Even the Unmeasurable Points to Design

IT’S not just the nature of dark matter that’s a mystery – even its abundance is inexplicable. But if our universe is just one of many possible universes, at least this conundrum can be explained.(1)

Indeed. It’s a conundrum for an anti-design perspective. From an ID and theological perspective, it’s not surprising that even the quantity of this material points to design. The notion from the anti-design perspective is that “common sense doesn’t work.” Fine. Sometimes it doesn’t. But, I don’t think people even have to rely on “common sense” to support a design perspective. You can rely on logic, philosophy, and scientific reasoning to support a design perspective. It just happens that these perspectives can also correspond with “common sense.” The same cannot be said for an anti-design perspective.

The total amount of dark matter – the unseen stuff thought to make up most of the mass of the universe – is five to six times that of normal matter. This difference sounds pretty significant, but it could have been much greater, because the two types of matter probably formed via radically different processes shortly after the big bang. The fact that the ratio is so conducive to a life-bearing universe “looks like a tremendous coincidence”, says Raphael Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley.

It does look like a “tremendous coincidence.” Thankfully, purely naturalistic scientists have an out. Of course it can’t be verified. Of course it can’t be measured. But it doesn’t start with a “g” or even a “G.” Therefore, it makes rational sense, and is science.

Freivogel focused on one of the favoured candidate-particles for dark matter, the axion. Axions have the right characteristics to be dark matter, but for one problem: a certain property called its “misalignment angle”, which would have affected the amount of dark matter produced in the early universe. If this property is randomly determined, in most cases it would result in a severe overabundance of dark matter, leading to a universe without the large-scale structure of clusters of galaxies. To result in our universe, it has to be just the right value.

In a multiverse, each universe will have a random value for the axion’s misalignment angle, giving some universes the right amount of dark matter needed to give rise to galaxies, stars, planets and life as we know it.

Praise Science that they have an alternative explanation. “So what?” if it is unmeasurable, untestable, and unfalsifiable. It doesn’t involve any kind of “G” word (a scientific explicative). It sounds good, and appeals to Science Fiction; therefore, it’s science.

(1) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026854.800-universes-dark-matter-mix-is-just-right-for-life.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news


Intelligent Design does not entail a belief in God

Denyse O’Leary recently wrote about an ongoing debate (December 7-8, 2008) about Intelligent Design vs. evolution. (1)

Atheist philosopher Bradley Morton said in an ID the Future Podcast:

“I actually find some of the intelligent design arguments at least somewhat plausible, and at least taking seriously within academia, and I’m unhappy with the unfair and false criticisms that a lot of my fellow philosophers and academics have given of Intelligent Design. I’m also, for the record, unhappy with some of the Intelligent Design arguments. I think that, even though some of them are wrong, they could be given better than current Intelligent Design proponents are giving them….” (2)

What I take from this debate is that, one might support the perspective of ID, scientifically, without being logically required to believe in God. Creationists on the other hand, may point to the scientific perspective of ID and note that this supports the existence of the God of the Bible.

Some atheistic evolutionists are quick to point out that a belief in the supposedly scientific perspective of evolution does not have anything to do with belief in God. Others (e.g., Dick Dawkins and his ilk purport that atheism is entailed by the ‘truth’ of evolutionary science).

As Dr. Morton writes on his website:

The doctrine of intelligent design has been maligned by atheists, but even thought I’m an atheist, I’m of the opinion that the arguments for intelligent design are stronger than most realize. The goal of this book is to try to get people to take intelligent design seriously. I maintain that it is legitimate to view intelligent design as science, that there are somewhat plausible arguments for the existence of a cosmic designer, and that intelligent design should be taught in public school classes. (3)

(1). Straws in the wind: Atheists and agnostics support constructive debate on design
(2). http://intelligentdesign.podOmatic.com/entry/2008-11-06T09_16_15-08_00
(3). ID – Bradley Monton

Humanity and Its Inventions

Interesting Video. While I don’t completely agree with this video. I found it humorous nonetheless. This fellow’s nonverbals are priceless.

Young Earth Creationism (The Importance of Theological Consistency)

I was formerly a proponent of Old Earth Creationism (OEC). At one point, I was agnostic, verging on atheism. At that point, a low point for me, I sincerely prayed to God that he would answer my serious questions about the problems that I had with Him. In the course of 2 weeks, all of these questions were answered. I’m not saying it will happen that rapidly for everyone. And, my questions had been building for years.

Along the way, I considered, that Old Earth Creationism might answer some of my questions. Such as the starlight and time problem1, and the problem of dating methods2. The gap theory3 worked out reasonably well for me, until I discovered Answers in Genesis4 a few years ago. Now, I am somewhat undecided. I have a great deal of respect for the position of AIG, but I also realize that could possibly be wrong in their theological interpretation. Thus far, I haven’t found many problems with their theological interpretations.

So, what I am hoping, is that some atheists and agnostics out there, will open their minds and hearts to the possibilities of God. Go to Him in prayer–just talk to Him. Tell Him the problems that you have with Him and the questions that you have (whether they be personal or intellectual). Ask for answers. Open your mind to the answers…

1 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
2 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
3 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/mind-the-gap
4 http://www.answersingenesis.org/

What kind of God is interesting?

In a previous comment I wrote:

If God has no love, but is powerful, I’m not interested. If He has love, but no power, that interesting, but of little significance (he’s a cosmic puppy dog–dyslexia?). If He has no goodness but interest in humans, he’s a powerful and cruel dictator. If He is not just, but has power and interest, there can be no Justice under his creation. If he has love, power, knowledge, justice, and interest in human beings, you would expect expect this to be revealed to those in whom he expresses interest. This is a foundational argument for pointing to the Christian God, who is described as having all these characteristics.

I’m not trying to directly tie this into ID, creationism, or naturalistic evolution at this time, but I do think there could be implications for each perspective. I have a hard time with the orthogonality position relating to the realms of science and theology. And believe it or not, I actually think Dawkins is correct in his theological extensions of naturalism to atheism (although tied back in with my arguments above), and that furthermore, if you are a pure naturalist [philosophically] it follows that believers are delusional (as he [Dawkins] is so fond of saying). I don’t think evolution entails atheism, but I do think naturalism [philosophical] does. Of course you could probably split hairs all day long on different definitions of naturalism.

I just thought this was worthy of a post in its own right.

The "Show Me" State (of mind)

No, I’m not from Missouri! Over the years, I have had unbelievers, Atheists, or whatever, say to me,

“When you can produce physical evidence, which I can examine with my senses, of creation and the resurrection, then I will believe that there is a God.”

Of course, as everyone knows, or maybe not, “Faith is…the evidence of things not seen.” So, these unbelievers, Atheists, or whatever, and I always simply turned and walked away from each other, without uttering another word.

Today, I want to be that self-assured, as well as arrogant, prosecuting attorney, when it comes to this issue. I want to ask a similar question to the unbeliever, Atheist, or whatever, and my question comes from the same skepticism that was exhibited by these others, only, of course, from the exact opposite perspective.

“When you can produce physical evidence, which I can examine with my senses (by senses, I mean only my touch, taste and feel alone, since telescopes, as well as lectures, quips, qualms and queries, by mere mortals, mean less than nothing to me!), of the big-bang, dark energy and mass, and at least 1000 (I think that’s a fair number) complete, and I do mean complete, skeletal remains from every evolutionary stage of man, then I will be believe in evolution and all else you profess to believe!”

I believe my approach is fair here, and-perhaps-even scientific, since I’m following the prescribed method of interrogation by those, as you, who refuse to believe in creation and yet firmly believe in another, as equally unfalsifiable, doctrine. Besides, unlike me, you claim to have the physical evidence for your belief, so, unlike me, you need to produce it if you want to convert those, like me, who are more than doubting!