Friday, January 12, 2007

Natural Law and Miracles


Quote:
"The criterion of scientificness requires that the theory be: (1) testable and (2) compatible with natural law."

Certainly evolution is not testable. Even under the most carefully controlled conditions, not even the slightest hint of macro-evolution can be observed in a laboratory.

Natural law dictates changes within a specie but prevents transitions between species. Hybrids are sterile, most mutations are deleterious (says atheist Richard Dawkins) to the specie--leaving natural selection and adaptation as the only door by which evolution can take place. In addition, Dawkins says ‘its only natural selection that produces living things which have the illusion of design.” Finally Dawkins admits that this requires faith. The recent discoveries about the simplest cellular structures reveal a complexity far greater than realized even a few decades ago. Logic suggests that this first, single, original, organic "simple" cell (with all of its new found complexity) would have to be fully capable of processing inorganic food and reproduction in order to pass it's traits on to the second generation cell By definition that would be “miraculous.” Quote:"But miracles, by definition, are not compatible with natural law." Miracles may very well be explained by natural law. God knows, (oh excuse me) that the miracle of the Exodus and the preceding Egyptian plagues have scientists formulating (since they are historic facts), they must have been caused by the eruption of a Mediterranean volcano. This is happening with regard to many of the miraculous accounts of the Bible.
How valid is it to suspect natural causes to explain the miraculous? Do miracles happen in the natural world? That begs the question: Does God employ natural law to accomplish a goal? Throughout the Bible, God used natural phenomina as well as 'miracles' to accomplish His will. For instance when Israel turned away from God their 'judgement' would often be attack by other nations, or the loss of a battle etc.
The case is made by skeptics that these were natural events, have simple and natural explanations and can be fully explained without God. Plagues, accidents, natural disasters happen all the time. Today's prophets of doom are not the religious. It's the scientists who appear on the Discover channels telling us that it's only a matter of time before an extinction event will occur. Be it an Asteroid strike, gamma ray burst, hardening of the earths liquid core, Solar eruptions (coronal mass ejections), depletion of the Ozone layer, Global Warming etc. It goes beyond that.
Suppose I were a two dimensional creature, aware only of laws regarding length and width, having no conception of height, and a three dimensional being punched a hole in the ground with a vertical shaft in front of me. I would not be at all aware of the vertical shaft. To me, as a two dimensional creature knowing only length and width, it would appear that a hole miraculously opened before me; but to the three dimensional being it would simply be an act totally within the realm of natural law.
It's no stretch to conceive of a being that moves in dimensions that I can't imagine, especially when the universe has recently been discovered to be made up of up to 90% dark matter, or dimensions beyond my natural world. When something I consider a miracle happens, it may very well be a result of natural law in another dimension. As you read this you may be totally unaware that you are surrounded by a million frequencies from radios, TV’s, cell phones gamma rays etc. Conversations you cannot hear are passing by your ears. Pictures flowing before your eyes cannot be seen You can't see, smell, touch, taste or hear them but now you’re reminded they do exist. If you could see them it would dazzle your vision! Or go outside in the daylight, look up at a blue sky not even considering that all of those stars you saw last night are still shining as brilliantly in the daylight as they were at night. So when you talk about miracles existing outside of natural laws, perhaps it's simply because we are unaware of some of these "laws." For example, we've just crossed the threshold of the discovery of dark matter. Dark matter may compose 90% of the universe. What will we learn? Man is just taking his first baby steps into the vast cosmos. Just a short drive north of my location there is a field of Radio Telescopes that scan the heavens for signs of intelligent life. It’s part of the SETI project. Radio telescopes have been looking into space for over forty years and haven’t heard a cosmic “peep” from alien life, yet two generations of scientists have served and retired from such projects. How do I get a job like that? Their mission, according to the SETI Institute is “to explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe.”And so their desperation to find the elusive proof of evolution goes on. It’s rumored that they keep a cold bottle of champagne on hand just in case. I think they’ve pulled a major coup in creating such an unproductive lucrative comfortable job for themselves that they actually do deserve a glass of champagne! Yep, I’m a bit jealous. I had to work for my retirement.

1 comment:

BC8 said...

> mutations are deleterious (says atheist Richard Dawkins)

Actually, he says, "they mostly are deleterious; most mutations are bad". And evolutionists agree with that statement. However, omitted from your statement is the fact that a small percentage of mutations are good (something that evolutionists, including Dawkins would absolutely argue). Natural Selection filters out the (numerous) bad mutations, and preserves the (few) good ones. To say that all mutations are deleterious (which seems to be the implied claim of your quote) is both factually wrong and it is wrong to say that Dawkins supports that view.

I'll have to come back sometime and give you some good information on evolution, since you don't really have anything accurate about evolution (and your links are deeply flawed).

BTW, I'm a former Christian creationist turned evolutionist.