Design Argument

EfYA...bmjA

21 Mar 2024

Intelligent Design and the Design of the Universe

Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say that science has erased religion. “If you really study science, you will see that it brings you closer to God.” James Tour, Nanoscientist

This argument is technically called the Teleological Argument. The word teleology is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning design.

The argument is arranged like this:

1) Every project has a designer/designer.
2) The universe is a very large and complex design.
3) Therefore, the universe has a designer.

As Isaac Newton (1642-1727) gazed at the wonderful design of the solar system, he said with admiration, as if confirming the Teleological Argument, “This wonderfully beautiful system of sun, planets, and meteors; "It can only have come from the vision and sovereignty of a very wise and powerful being."

One person who made this argument powerful was William Paley (1743-1805). Paley's conclusion, "Every watch has its master watchmaker," made this argument famous. If we take any watch in our hands; We cannot claim that it emerged on its own, that the order within it formed on its own. There must be a master, a designer. The unconscious forces in nature; wind, rain, earthquake, erosion or a combination of these; We cannot say that he created this watch. We definitely know that a conscious, intelligent being is the maker of this clock. Today, scientists see that the universe has been designed with even more perfect and precise measurements than this clock.

In fact, the universe is so precisely constructed that it has provided all the necessary conditions for life to emerge on Earth. Planet Earth contains a dozen impossible and interconnected life-supporting conditions. It also makes it an oasis in a vast and dangerous universe. These highly precise and interdependent environmental conditions are called Anthropic Constants. These form the Anthropic Principles. Just as astronauts cannot survive in space without a space shuttle; In fact, the world within us is such a space shuttle. To ensure the continuation of life on Earth, not a few widely defined constants that occur by chance are required, but more than 100 well-defined and precisely designed constants. We will list some of the most important of these:

Anthropic Constants

Oxygen Level:

The oxygen level on Earth is 21%. This level is an anthropic constant and is finely tuned for the survival of life on Earth. If the oxygen level was 25%, there would be constant flash fires; if it was 15%, people would suffocate.

Atmospheric Permeability:

The permeability of the atmosphere is an anthropic constant. If the atmosphere were less permeable, not enough solar radiation could reach the earth. We wouldn't get enough sunlight and heat. If it were more permeable, we would be exposed to excessive radiation. (Also, atmospheric permeability, as well as nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ozone levels in the atmosphere, are each anthropic constants.)

Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction:

If the gravitational interaction between the moon and the earth were more intense than it is today; Its impact on the tides in the oceans, the atmosphere, and the rotation time around its axis would have very serious consequences. If it were less, the change in orbit would lead to irregularities in climates. In either case, life on earth would be impossible.

Carbon Dioxide Level:

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 27%. If it were at a higher level, it would create a runaway greenhouse effect and we would all be burned. If it were lower, plants would not be able to photosynthesize and we would all drown.

Design of Life

“God has never performed a miracle to convince an atheist, because his ordinary works provide sufficient evidence.” Ariel Roth

While walking along the beach, a big heart sign was seen on the beach with the waves hitting it, with the words "Kaya loves Esra." If you see a text saying "and an arrow sign on it; What would you immediately think? Kaya's message to the whole world. Someone came out and said, “Do you see, millions of waves hit these shores every year? And they wrote a great message at the end!” What do you say?

Today, unfortunately, naturalist biologists recommend believing this. Simple life is talked about. While trying to explain the origin of life; They state that unconscious forces of nature, chemicals that do not have life, suddenly gave rise to life, without the intervention of a conscious being. Such a theory might have seemed plausible to 19th-century scientists who lacked the technology to study cells and their wondrous complexity. But today naturalist theory disregards all natural laws and biological systems we know. Frankly, the most crucial question here is; It is how simple or not single-celled creatures that we call simple life actually are.

The argument proposed to explain the origin of life in macro-evolution is as follows: At some time in the very ancient times of the Earth, single-celled amoebas emerged in a hot lake through some chemical interactions and natural forces. Later, these amoebas evolved into more complex creatures over long, even millions of years. Believers in this theory about the origin of life are called by many different names. For example, naturalist, evolutionist, materialist, atheist or Darwinian.

Another name for this message, whether in a text or in DNA, is “Specified Complexity”. In other words, it is both comprehensive and contains a special message. This determined comprehensiveness of life becomes more apparent when you consider the message contained in the DNA of a single-celled amoeba, hundreds of which can fit on the tip of a needle. The message in the nucleus of the amoeba's cell is enough to fill 30 Encyclopedia Britannica volumes and is written using only 4 letters. The DNA of the entire amoeba contains enough information to fill 1000 Encyclopedia Britannica volumes. So if we tried to write the code in the amoeba's DNA, it would fill this much volume.

Science is Doomed to Philosophy

A claim that atheists often make is: “We don't need God to explain the universe! Religious people try to bring God into science. "True science cannot be done this way." It is a complete misconception that science can explain everything. We need to distinguish where philosophy begins and how scientists' belief choices affect the science they do.

Yes; Scientific techniques are a way to investigate causes through observations, experiments and repetitions; But they are not the only way. We find many things with the laws of logic. They even use the laws of logic in scientific methods. In fact, the claim that "Science is the only source of reaching the truth" is essentially a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. Therefore it becomes self-refuting.

New Life Forms:

Many of us remember the movie Contact starring Jodie Foster. Foster works at SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). SETI is an institution that actually exists and does this job. In the movie, Foster gets very excited because a radio wave consisting of prime numbers is attached to his antenna. The reason for his excitement is clear: Radio waves are random. However, if a message consisting of prime numbers comes, it can only be sent by intelligent beings; So aliens may be sending it. Contact film; Written by Astronomer, Scientist and Darwinian Carl Sagan.

The irony is that these scientists, who believe that a message containing only the real numbers could not have come about by chance, but must have been arranged and sent by an intelligent being, do not show the same reaction and inference for this magnificent universe or living beings. We would like to include Sagan's words about the brain here: "Expressing the content of the information in the human brain in bits would probably be comparable to the amount of connections of neurons in the brain, and this is approximately hundreds of trillions of bits. ”

Micro-Evolution or Macro-Evolution?

We have said before that Macro-Evolution is the theory that single-celled creatures evolve on their own, passing from single-celled creatures to more complex ones, and that everything comes from a common ancestor. This did not happen by God's intervention, it was entirely due to blind random processes.

It is important to underline something here; In science literature, when we say 'theory', we mean theorems and assumptions whose truth is generally accepted and whose accuracy has been proven by experiments. It is different from the colloquial term 'theory'. The word 'hypothesis' used in science is the colloquial equivalent of 'theory' and means hypothesis, theory, assumption. Darwinists say that this happened through "natural selection". The explanation of natural selection is explained as the survival of the adaptable. This statement is a true statement, but it doesn't prove anything. It is a vicious circle argument called tautology.

“None of the evidence has provided any convincing reason to believe that natural selection produces new species, new organs, other fundamental changes, or small changes that are permanent. Biologist Jonathan Wells agrees, writing, “Biochemical mutations cannot explain the large amounts of change in organisms that we see throughout the history of living things.” I would like to list five reasons why natural selection could not achieve this: