds.

In other words, the original Creator may have delegated further creation to a variety of beings that "He" created.  We would call these beings gods due to their greater creative powers than we humans and if these gods possess free will then the worlds they create would be their responsibility and not the responsibility of the original Creator.

There is no reason to suggest that the physical universe was the work of one creative mind.  It may be the work of several or even a vast number of creative minds.  If so, the universe would be the combined responsibility of all these creative beings rather than the responsibility of the original creator just as the situation on Earth is the combined responsibility of the individual free will beings living upon it.

Many people struggle to understand why a supposedly loving God would create diseases, nuisance insects and the battle for survival we see on Earth.  The answer may be that the situation on Earth and the life forms that exist upon it may be the work of a large variety of creative beings who may not always have created in a "Godly" way.  That is, some may have created out of ignorance or even ill-will.  The truth is, we have no way of knowing first hand.  But what we do know is that if all life forms were created by beings other than the original Creator then these beings bear responsibility for them.

For more on this topic see the work of Matthew Ward and Kim Michaels, amongst others.

Sharka Todd

Religion, God, atheism, and timeless being

Nathan, Ex Machina (film)

Written in response to a post on Facebook by an expressed atheist about religion, God and the creation of the universe

I think it's important to distinguish between religious concepts and non-religious concepts of a creator, or original being. It's not just a choice between religion and atheism. There are far more interesting and intellectually satisfying views than those two, in my opinion.

As for the universe being created by a thing rather than a being, we need to think about this: could non-life REALLY give birth to life? It takes a living being to create a machine, for example, machines don't self-generate.

Atheism, fundamentalist Christianity and the origin of the universe

Atheism is the disbelief in any creator God, not just the one believed in by fundamentalist Christians.  Clearly, there are an infinite number of possible beliefs on human and universal origins, with fundamentalist Christianity representing one of them.  Atheism, itself, makes no statement about origins, except to say they believe no living being created the universe, which suggests it was some kind of mindless, mechanical process.  At least that is my understanding of atheism.  It is agnostics that keep an open mind on the matter.

Originally written in response to a comment here.

Sharka Todd

Beliefs and religious teaching in schools

Originally a comment made on an article about religious teachings in schools found here:
https://open.abc.net.au/explore/90219

Everyone has beliefs.  In fact, our psyche is a reservoir of them.  We believe we are a worthwhile person, we believe in evolution, we believe when we die we will cease to exist, we believe our wife loves us, we believe in the validity of the scientific method for ascertaining truth, etc.  Someone who says "I don't believe in evolution, I know evolution is true", is in denial.  If we haven't experienced something directly we don't know if it's true or not, though we may have strong opinions about it. 

Everyone has a worldview that is a combination of beliefs about things that we surmise from the words of others and things we have actually experienced ourselves.  For some people this includes a belief in a higher power and for others it doesn't.  Either way, it's still beliefs.  The idea that the universe was created by an intelligence is certainly no more irrational than the idea that it just popped into being from nothing, which is a belief held by many.

Indeed, a variety of beliefs should be taught in schools and the source of the knowing (or surmising) should be made abundantly clear!  I am actually of the opinion that religious and spiritual studies is a worthwhile pursuit, and that it should cover a number of religions and other spiritual approaches and philosophies to give students an idea of what is "on offer" out there.  It is the lack of choice and the focus on one system of belief, whether it be religious or secular, that I think presents the real danger.

Sharka Todd

A machine universe needs a God, but what about a truly creative one?

 

Science tends to view the universe as a giant machine, but machines need someone to design them, build them and then a energy source to power their operation.  If the universe is seen in these terms- as consisting of inanimate matter that somehow arranges itself due to fixed laws- then clearly the need for a designer, builder and power source exists.

There is, of course, another way of conceiving of the universe that does away with the need for a separate creator God and that is the idea that the universe is a living, conscious, self-regulating entity, that is self-creating and functions from its own self-generated power source.

This "creative universe" view would imply that the universe itself is intelligent and aware of its various functioning parts and able to create laws or patterns of behavior to support it's continued existence and unfolding. 

This view is in opposition to the mechanical universe idea made popular in recent centuries as man became enamoured with his ability to create machines.  However, this view has lost favor since the advent of quantum physics, which suggests a wholly more creative and unpredictable process going on, at least at the subatomic level.

 Sharka Todd

Did God, alone, create everything?

Photo by Sharka Todd

Many esoteric schools teach that God, or the original cause, created an innumerable number of independent free will beings, out of "His" own being or consciousness, in order to carry out the work of creating worlds, rather than doing it all "himself".  Therefore, to blame or thank God for everything that exists on any given world may be inaccurate.  Instead, our thanks or blame may be to these "lesser" gods who are involved in the various creative processes on that world.

On earth, the human race exercises a great deal of control over current conditions, both physical and psychological, and for these conditions the human race is collectively responsible.  Over other things, such as natural processes, we appear to not be responsible and the creation or maintenance of those things may be in the hands of other creative beings we are unaware of.

The idea that the one God is in command of all things is clearly in error if "lesser" gods were created to carry out creative work in the cosmos.  If any of these beings begins to create in a way that doesn’t promote all life, but is in opposition to some of it, then we will have unfavorable conditions under which some beings will live.  Some would say then if this is the case the God of All should intervene and fix these things but it may not be in the power of such a being to do so or His respect of the free will of His agents may be absolute.

An example of this kind of God is described in The Return of Light, a book available here.  I do not vouch for the accuracy of the book, as it speaks of matters outside my experience, but it may help those who struggle to understand how there could simultaneously exist a loving creator and yet worlds of darkness.

Sharka Todd

Intelligent designs?

Considering that intelligence exists and must have always done so, in one form or another (complete absence of intelligence could never give birth to intelligence), it would seem reasonable to suggest that intelligence would be involved in the design of physical processes through which consciousness expresses itself.

It would seem odd that blind forces would be entrusted to create the incredibly complex forms which life requires to function in this reality. And if intelligence exists, why wouldn't it be used? Surely this would confer a competitive advantage to the species that used it?

Sharka Todd

Irrationality amongst Darwinian believers

The evolution of species from a common ancestor through a Darwinian process is believed in, not so much because of evidence or lack of it, but because materialism/physicalism demands it.  The emotional attachment we see among believers in this theory is surprising, to say the least, and reflects how important their belief in materialism is to their sense of identity and their place in the world.  This emotional attachment is so strong that just by making a seemingly innocuous statement questioning the validity of Darwinism many materialists will become quite enraged.  This shows the lack of rationality they possess on this issue which hampers their ability to see clearly and come to a considered view.

Watch Richard Dawkins (a believer in Darwinian Evolution) interviewing Wendy Wright (a Creationist) and watch his emotional response to her dissenting view.

Sharka Todd 

The main difference between the various "origin of life" explanations...

... lies in the number of miracles they require!

Sharka Todd

Origin stories and the limitations of logic

No ”origins of life” story (whether scientific, religious or mythical) passes muster with logic.  Logic says everything must come from something.  So what/where did life and the universe come from?  And what/where did that thing come from?  And ad infinitum.

Eventually, we must get to the point where we are left with an entity or an essence where we say: "It just is."  "It comes from nothing that we know of!"

Sharka Todd

What intelligent design (ID) doesn't say

 

A response to the above exhibit

In the above exhibit they are confused and targeting creationism, not intelligent design. Intelligent design (ID) says nothing about who the creator(s) are/were or where they did their creating. ID could be talking about extra-terrestrial life designers or something other-dimensional. They don't specify that part. Not all ID believers are Christians or believers in a typical God by any means.

Just as we don't know where the universe came from, neither do we know how life formed (from supposedly inanimate matter) and became self-aware.  Those who say they know are just ignorant of what they don't know.  That's because nobody knows these things, at least not through conventional means!

Sharka Todd

Did life dream itself into being?

"The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech."
Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.  

"When the existing theory of evolution is seen as inadequate do we abandon it or broaden its base?"
Sharka Todd, 2014

The problem of how life forms came into being in the physical universe is a big one that has never been adequately answered by science.  It is one of a number of "miracles" that materialistic science cannot explain.  Many are under the mistaken belief that science has answered all these questions or is part way to doing so.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The more we understand life, the more we realize how complex it is, and how it needs intelligence to create and organise it.  In other words, there needs to be an interior life (consciousness) with great intelligence and the ability to create sensory apparatus so that the organism can exist in an ongoing fashion in this physical dimension.

Does the belief in evolution have evolutionary value?

This title is a joke, of course, a play on the questions evolutionists ask about every aspect of human (and non-human) behavior.  For example, it has been asked: "Does religion have evolutionary value?"  For if it doesn't, then why would it continue to exist?

In a worldview where survival is seen as the only reason any human trait would continue to exist, there is an attempt to explain how such traits contribute to this survival.  Sometimes this explanation becomes very convoluted because the author is convinced there is an evolutionary explanation for everything and they bend their explanation to fit this preconception, even if it is a poor fit, indeed!

Did God "explode" into pieces (of consciousness)?

Image: Stephen-Van-Vuuren

If I was God I would split myself into trillions of pieces, each an individual soul, to explore and create worlds upon worlds!  These trillions of pieces would be self-aware entities, free to create, explore and encounter each other to their hearts content!  This is exactly what some say is already the case in the universe we know.  That is, the original being that created the universe, created it out of its own being, imbuing it with its own life, its own consciousness.  And so each life form contains within it the consciousness of the creator.  Literally, the universe we see and the worlds we cannot see are simply the creator exploring itself through myriad evolving life forms which provide an almost infinite number of perspectives on this almighty creation!.

Why stay as one being when you can split yourself into trillions of beings and experience so much more?

Sharka Todd

Are some atheists angry with God?

It has been said that many self-described atheists are angry with God and as a result deny His presence. This is seen as stemming either from a belief that life is unfair in a general sense or that their life, in particular, has been unjust.  This leads to an anger being directed at that being seen to be behind this life, namely, God.

Others atheists are seen to be angry at orthodox religion and because they associate a belief in God with these religions they  think they have to deny God to vote "no" to these religions.

A third category are those who believe scientific discoveries have done away with the need to believe that a being or beings created the world we perceive. Instead they believe that an unguided (by intelligence) process created the universe from nothing and eventually led to the complex, highly organized world we see around us.  Although this group does not believe in a creator God they do believe in the numerous miracles that were needed to create intelligent life forms out of inert matter and inert matter out of "nothing"!

Sharka Todd

'Alien' evolutionary theory has now been confirmed-

via this diagram!


Image edit by Sharka Todd

The descent into matter: the origin of man- DAVID FURLONG

by David Furlong

Human Evolution

Most people are aware of the Darwinian concept of evolution, which suggests that we are descended from a common ancestor with the great apes. Tracking human evolution has been a painstaking archaeological task but it is now thought that our earliest ancestors lived around 4 million years ago. There are many pieces of the jigsaw missing, with different hominid species arriving and disappearing but something significant happened around 150,000 years ago, which produced a new breed of human beings called 'homo sapiens', our direct ancestors. Running alongside the archaeological evidence is a very new branch of investigation based upon DNA, for our DNA holds the blueprint of the evolution of humanity.

In a recent book called The Seven Daughters of Eve (pub. Bantam Press 2001), Professor Bryan Sykes has shown that the whole of the European population is descended from seven women who lived between twelve to thirty thousand years ago. If you are of European extraction you can send a sample of your DNA to a laboratory in Oxford, UK they will tell who is your clan mother. This study is based upon mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA, which holds one of the keys to unlocking our past history, for the pattern of human evolution is written in our genes. Recent findings have shown that the whole of the human population is descended from a tiny gene pool, perhaps just one original Eve, who lived in South Africa a little over a hundred thousand years ago. What makes us so extraordinary is that all other hominids alive at the time, like Neanderthal man, either died out or were wiped out in the ensuing years.

Often the choice given is between evolution and intelligent design-

when perhaps both factors are in play!

Possible evolution of the human form

Image edit by Sharka Todd