Thursday, December 13, 2007
In my humble opinion, the strongest proof of God is the Watchmaker Analogy. The Watchmaker Analogy states that a machine must have an intelligent designer. A device, such as a watch, has many parts which all interact together to efficiently perform a certain function. Therefore obviously a watch must have a maker. There is no other way for it to have gotten here. By the same token, living things are incredibly complex machines and therefore there must exist an incredibly intelligent designer who created them. This is the essence of Intelligent Design Theory.
The only conceivable alternative to IDT is the Infinite Monkey Theorem. IMT basically says that true, under normal circumstances, a watch must have a maker. However IDT breaks down when vast expanses of time and space are involved. IMT suggests that while mixing some minerals into a glass of water and waiting a few days will not produce a watch, however mixing millions of tons of minerals and chemicals into millions of cubic miles of water and waiting millions of years might indeed produce a watch or a computer or a commercial jet plane or even a bacterium.
This is essentially the argument that Richard Dawkins makes in “The Blind Watchmaker” pages 158 to 166. He explains that while the spontaneous origin of life on earth is seemingly miraculous, however that is merely because we are used to thinking in terms of short periods of time and small spaces. But if we assume that billions of potentially habitable planets exist in the universe and each one has existed for billions of years, then life without a creator, or in other words a watch with no watchmaker, becomes very possible. Enough time and space will defeat Watchmaker.
The question is, is this actually true?
As a matter of fact, even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one chance in 10^183800. In other words, there is virtually no chance.
What about producing a bacterium by blind chance? Scientists cannot begin to create a bacterium from simple chemicals and even creating a computer simulation of one E. coli has not yet been completed and will be extremely challenging.
I think this makes it clear why atheism is far from scientific. It is an outrageous lie.
Posted by jewish philosopher at 4:35 PM