Question:
Intelligent Design or Big Bang?
USsailor
2010-06-09 13:31:28 UTC
State your belief on the subject and why you believe it.

Personally, I think it is much more logical to think that the universe, earth and mankind were all part of a creator's design. I think it is much more ludicrous to believe that everything in existence simply appeared from nothing, a scientific impossibility, and out of that chaos fell into harmony and exists as it does today completely by chance.

What are your thoughts?
Twenty answers:
Doom Shepherd
2010-06-09 15:06:48 UTC
There's nothing in the design of my body that would make any sane person believe it was designed intelligently. My pancreas produces insufficient insulin, my eyes fail to focus properly at a distance and fail to differentiate certain hues, there's no easy access to drain excess fluids from my sinus cavities, and any engineer can tell you that no intelligent designer runs a waste pipe through a recreational area!



Likewise, there is nothing in a universe, 99.9999999999999% of which is IMMEDIATELY FATAL to you if you are placed at any random point in it, that suggests it was designed intelligently.



In an intelligently designed universe, meteors would not plunge at random through the sky, threatening to obliterate civilization just as it was getting interesting. Also, there would be no such thing as an annular eclipse. But there is.
SpartanCanuck
2010-06-09 14:46:54 UTC
I think it's ridiculous as to state this as an 'or' question. The Big Bang does not necessarily preclude an almighty creator, if you're so inclined to believe in one (though, it would be unscientific to simply ASSUME that there is one, which is why such beliefs are called faith). See, the Big Bang simply describes the early moments of the universe, based upon observable evidence gleaned from the universe. It does not suggest 'existence from nothing' (that would be a good literal interpretation of certain creation myths, though), and what came before it is at this point the realm of hypothesis.



I might not be a religious man, but the fellow who came up with it was; he was a priest, in fact, in addition to a physicist and an astronomer. His work became accepted by the Catholic Church (the overwhelming lion's share of Christianity) and pretty much the entirety of mainstream Christianity, except perhaps in the United States where odd reactionary offshoots seem to be becoming the norm (or at least the noisiest). So, it's an exceptionally common answer for one to believe there was a creator with a design, and that the Big Bang was ONE of the mechanisms employed. Granted, this particular opinion, being one of moderation, probably isn't as vigorously ejaculated onto the internet as some.



As far as science is concerned, what comes before (and even some of the specifics of the earliest moments of it) are question marks, and gaps to be filled in at a later date. Do I believe in a Big Bang? No. I believe it was RATHER LIKELY, based upon observable evidence in the universe (proportions of elements, cosmic red-shift, and CMBR). Do I believe in an intelligent designer? No. I have strong doubt for such things, though acknowledge it as an outside possibility (with the added corollary that like its products, such a creator is unlikely to conform to the notions of any ancient creation myth penned by people ill-equipped to understand). Why do I have strong doubt? Because it would be very easy to just make the whole notion up and adapt it for political gain.
digquickly
2010-06-09 20:37:13 UTC
Well, ..., why not both? An an intelligent designer using a tool like Big Bang to craft the Universe. In fact it can be exactly that way. A hammer is an impersonal thing. It can not produce intelligence and unless used it just resides in the tool box. However, in the hands of a craftsman a hammer can build great things. Big Bang and evolutionary forces in the universe and here on earth are impersonal tools and mechanism out in place by an intelligent designer. Of themselves they there are simple machines that carry out a purpose however as to forging out intelligence and personality they are quite useless. Thus, an intelligent designer is needed to guide the process and infuse intellect and personality into creation.
Raymond
2010-06-09 13:43:27 UTC
At first you ask us to decide between Intelligent design and Big Bang, and then you go on to describe something that has absolutely nothing to do with Big Bang. The Big Bang theory does NOT claim that the universe appeared from nothing. Creationism does.



I find it ludicrous that a Creator would have gone through all the trouble of creating such a large universe and fill it with fake evidence, just to see if we are clever enough to understand that He is devious and take pleasure in leading us astray.



I much prefer to use the intelligence He gave me to try and understand the universe using the clues that He left all over the place, in plain sight, for everyone to see. And the Big Bang theory is a useful tool to understand how the universe behaved as space expanded, and cooled.



Atheists have spent decades (from the 1920s to the 1970s) fighting the Big Bang theory. The fact that it was created by a priest certainly did not help them accept it.
sausage wallet
2010-06-09 13:43:32 UTC
You are trying to base your argument on belief. This is a science section. Science deals in what is and what is not. If you are after a philosophical debate on this then the R&S section is for you.



Science supports that the Big Bang occurred around 13-14 billion years ago and the universe has been expanding ever since. This is very real and measurable. The Big Bang theory does support that "everything in existence simply appeared from nothing". It does not also state anything about chance. It describes the expansion of the universe. That is it.



"I think it is much more ludicrous to believe..."

Err you don't find it ludicrous though that some invisible sky fairy is responsible for the entire universe? Wow! Just wow!
2010-06-09 13:56:51 UTC
Your proposition is "logical" only because you invent a magical creator that has exactly the properties you need in order to make it seem comfortable, regardless of whether that magical creator can be shown to exist. In logic we call that circular reasoning.



Christian theology clearly prescibes creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. Science does not claim this.



There is nothing unnatural about stability. The reason the universe today appears relatively stable is because all the unstable elements have passed out of existence -- because they were unstable. Creationism fails because it wrongly presumes that happenstance properties cannot converge to stability.



We can show, for example, that an accretion of mass forms solar systems, using ONLY gravity as the active force. In other words, a system that appears "chaotic" actually converges to stability. Now not ALL such examples do that, but that's the beauty of it -- the unstable examples quickly pass away and are no longer able to be observed. Hence all that you're left with is the percentage of conditions that converge to stability. Because stability is the only condition that remains so as to be observable, it can give you the wrong impression that stability is all that exists in the universe.



Given that chaos CAN be shown to converge to stability, there is no need to postulate a magical divine helper. I find that to be a much more comfortable belief than an invisible magical being who just waves the wand and makes everything appear out of nothing.
campbelp2002
2010-06-09 13:52:20 UTC
The astronomers of the Vatican observatory are of the opinion that you can have both; that God could have used the big bang and physical laws to create this universe this way.



The more radical intelligent design people reject any science that says the universe is over 10,000 years old and they also reject any science that does not have Earth and Man created just as they are now in the first week of the universe. I say they are disparaging too much scientific evidence that the universe is much older than that, such as our ability to see stars a million of light years away.
Questioner
2010-06-09 18:02:12 UTC
When it comes to explaining the existence of the universe, you only get three possibilities: (1) the universe is eternal, (2) the universe created itself, or (3) something created the universe. There is no other possibility except to claim that the universe is simply an illusion and does not exist.



First, is the universe eternal? Absolutely not. We know this is true because of the universally recognized second law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy decay or entropy). We can see that the universe is running down and wearing out; the stars are burning up, the radioactive atoms are decaying, and so forth. Given enough time, the universe will experience what some call a “heat death” where there is maximum entropy; every part of the universe will be the same temperature, and no further work will be possible; all energy will be evenly distributed.



Now, eternal things obviously do not wear out because they would have had an infinite amount of time to come to their end. Since you cannot have an end without a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning. Evolutionary astronomer Dr. Robert Jastrow said, “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning.” And everything that has a beginning has a cause. This building had a beginning, you had a beginning, therefore there must have been a preceding and adequate cause.



The evolutionary astronomers know this and so (looking at the expanding universe) they came up with the “big bang” theory from that “singularity” or “cosmic egg” (the universe exploded into existence, if you will). But, there is still a major problem—you have to explain where that “cosmic egg” came from. As it has been said, “There must be a cosmic chicken.”



Some scientists like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov proposed the oscillating universe theory to avoid a beginning. This theory states that the universe acts like a yo-yo; it explodes and then gravity pulls it back in, and then the process repeats itself over and over. But the second law of Thermodynamics still refutes that idea, since each cycle would exhaust more and more usable energy (entropy would build up). And there are other problems as well, like the necessary mass not being present in the universe. But, the simple fact is, the universe is not eternal.



Ok, that brings us to the second possibility: Did the universe create itself? It is pretty clear that something cannot bring itself into existence. I like the way R.C. Sproul put it: “It is impossible for something to create itself. The concept of self-creation is a contradiction in terms, a nonsense statement . . . It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power.” As it has been said, “Nothing scratched its head one day and decided to become something.” I’m sorry to have to drop this bombshell on you, but from nothing, comes nothing (as the Latin ex nehilo nehil fit “out of nothing, nothing comes”).



Here’s how the material for the big bang got here based on quantum physics: There was nothing, then there was something. They call it a quantum fluctuation—that is another name for MAGIC. They accuse us of being unscientific, but their view is: Nothing created a singularity from nothing and it expanded. I’m sorry, but “nothing” violates the principle of causality.



Another problem is that the First Law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy conservation) argues against it. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system (without a God, this Universe would have to be a closed system) the amount of energy present in that system is constant—it cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another. Neither matter nor energy is created or destroyed in our universe (if you burn a log, you didn’t get rid of it, you just changed it to ashes and smoke). So, if the Universe initially contained no energy, and then it spontaneously generated all of the energy in the Universe now, the First Law would be violated. Without intervention from an outside force, the amount of energy in the Universe would have remained constant and unchanged at zero.



And now the third possibility: Did something create the universe? Something exists now and so something must have always existed. If the universe is not eternal and could not have created itself, then the only remaining alternative is that the universe was created by something or Someone. This would have to be a transcendent, eternal, self-existing being. I can find only one satisfactory explanation to our conundrum, and that is found in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Only God fits the criteria of an adequate cause that came before the Universe.



The fact is, we live in a Universe that is an effect—there must be a preceding and adequate cause for it. You can strain your brain all day trying to think about alternate dimensions and universes trying to get around the God conclusion, but I maintain, the only thing that makes sense is a Creator who is more powerful than anything we can imagine.



Who designed the designer?

http://www.discovery.org/v/19
?
2016-10-04 08:48:26 UTC
would not the universe violate the 2d regulation of thermodynamics - Nope. Sandcastles do no longer spontaneously look contained in the coastline - attempt a controversy that's no longer orientated in direction of 6 3 hundred and sixty 5 days olds in Jesus camp. It takes a human to return alongside and create the sandcastle, otherwise it won't in any respect ensue. - You pronounced one element actual. an identical with a universe, actual? - back, attempt a controversy for adults, no longer 6 3 hundred and sixty 5 days olds. i'm an Atheist, yet my buddy set me a undertaking to offer a controversy for clever layout. anybody care to refute it?) - there's a difference between a controversy and an clever argument.
Niotulove
2010-06-11 11:58:01 UTC
I am in full agreement that everything is all part of a creator's design. And that creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Critics of intelligent design are just basing their ludicrous arguments on logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
2010-06-09 16:13:41 UTC
my first thought was that you dont understand what the word "logic" means.



my second thought was that you have NO understanding of the Big Bang theory, cause you Beleive the "big lie" that it says "existence simply appeared from nothing"...



my third thought was that "order", not harmony, "falls" out of chaos all the time in nature.. the highly organized lattice structure of the snowflake, out of the jumbled chaos of the water drop is a prime example. Crystals would be another. Incredibly complex chains of organic molecules form spontaneously all the time, so DNA assembling out of random amino acids is no big feat...



and my final thought? your incredible loneliness, shortage of self worth, and lack of parental affection would lead anyone to fantasize about a mythological but "loving" figure, so dont feel like its JUST you. OK?
John de Witt
2010-06-09 14:23:19 UTC
My thought is that you're considering the Big Bang as an improper model for cosmogony (where the universe came from). That's reasonable, since the Big Bang has never been, nor has it ever been claimed to be, a model of cosmogony. But when you get tired of straw-man arguments (basically arguing against yourself), you might find it interesting to look into what the Big Bang theory actually is. It's a perfectly sound model of cosmology, but not cosmogony. Religion is a perfectly good model of cosmogony but not of cosmology. Try to keep the two straight, please.
Bradley
2010-06-09 13:41:15 UTC
You are asking a religious question in a scientific category and you clearly state your bias. In my opinion, the aim of science is not to prove or disprove the existence of a creator, but to offer solid theories that do not rely on a creator being present or absent.



My beliefs never require the existence of God; they also never exclude the possibility of a higher being. I will never accept "because God wanted it that way" as an answer.
Steve
2010-06-09 14:30:10 UTC
Why do you think it appeared from nothing? Why do you think that's a 'scientific impossibility'? Why not posit that chaos is precisely the condition needed to produce what we see now? Do you even understand what 'chaos' is? What makes you think it's 'in harmony'?

How is our design 'intelligent'? If this is 'intelligent' design, I'd hate to see 'stupid' design...why are my knees failing? Why do teeth rot? Why can't my liver keep up with my drinking? How could the human body be more unintelligently designed? Why is my back weak?



Go to school, friend. Learn.
2010-06-09 15:04:06 UTC
The fundamental problem of intelligent design is how the designer came into being. It is much easier to understand the evolution of intelligence by biological processes, i.e., evolution by natural selection, than it is to understand how an intelligent designer came into being.



Actually, there are intelligent designers. They evolved by biological processes, and they went to graduate school at the University of California, Stanford, Harvard, MIT and many other universities. They are the ones who are doing the intelligent design of organisms.
emperor
2010-06-09 13:44:05 UTC
it kinda does seem more reasonable that a creator designed us. but if it did, if we cant actively engage that creator (which we cant) then we might as well HAVE came from a "scientific impossibility"



but i believe this universe was born off another one and will die eventually.
Mr. Immortel
2010-06-09 14:14:16 UTC
I know of intelligent design. I know this because of logic, reason, and evidence.



"God is a Spirit" John 4:24



"God is light" 1John 1:5



"Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One...Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power" Isaiah 40:26



Evidence of God is in us and all around us. Acts 17: 24-28; Romans 1:20



Therefore God is of energy that radiates light and when he uses his energy as power he can create things. Einstein's formula for energy is E=MC2 That is, when matter is sped up it produces energy. Therefore, the reverse is also true. Energy slowed down produces matter. The energy within God moves exponentially beyond the speed of light that exists in our universe. So then, God slowed down his dynamic energy as he wielded his power to create all the universe and beyond. As you said nothing can appear from nothing, all things have come into existence through the energy and power of God. God is a spirit being of immense and unimaginable energy and light. All the energy and light within our universe do not even compare to him. Let us all thank and praise our Creator for his love of life and his wanting to share it with creatures of his own making.
wilde_space
2010-06-09 14:05:52 UTC
My thoughts is that you know nothing about science. The universe is full of chaos. And it's because of chaos that we exist.



http://www.youtube.com/user/thesecretlifeofchaos
the_emrod
2010-06-09 13:41:10 UTC
Intelligent design? It's not intelligent. Why have things evolved? Why do animals have vestigial organs?
Put_ya_mitts_up
2010-06-09 13:34:05 UTC
I agree for the same reasons..... The atheists have stronger ammo than that in their pouch- they say this universe was bred from a parallel universe.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...