For the past few days I have been having a discussion with my friend on whether or not human beings are special. His contention was that recent studies have shown that animals exhibit a lot more intelligence then we previously thought them to possess, there is nothing special about human beings. They are simply products of evolution. I personally believe that life itself is special and human beings are more special because of their evolved intelligence and freewill.
I had written a post in June this year on what Alfred Wallace (the co-propounder of Theory of Natural Selection) had to say about divine intervention on the evolution of man. There is no doubt whatsoever that natural selection is a brilliant theory and corroborates our observation beautifully. However, I don’t think that it disproves the presence of intelligence in the creation.
I proposed this thought experiment to him during the course of our discussions.
Let us say we create a computer which is capable of reproducing. Many years have passed and human beings are extinct and nothing remains of their existence. Only thing that survives are these computers. Aliens visit the earth and find these awesome machines. First they think these must be created by intelligent beings.
Slowly they crack the secret of the computer. They understand the code, understand the working of the CPU and the circuits and then they understand the binary language. The basic building blocks are fairly simple. 1 & 0 and you have what appears to be an intelligent entity which does complex calculations. When they explore the world, they find predecessors of this intelligent machine. They find less and less complex versions until they uncover the first computer ever made. Now they have a clear picture of how computers evolved.
Would it be possible for the aliens to conclusively say that these are products of higher intelligence or merely an accident of nature? Although the probability of the first chip having formed on its own, is very low it is not impossible (in fact this probability in much higher then the probability of a gene forming by chance)
Note: Have you heard of Fred Hoyle’s Boeing 747 argument? He says “the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the probability that a tornado, sweeping through a junkyard, would assemble a working Boeing 747 airliner”. Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance.
I would love to brainstorm on this with all of you. Also, let me know how this experiment can be improved. Can you think of any other scenarios? What the logical flaws to this argument.
Nice thought’s from you chechi..I completely agree with you when you say that we can’t rule out intelligence out of our existence in this universe.There should be a creator,but i believe the form of the creator is what we have not discovered yet.I was reading this interesting book by Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) in which he sarcastically argues his logic in stating that humanity has cheated itself by believing that there is a hand behind everything that we see in this universe,including humans.He says,Science can explain a lot of questions and he brings forward many arguments to support it.He says that there was a time when humans thought that the earth was flat.As time passed by we realized that was not true due to the answers provided by science and also our elevated intelligence.But what i honestly feel is that,if we back track throughout everything that we know in this universe i.e when people say we evolved from monkeys,where did the monkeys come from?And if the answer to that question is known where did ‘that’ come from?and so on.We would reach a point where there would be a ‘beginning’.What/who created the first matter?I guess thats the golden question.I don’t think there are any right answers to this,its a matter of an individuals thought’s.Nobody would be able to answer it.Even if someone does,that might be the ’supreme being’ that we are all talking about
p/s
I have always believed that there are no coincidences,but there are only consequences.Having said that,i believe that there is nothing called natural,there is always something behind it.Just like it computers,there are no random occurences.
Thank you Rajiv. I bought God Delusion but could not get past the first chapter. I have read other books of his, like Selfish Gene which were brilliant. Somehow I found GD very biased and fanatical. I don’t mind people taking a atheistic view but I am highly skeptical of extreme stands.
I agree with you completely on the intelligence aspect.
Thanks a lot for the insigtful commet. A very happy new year to you and everyone at home. I hope things settle down in Malaysia atleast next year.
Archana – I’m quoting you here:
>> However, I don’t think that it disproves the presence of
>> intelligence in the creation.
That’s not proof of anything. When you suggest something, the onus of proving it by providing tangible supporting evidence rests on you. That’s how science works & that’s what is logical.
I can argue that death rays from Mars killed Queen Cleopatra. You can’t disprove it now. That doesn’t make my statement true now, does it?
>> He says “the probability of life originating on Earth is no >>greater than the probability that a tornado, sweeping >>through a junkyard, would assemble a working Boeing 747 >>airliner”.
This is called “Hoyle’s Fallacy” in scientific circles. Richard Dawkins has systematically debunked Hoyle. In a nutshell, here are some mistakes made by Hoyle:
1. The probability given is to create all the modern proteins needed by modern bacteria. This is not how life evolved.
2. His probability calculation & the numbers that he has quoted are wrong.
3. Evolution was parallel. Things were not tried out sequentially. This saved time.
4. To create the pre-cursors of life, you don’t need a fixed type & number of proteins.
Intelligent Design is not science. To prove that’s what happened, you need to provide evidence that there is/was a God & probably some design documents
And even then, we still have the question, “what created god?”.
Interesting post and thought experiment.
I would like to quote from the Rig Veda’s Hymn of Creation (the last 2 stanzas):
But after all, who knows, and who can say,
Whence it all came and how creation happened,
The gods themselves are later than creation
So who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin
He, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
He, who surveys it all from highest heaven
He knows – or may be he does not know.
Very interesting post Archana.
I was discussing this topic with my brother today after seeing your post but I really don’t know what to comment.
Accepting an intelligent design will be surely based on many assumptions. Assumptions that there was an intelligent maker and he created the human beings. But these assumptions are difficult to prove unless we move back to the time when the universe originated. If god created human beings, then as Priya pointed there will be questions of who created God.
Even the computer example that you gave is based on the premise that you are taking a “computer”(which you very well know was created by man) and so the intelligent maker would fit in. What if the same example was taken for a different item which you already know was not created by man and which had the property to reproduce. Would the same argument still hold? Hope I am making sense here.
I personally don’t believe God creating human beings or the universe. For me God has a different meaning. God for me takes the form of my work, my thoughts, a person to speak to, a person whom I can look up to in fear and suffering so that I don’t feel lonely. I do not exactly support the intelligent maker argument.
But as Sukumar aptly pointed out, Who knows truly whence it has arisen?
You surely gave me a good food for thought for this weekend:)
Interesting question Archana. I have wondered about this question many times but without any conclusion. The theory of evolution of Darwin or The Big Bang theory does not explain the start of it well. From there it takes it on an explains in a convincing manner. But the question ‘who created the highly compressed matter’ which exploded is not explained. I liked what you wrote about in your previous post about the human culture as explained by Wallace, which helped in rapid evolution of humans. But the beginnings are always questionable and intervention by a Divine Hand would be the only plausible explanation then. Coming to your experiment, the aliens after having observed the logic of computers will surely accept that someone of higher intelligence would have designed them because the initial ones would have been inanimate. Even if a chip formed due to accident, as we see now, the evolution of computers is not at all possible without human hand.
The very father of the evolution theory contradicts himself.
To think the human eye came about by natural selection is I freely confess absurd in the highest degree – Charles Darwin
If no transitional forms are found then my theory is false – Charles Darwin
That means if evolution were true we would find fossils in the earth that show the evolution process. Transitioning from one form to another. They do not exist!
When we find dinosaur bones they are complete skeletons and fully developed. They do not show transition.
Mankind has morals – he knows right from wrong and animals do not.
Archana,
This is a very good post. I like the thought expressed by formerthings. If you described a sunset to a blind man who couldn’t see it and he said, “I don’t believe in sunsets!” would sunsets cease to exist? There are many things that we can not understand in our mortal condition. We may be blind to them but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
I believe that there is a God in heaven. I believe that he is the father of my spirit and that Jesus Christ is his only begotten son in the flesh. I believe Jesus Christ when he was teaching his disciples to pray and he taught them to say, “Our Father who art in heaven.”
Following Christ’s example I prayed to have my child healed when she was very sick and she was healed in my arms. I prayed for my life to be spared when I was being brutally attacked and my assailant was physically stopped by an unseen source from continuing his attack. He looked at me and told me that there has to be a God because that was the only reason that I was still living. Perhaps I can’t prove that there is a god, but I know that when I prayed to God, my prayers have always been answered. There in lies more proof than all the doubters have.
I believe that God is the father of science and therefore they are not mutually exclusive. To believe that defies reason. As for the question, who invented God… the answere lies within the question, what is one minute before the begining of time?
I believe that God talks to and loves all of his children and that it doesn’t matter what name we call him, he is still God, a loving father to us all.
Thanks for letting me share my comments and beliefs on your blog. I wish you a very happy and wonderful life. I hope that you find the answer to your questions about the origin of earth and man.
Interesting Post Archana and Ineresting Counter argument by Priya….
Priya what you say is totally true ….about Hoyle’s Fallacy and Dawkins ….but Dawkins and others before after failed to explain on on thing…if evolution problems has been solved then why have failed to create another life form….on this earth…
We talk of cloning ..but cloning is just a photocopy of an existing Organism….we have not be able to produce a new organism all together….
What “tornado” actaully did was create millions of new species……
Karthik – Now that cloning has been accomplished, you are pooh-poohing it. This is to be expected of people who have decided to see God’s hand in creation.
There’s always something more difficult & believers can claim that mankind’s inability to accomplish that proves the presence of God.
Creating a brand new life is just a matter of time. In any case, our inability to create life so far – doesn’t prove intelligent design.
Sorry, the previous comment was mine.
Nope Priya ..I am not claiming God ’s hand in the creation part…my logic is this just as we have no proof on God and creation we neither have a proof in Genetics and evolution…
Tornado i was refering to is Big bang in scietific terms and Brahma interms of believers
Again my arguement is that if Life is just made of simple elemnts like Carbon ,hyderogen or oxgen ..then y not create a new life form which thinks like us….I mean if DNA was simple as Matt Ridely and Richard Dawkins put it …… i dont think it shud be difficult …Again if God had created man…who created God this hae been unanswered…..if God was the first entity to be created ..then we y dont we have mutliple
Gods….this i guess the believers need to answer….
…I will continue taking a middle path till one of the above parties prove something….
I go with karthick.. IF evolution theory is accepted, is there any experiment which has deomonstrated creation of living things and then evolution of say the amoeba to some bacteria?
I believe, there is none.. the most that the experiments could do is to simulate earth’s environment, and then create proteins and amino acids.. not the real living cell..
So, as per priya’s point, the evolution theory itself is not valid until proved.. (as per sceince)..
My take on this is that evolution theory is based on adaptability of living organisms..
One example often quoted is the case of giraffe (ie, the animals feeding from trees slowly emerged in to long necked giraffe) .. while this is also not proved, to me, it could not be practical..
Archana,
Your post solicits serious introspection on how we deal with science. As per science, all that’s not proved is false.. then it means, that all the unknown things in this universe is false. IT doesnt recognize the fact that human intelligence & the power of understanding is limited.
Ok.. coming to this creation concept, if we look at so much species of this world, it seems, the whole world could have been an laboritory.. ie, some aliens might have located this planet, started creating the cells, and then gradually improving this prototype to build higher organism.
In this aspect, a cat may be a prototype of a tiger or lion.
And humans in different parts of world appear entirely different. For example, we dont have any reasoning, why chinese people are always short, and have their unique characteristic. And why people from europe are fair.
Some might say, they are white because they are in cold regions. But in that case, why people in saudi arabia, Iraq which are mostly desert and hot regions are still white
If we just look at how a cell operates, its hard to believe, that it might have evolved naturally. (We need a separate field, to study more in to cells.)
And we have to remember, that till now, humans could not create full functional amoeba artificially.. just now, they have mastered creating basic strains of DNA..
Thank you all very much for your comments. I am on vacation with very limited access to the net, hence could not respond earlier.
@Priya – /*When you suggest something, the onus of proving it by providing tangible supporting evidence rests on you */ This is true if you are suggesting something which is not obvious. If you say the world is round you will have to prove it because it contradicts a apprent unversal experience. If you say earth is moving at tremendous speeds around the sun, you will have to prove it because our experience is that of a stable static earth. Do you need to prove the obvious? That’s my argument wrt to god to. The universe screams of intelligence. From the perfectly coordinated planets and stars to the amazing complex and life forms, the most obvious conclusion is the presense of an intelligence. That is why god cuts across all divisions. If you say god does not exist, all this happened by chance then the onus is on you to disprove intelligence. So far nothing in science has even come close to it. Infact, the more I understand science the more amazed I am at it’s precision and complexity. That’s what I meant when I said evolution does not disprove intelligent design. Even if life were to be created in the laboratory it would not disprove god. After all, it required the most intelligent species on the planet 100s of years of research to get to that point, obviouly life could not have evolved without intelligent intervention.
Sukumar – Thank you. I love the hymn of creation. Everytime I read it I get goose bumps.
Saraswathy, Ananth, Formerthings, Janet, KArthik, Senthil. Thank you very much for the interesting discussion. I will respond to you at liesure when I get access to the net again.
Archana – I disagree completely that the universe screams of intelligence & perfection. Where exactly? Its not obvious to people who prefer to look at things unromantically, logically & scientifically. Just claiming there’s perfection is not proof of perfection – that’s just a sound-bite. You need to show God to prove intelligent design – there are no 2 ways of looking at it.
Subjective perception is not reality. People could “see” that the sun was revolving around the earth. Now, is that what the truth is? You shouldn’t believe everything you perceive. You should simply suspend judgement, get data & ask questions. That’s what science is all about.
The earth has been around for 4 billion years. Life for 3.5 billion years. That’s a very very very long period of time. You should stop seeing the final product & proclaim intelligence – look at how things evolved, one painful attempt after another.
Let me give you 1 example. Although I suspect you’ll still manage to see intelligence in this. After a long time, when genetic material came about, it evolved as RNA – there were far too many mistakes in using RNA for transferring genes. Far too many mistakes in copying & pasting. Is that intelligence?
Theory of Evolution has been proved time & again and there’s way too much data to support it. So, believers have latched on to Intelligent Design.
I recommend this URL to you – its called the “Theory of Stupid Design” – http://www.ishkur.com/fakeishkur/stupiddesign/index.htm. Its a funny but acerbic take by non-believers to show-case the absurd, imperfect aspects in nature.
Or, look at Pharyngula: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/moonbat_anti_evolutionist_deepak_chopra/
The URL got cut. Here it is:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/moonbat_anti_evolutionist_deepak_chopra/
I think our scientific understanding of the world still has a long way to go before we can decide if we were a result of an intelligent design. There are still many unanswered questions. Do parallel universes exist? Are we in the same dimension of other living beings i.e they are amongst us but we cannot sense them and so on. I believe the answer lies in the future.
/** The earth has been around for 4 billion years. Life for 3.5 billion years. **/
Is there any scientific proof for this claim? Definitely, no one would have lived 4 billion years to measure earth’s age..
So, if at all any proof is produced, it must be an interpretation of existing data.. And this interpretation is highly relative, and depends on the person.
For example, sun rotates around the earth concept evolved on visual observation of sun from earth. And moon too is revolving around the earth, from earth’s point of view.
Till advent of telescopes & satellites, there is no way for the mankind, to get more data..
Suppose, tomorrow, if science advances, and we get more data, there may be proofs that earth’s life may not be a natural evolution..
Both the links given by priya, revolves around the extremist christian theory of earth’s creation.. Probably, the author of the stupiddesign site was so fed up with those christian theories that he vents out all his anger (rather in an ugly way)..
But, i feel, there are lot of differences, between archana’s post and those who are against creation theory.
Probably, we need not accept those theories.. nor our own creation theory of brahma, sitting in some place, and creating all those species.
But, let’s view all these from the angle of all possibilities..
For example, mosquito ring before our ears, to increase BP.. But, who imprinted the knowledge to it, to ring before ears, and then bite.. or how did it exactly find where the ear is?
Can it be a natural evolution?
Let’s take another example.. How come, a new born calf, automatically move towards its mother for feeding milk.. Some might say, its in genes.. Yes.. its accepted.. But, can this be a natural evolution? To move towards the mother, there is numerous co-ordination & harmonious activities should take place in the calf.. it has to apply force in its leg to move forward. then use its neck musles to raise its head.. then use its jaws to suck milk.. If we see all these, its simply, impossible to have naturally evolved..
Let’s take the example of honey bees.. who created queen bee? or who created worker bees? can it be natural evolution? or can it be a natural evolution, that a worker bee is able to locate honey miles away, while the queen bee could not do it?
Evolution theory doesnt have answer to most of such questions.. and simply for these reason, it loses its credibility.. Probably, this theory can be renamed as “theory of Adaptability”.. the creator might have made these creatures to adapt to situations..
This is the case with most of the living beings. I
What i could see is that most of these authors, focus on negating the evolution theory.. ie evolution of man is simply an impossible one.. That doesnt mean, that we are upholding the extremist theories of godly creation..
my interpretation is that there might be some force which could have created the living beings, step by step, or in a trial & error basis.. first an amoeba, then bacteria, then virus, then small beings, with mobility, then some what bigger beings like RAT, then even bigger beings like cat, etc, with additional features, then 4 legged animal, then, two legged animal with ability to observe & process information..
There might be evolution of the design (as even the creators may be imperfect) gradually.. ie evolution of the creation aspect..
(I think, i am repeating my earlier comment)
Suppose, if we leave some group of scientists, who have cracked the secret of living being.. ie, they have mastered the ability to create any new beings using DNA and cells.
And let us assume, that we leave them in a newly found planet that supports life..
what would they have done?
Wont they try with new form of living beings, in that new planet? and what would be the situation over gradual period of time.. suppose, if it takes around 1 month to design and create new living creature.. there would be atleast 50 species over two years (considering multitasking ability of those scientists)..
And they might improve the design, that these newly created living thing might automatically evolve in to new beings and so on..
so the underlying fact is that some one might have created and pre-programmed living creatures.. this need not be perfect.. rather, flexible, dynamic and evolving design…
Archana,
I am an agnostic. I respect faith and people of faith.
I am glad it gives you goosebumps and it does to me as well. What do you infer from it? It actually questions that god created everything. In fact it doubts whether even god knows the answer and points to god having come after creation? This is from the Rg Veda which is the holiest text of Hinduism and the world’s oldest religious text.
Another point i am curious about is this – if you feel there is no need to prove anything, why do you take so much effort to come up with Fred Hoyle’s 747, goldilock’s zone etc. ?
Thanks Sukumar. It gives me goose bumps because it is perhaps the earliest recorded musing of mankind on the origin of the universe. It is not done with arrogance but with awe and wonder. It begins with questioning and doubt that no one may ever crack the secrets of the universe. 1000s of years after this verse, after so many discoveries and scientific advancement we are still pretty much in the same place. Having said that, this verse is not the conclusion of vedas. The fact that some wondered if it is possible at all to know the origin of universe does not mean they did not make any progress.
About your point why I did this post if I feel there is nothing to prove. My post was not to prove the presence of god. I don’t presume to know enough to be able to do it. However most non-believers seem to think that Darwin’s theory conclusively dispoves the presense on intelligence from creation. All I wanted to say was that it is not so. Greater minds than mine have also disagreed with this view.
Priya – OK. I will look at the world unromantically, logically & scientifically even if I accept a lack of perfection, I find it impossible to rule out intelligence.
BTW, I did not say that theory of evolution is wrong. I just said it does not rule out intelligence.
Thanks for those links, I will look them up.
Maverick and Senthil – Thank you.
Well, Evolution says nothing about God. It just shows us that the process that God uses to design and create life never stopped, creation is taking place this very day. From news stars being created in the heavens, to life evolving into new forms around us, God’s creation just keeps on creating. Because we are starting to understand the nuts and bolts of it doesn’t make it any less wondrous.
There are no missing transitional forms…because EVERY fossil and every organism is a transitional form. You think we’re perfect? Humans have twenty or so vestigial organs, bones, and muscles that are leftover junk from when we walked on all fours, moved our ears, etc. Even if the outward form of some animal remains constant over millions of years, their chemistry and other subtle but important things never stop evolving. It’s all a transition, God’s wild ride into the future!
And, um, life may not have originated on Earth, panspermia is a perfectly valid theory. I am betting we will find microbes all over the solar system once we start looking for them, life is ubiquitous.
Humans have a “theory of mind,” no other animal seems to possess this. So far.
Very stimulating post, thanks.
Thank you for the great comment, Doug. Exactly what I had in mind, just because life is evolving does not mean god does not exist. I don’t understand how people make that leap.
I wish you very happy 2008
Pls read “Creation” or try playing the game and you will see that any kind of complexity can emerge from simple turing machines participating in feedback loops over generations. As a simple example, here is how my 2 state automata with ONE rule arranged themselves after a hundred or so generations
http://picasaweb.google.com/khullar.rishi/Test/photo#5150784216669751426
Thank you Rishi. I will look up the link.
Archana,
Recently i read sukumar’s post of locking us in either-or condition.
Probably, why there is so much opposition to your post is that, if darwin’s theory is false, then religious theory should be true.
But, if we deviate from these two extremes, and look in to this, i feel, we will have better understanding.
And, what would happen, if humans cracked the DNA mystery. Even in the present day, they can knock a particular gene, and observe the results.
When they master the art of creating new DNA’s, then, there would be situation, where humans would simply frame the DNA, simulate it in more powerful supercomputer, and then trigger it to develop in to a living thing.. probably, in the existing womb, or in a new living production environment
..
In such cases, wont he be producing numerous such beings, by modifying the basic code, ie the DNA sequence? Then he would be the real life Brahma..
This might sound to be a fiction.. (Probably arising out of watching english films
).. but, this gives the clue..
We need to uphold god theory.. but, one can understand the possibility of some intelligent creation behind living things.. (which need not be god)..
jibe monorailroad aphasiac stormwind render alytarch petrescent cistic
Midnight Oil Soap
http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/cumberla.htm
I always find the “evolution” versus “the creator” argument interesting. It seems that humanity’s search for answers has no bounds.
But I find one thing constant in both arguments:
With science and evolution we have really such little knowledge and data that there has to be faith that the Scientific Method is providing us with correct results from our research and tests.
With religion, since we have no physical proof of God’s existence we have to have faith that he is with us.
Faith lies where knowledge and proof don’t exist. Humanity’s faith is strong and over the thousands of years of our existence faith has push us to do many great things as well as many bad things.
Herschel – Thank you. I cannot agree more “faith has push us to do many great things as well as many bad things.” Faith is vital to science and religion.