To People Who Believe in Evolution and Not ID

[Bpelta]

I earlier referred to Polkinghorne but the below link is a coherent attempt to defend the idea that creation is so amazing as to perhaps warrant a God. Thoughts?

Stephen Hawking Challenges God

[Sitnam]

If there is anything the Internet has proved it’s that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards will not produce Shakespeare.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Bpelta

I earlier referred to Polkinghorne but the below link is a coherent attempt to defend the idea that creation is so amazing as to perhaps warrant a God. Thoughts?
Stephen Hawking Challenges God - by Natan Slifkin

@That article

There are several ways in which science is employed to give rational support for belief in a Creator. (I will not be including the anti-evolution arguments of the Intelligent Design movement, to which I object on both theological and scientific grounds.) These do not automatically direct us to the God of the Jewish faith, for they do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the designer possesses the attributes that we ascribe to God (as opposed to those ascribed to God by Aristotle and others).

[…]

But let us suppose that it is indeed the case that there are an infinite or very large number of universes, which would mean that some of them possess remarkable characteristics. […] “The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them.

So, two things: this is an argument for Deism at best. I’ve already said above that I consider Deism and Atheism to be functionally mostly equivalent.

The second paragraph is interesting, but in my view ignores the most important aspect of the multiverse hypothesis WRT a creator, namely: if the multiverse hypothesis is correct, we’re dealing with an essentially random process of universe-creation, and whatever you might think of a creator, it seems to me foolish to insist that random processes have intent behind them ~ some “mindless” process seems to me much more plausible.

[hotflungwok]

@Bpelta

Stephen Hawking Challenges God - by Natan Slifkin

Nothing new to see here, just the same old long beaten arguments.

One way in which science supports belief in God is that the laws of science themselves require a lawmaker.

Even if Hawking is correct that the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing, that they somehow breathe fire into themselves, he has not explained how these laws themselves came to be legislated.

He doesn’t have to. First, it has to be shown that the laws were actually legislated to begin with. This is the same as ‘Who created the universe?’ This is begging the question, the conclusion (that the laws of physics were legislated by someone) is presented in the premise of the question.

[QUOTE[The second way in which science is employed to give rational support for faith is that were the laws of nature to be different in the slightest way, our universe would not be possible.[/QUOTE]

So? That this universe has certain settings that resulted in life does not necessitate a creator. Different settings could simply have end results rather than no life at all. Some of the physical constants are dependent on others, so there may only be relatively few initial start points. And there’s nothing ruling out multiple universes, with some unable to support life. Besides, if this universe is so suitable for life, why is it so rare?

Some famous atheists such as Douglas Adams dismissed this argument, claiming that it is like a puddle marveling that its hole in the ground is exactly the right shape for it. But this entirely misses the fact that our universe is not any old universe, but rather an amazing universe that allows for the formation of such complex phenomena as matter, planetary systems, life, and intelligence.

Totally misses the point. It is an amazing universe, from our point of view. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s unique, special, or created. We are here thinking about this universe because this universe is able to hold life, if it couldn’t we wouldn’t be here at all. His argument is basically ‘We are not the puddle marveling at how the hole is right shape for it, because look at how well we fit into our place in this universe!’.

I don’t necessarily agree with Hawking, but there’s nothing new in this article.

[Kiber]

@from the Op

Mac: Ok, I hear that from skeptics/atheists all the time
Have you ever seen a monkey randomly strike a type writer and come close to writing a coherent sentence?
The world being created and humans being created from evolution are about as liekly to happen as a monkey striking a keyboard and writing hamlet
Those things DO NOT HAPPEN

I’d ask Mac how many humans would it take, given typewriters and blank pieces of paper - to recreate Hamlet? I’m guessing the chances of any number of humans recreating Hamlet with only typewriters and blank paper are astronomically low. Even though one human has already done it - once.

[Voyager]

@Kiber

I’d ask Mac how many humans would it take, given typewriters and blank pieces of paper - to recreate Hamlet? I’m guessing the chances of any number of humans recreating Hamlet with only typewriters and blank paper are astronomically low. Even though one human has already done it - once.

Which is the fallacy of directed evolution. He wrote Hamlet, but he didn’t write Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter.

[Girl_From_Mars]

@Smeghead

Just to beat a dead horse (stupid horse should have evolved faster to put up with more beatings), here’s a better typing monkey analogy:

After typing each letter, the pages are checked, and almost every one that doesn’t match Hamlet is destroyed. Luckily, there are infinite monkeys, so you still end up with an infinite number of right answers. Suddenly, getting Hamlet doesn’t seem all that unlikely. Sure, you’ll end up with some copies with typos, because not all bad copies are destroyed in each cycle, but “Hamlet” and “Hamnet” both still work.

And before someone says, “Ah ha! But who’s doing the checking?!”, the answer is “the environment.” The checking is symbolic of the ability of the creature to survive and reproduce.

Just stumbled across this rather neat illustration of “Hamnet” showing the dissection of a giraffe’s laryngeal nerve - from Richard Dawkins. (Apologies to Giraffes who may be reading this thread).

[Wallenstein]

Imagine a dice with 1 billion sides - the chances of any particular number coming up one-in-a-billion (i.e. statistically miniscule).

But once you’ve actually rolled that dice the chances of a number coming up are 1:1 (i.e. a statistical certainty).

So once the universe got rolling, as it were, the chances of any particular path of development coming to pass are statistically tiny, but the chance that *something *will emerge was 1:1.

We just happen to be in that “something” looking backwards… it’s the nature of existence that people in the other failed outcomes aren’t in a position to say “aw shucks… so close but no cigar”.