A question for an anti-Evolutionist

So I figure if I'm going to start an Evolution thread I'd better hurry.

Here's a question for you if you don't believe in evolution.

Per St. Anselm, God is the greatest in all things.

So which is the greater achievement: creating a universe in which life is a natural consequence of the laws of nature; or creating a universe in which life is impossible and then intervening one day in order to jump-start it?

In short, is mankind an integral part of creation, or are we a hack?

We're a "feature."

At the moment, more like a virus.

This is true. As it is also something that was pointed out by Agent Smith, whom I happened to like, you get a cookie.

The universe was custom-built for mankind. We're not a hack, we're the purpose of God's creation.

This entire planet, all the stars, and all the universe was made for us.

Wow, talk about vanity!

Why all the wasted space then? Why galaxies millions of light years away that we will never even see?

This smells of sarcasm.

Still, I am hoping against hope to find someone seriously committed to creationism. Assuming that is you, will you answer the opening question?

Isn't a universe whose physics are of a nature that life will naturally come into existence and develop to self-awareness much more elegant and awe-inspiring than a universe whose laws are inconsistent with life, coupled with divine fiddling as neccesary to get it started?

You earth humans can be so vain. You think you are the ONLY humans god created in the universe. Aliens walk among you even NOW in broad daylight, and are not seen. Why? Because they are human too. Mwa Ha Ha.

One way seems like it follows the laws of Nature and Physics. The other way seems like Magic. I guess it's easier to believe in Magic than science.

Magic is an integral part of my religion.

And Creationists are still moronic nutjobs.

Well, since I can't find anybody who believes in creationism, I guess I'll hijack my own thread and respond to you. If I may. (I've just read a bunch of your posts and you seem very level-headed). So, in the spirit of inquiry:

Each of your sentences gets me thinking. Regarding Nature and Physics:

It's certainly possible that God created the universe and the laws of physics, designing them to allow for the evolution of intelligent life (and they do seem miraculously tuned to that specific end -- so there's one piece of evidence for God right there). That would be pretty a pretty awe-inspiring achievement.

It's also possible that God breaks the laws every now and then. After all, just because something happens the same way a thousand times in a row doesn't mean it will happen that way again. From the scientific perspective, we're going to assume not (but that is an issue of faith).

However, from the theological perspective it seems to me just as suspect: God is omnipotent: why would we assume that the Universe was created flawed, and then patched up to allow for our existence?

With regard to Magic:

I hear this word used quite casually. What does it mean? If it means something which we can't explain, we're surrounded by it. If it means something which is, by definition, impossible, then saying that religion is magic (again, by definition!) and therefore impossible is an empty platitude.

The word magic is used like a battle-hammer by the pro-science posters. I would be intrigued if someone were willing to get rigorous about its meaning.

Finally, what is easier to believe in:

You, at least, seem to find it easier to believe in science than magic; or maybe I'm wrong and you have struggled with the issue.

Instead, I would suggest that what's going on here is that it's easier to believe in what you already believe in than to change beliefs. None of us is exempt from this particular character flaw.

Everybody filters and weighs the evidence according to how well it supports our world-view. Did you ever hear the adage "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Sounds good; but aren't "extraordinary claims" different for everyone; and aren't they just those claims which challenge a person's world-view?

Got to get back to exercising. I look forward to any thoughtful response.

--Allie

Some people need to believe in magic, as the alternative is too hard to comprehend for them.

Some people need to believe in magic, as the alternative is either too painful, or too incomprehensible.

Yes, like the magic of abiogenesis, or the magic it would take to get the first living creature to be able to eat, remove waste, procreate, grow etc. People who blindly believe such things have much more faith than those who believe in a creator.

Indeed. For some of us, though, there is no need for blind faith in any view. Some of us are comfortable with an understanding of what is understandable, and acceptance that some things are not yet (and may never be) understandable.

There are some things that none of us understand, and we all deal with those things differently. There are also some things that only some of us don't understand, and some of those people would consider such things to be magic. Despite your post above, I suspect you are not one of them

Kevn, delighted to see you here!

Which do you think would be the greater achievement: creating a universe in which life is a natural consequence of the laws of nature; or creating a universe in which life is impossible and then intervening one day in order to jump-start it?

You seldom let us know what you yourself think on these issues. What will it be? Is mankind an integral part of creation, or just a hack?

--Allie

It's funny, when there is a horrible car accident and every walks away unhurt, they say it's a miracle. When someone dies, they sue the car manufacturer.

The difference between science and religion; one requires proof, the other requries an absence of proof.

Obviously god(s) could have run the universe in a debugging enviroment and modified the memory as it went along. Or they could have just writen a simulation they thought might lead to life. Or even though could have figured out the type of life they wanted and writen a simulation that either A) had it B) would lead to it. I'm a programer, so I favor elegance; though that doesn't mean i won't try and save time with a hack.

I sometimes wonder if we are their entertainment, and they are betting on us like one would on a horse.

We've been over this before - you are unqualified to discuss the subjects due to a clear lack of understanding of the basic precepts.

No-one blindly believes anything here except for you.

Thank you, have a nice day.

Either way of creation would be equally great.

My point is not to those like yourself, who believe a creator started everything by setting natural laws in motion to bring about life as we see it.

My point is those who believe that life came into being without a creator; they are far more faithful in their belief system. Abiogenesis is in direct conflict with the law of biogenesis, which states factually that life comes from life. Life doesn't come from non-life.

Whether life developed by evolution or not isn't the point at all. The point is it takes more faith to believe life spontaneously appeared, than it does to believe a creator had a hand in it.

Either way of creation would be equally great.

My point is not to those like yourself, who believe a creator started everything by setting natural laws in motion to bring about life as we see it.

My point is those who believe that life came into being without a creator; they are far more faithful in their belief system. Abiogenesis is in direct conflict with the law of biogenesis, which states factually that life comes from life. Life doesn't come from non-life.

Whether life developed by evolution or not isn't the point at all. The point is it takes more faith to believe life spontaneously appeared, than it does to believe a creator had a hand in it.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Isaac Asimov

I think that also applies to anything sufficiently improbable. In my view, "magic" and "miracle" are words with negative connotations because they're used as a dismissal of whatever the actual explanation may be, and in so doing rob nature of some of its gandeur.

I also find the view that humanity is the pinnacle of creation, and that all the splendor of the universe was a gift tailor made for us by some omnipotent super-being to be disgustingly arrogant. It's ironic that humanism is viewed by believers as a means of putting humanity in the role of god and elevating ourselves far beyond our due. It's actually quite the reverse when you consider that believers assign the whole of nature as tribute to our self-glorification, and place Earth as the focal point of the universe. Compared to that, humanism seems infinitely humble.