Exploring the Nature of God and Evolution

In summary, the conversation touches on the concept of a 6000 year old universe and how some people use this belief to try and understand the concept of God. The speaker then explains the idea of "primal rules" or templates that work, and how these rules are responsible for evolution. The conversation also mentions the impossibility of reversing the randomness of molecular motion, as demonstrated by the concept of a perfect heat engine. Finally, the speaker clarifies a misunderstanding about starting new threads on different topics. The conversation ultimately leads to a discussion about the appropriateness of discussing religion and God on online forums.
  • #1
stevmg
696
3
When you hear those crazies talking about a 6000 year old universe, they show little belief in God narrowing a concept of a supreme all poewerful force to something trivial so they can unserstand it.

The way I get simpletons to understand it is that if you burn oxygen and graphite O2 and C you wind up with four possibilities: CO2, CO, unburnt C and unconsumed O. Nothing else. The only "randomness" is what molecules hit what but you don't get any other combinations of carbon and oxygen. In other words, things stack up on themselves in was that work, not randomly. Fow want of anything else, call the "primal rules" of what works as "God."

Then this becomes more intelligible. Didn't a Miller in the 1950s explode carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen and wind up with water, urea (a biological product), carbon dioxide? Why?, because the urea molucule "works" and will stay around.

In this manner, "God" produced evolution - by making the ground rules or templates of things that work so that when they do occur, they stick around.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" and Richard Dawkins "The God who wasn't there" they both refer to a statue no moving its arms because of the randomness og the molcular motoion and that the probability of all particles going in the same direction at the same time is zilch.

Actually, understanding anything about bouncing molecules, given the start situation of equality of motion in all directions, the only way for a moleculeto change direction is to hit another mollecule (which sends that second molecule in the same direction as the first) so the sum total of all momentum is the same - zero, hence no motion of the big body.

If you have a tank of compressed gas, then remove a partition so that it can expand to an equal sized tank, then it never goes back to the original state on its own because of the bouncing molecules alluded to above - not because of improbability but because of IMPOSSIBILITY.

Sadi Carnot figured this out in 1828 with his perfect heat engine which could never, never approach 100% efficiency under best conditions because it is impossible to undue the randomness of molecular motion due to this principle of changing direction of one molecule forces another molecule to go in the same original direction thus prevention of a "derandomization" process.
 
  • #3
Steve, I think I unwittingly mislead you when I explained how to start a new thread, I thought you meant starting another thread on relativity but a thread on evolution and God would belong in a different forum, you can see the full list of forums here...this one would probably belong in either Biology or, more likely, Philosophy (a sub-forum of General Discussion). Anyway, I assume one of the mods will move it there so it's not really a problem...
 
  • #4
Discussions about god/religion tend to be frowned upon, here, because they generally lead to no good end. Lots of head-butting and whatnot. Prefacing your argument for a discussion by referring to people who subscribe to religious beliefs as "crazies" is not an auspicious nor constructive start.
 
  • #5
Threads on God are fine. Religion not so much. Especially when you label believers as "crazies".
 

FAQ: Exploring the Nature of God and Evolution

1. How do we reconcile the idea of God with the theory of evolution?

This is a complex and often debated question. Some scientists and theologians believe that evolution is simply a mechanism through which God creates and sustains life on Earth. Others believe that the two concepts are not compatible. Ultimately, each person's beliefs and interpretations will differ, and it is up to the individual to find their own understanding and reconciliation of these ideas.

2. Can the concept of intelligent design coexist with the concept of natural selection?

Intelligent design is a belief that certain features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent creator, rather than through natural processes. While this idea is not accepted by the scientific community, some individuals may see it as compatible with the theory of evolution. However, the concept of natural selection is based on observable evidence and scientific principles, whereas intelligent design relies on faith and belief. Therefore, these two concepts may not be able to coexist in a purely scientific context.

3. Does the existence of suffering and natural disasters contradict the idea of a loving and all-powerful God?

This is a difficult question that has been pondered by many throughout history. Some may argue that suffering and natural disasters are a result of the natural world and its processes, rather than a direct action of God. Others may see it as a test of faith or a way for individuals to grow and learn. Ultimately, this is a philosophical and theological question that may not have a definitive answer.

4. What does the theory of evolution say about the origin of life?

The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life, but rather the diversity and adaptation of species over time. The origin of life is still a topic of ongoing research and speculation, and there are various hypotheses and theories that attempt to explain it.

5. Can we use science to prove or disprove the existence of God?

Science and religion operate in different realms and use different methods of understanding the world. While science may provide evidence and explanations for certain phenomena, it cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher power. Similarly, faith and belief cannot be scientifically tested or proven. Therefore, it is up to each individual to form their own beliefs about the existence of God.

Similar threads

A Critique of “Cosmos” by Carl Sagan
Replies
17
Views
7K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 259)
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top