Most find the chapters in the Book of Genesis that provide a record of Creation and Noah’s Flood somewhat disconcerting. These chapters cover lots of times with very few words. Moreover, they were written to people now long dead. So while these chapters may have answered the concerns of the Hebrews, they still leave us puzzled.
Why puzzled? We have SCIENCE!
Science is a good thing, but it has its limits. When God performs miracles, it is useless. We can only use science to study what God has created, not God.
What got me started on this? The recycling of the stubborn is one of ColorStorm’s many rejoinders to the atheistic sort. Here in a response to 17 thoughts on “What are the odds against a Life Permitting Universe” ColorStorm argues the absurdity of the Theory of Evolution.
In my mind ColorStorm is not wrong, but he is missing a great opportunity to pull the rug out from under the SCIENCE believers. Consider this quote from 17 thoughts on “What are the odds against a Life Permitting Universe”.
Then, life: what is it? This question defines the areas across the distribution that are considered significant. I simplified the models I presented by reducing it to life as we would recognise it: LU. But there is the consideration of other life (LO) out there in conceptual space that would ask the same questions if it came to be; that life is equally significant to the question.
That look like gibberish? Well, the author apparently has some skills as a statistician, but he admits to frustration by all the unknowns. We cannot even define life. Think about that. Yet in a later comment he leaps to this conclusion.
The entire argument is bogus, of course. When the argument was first posited, we knew very little about the universe. For example, we thought all of the visible stars were all that there were. About 100 years ago we discovered that there are more galaxies in the universe than stars in our galaxy. How does this affect the argument’s premise “It is not chance because the odds are so low.” Consider what happens to the odds of winning any horse race if you bet on one race, versus betting upon millions of races. The odds go from unlikely to almost certainty.
So even though we don’t have the capacity to define life and have never even visited the star closest to us, we know it is almost certain life would just randomly be? We know this for certain when we don’t even know how anything came to be?
Science is about modeling cause and effect. It begins by defining the boundaries of the system we propose to model. Then we try to gather data on that system and try to mathematically model the relationship between the causes and effects within that system. That can be much more easily said than done.
When we start applying science to what are still essentially metaphysical problems, at best we are just engaging in fanciful speculation. At that point we probably need to reconsider what we are trying to do with science.
Can the Bible be believed? The best answer is to read and decide for yourself.