Causation Considered A Non-Important Factor In Evolution

Some of us heard this argument all too well. “If God existed, then who created God?” Seems like causation is  important for science, right? Well not exactly, in a book called; The Universe: Order without design, the author claims the opposite…

“Physics and cosmology alone may have the answers, says Calle. Combine eternal inflation, in which the primordial false vacuum continuously grows and decays, with string theory and you end up with a multiverse – a vast collection of universes, each of which has a different amount of dark energy. We find ourselves in one where it has just the right value for stars, planets and life because… well, we couldn’t find ourselves anywhere else.”

As seen here, just like mutations in a way, an evolving Universe needs information to expand and become more finely tuned from a previous source. This source is claimed to have no beginning but rather eternal. Why? what’s the logic behind such a proposal, well they say, it’s because “we couldn’t find ourselves anywhere else.” So it’s concluded that a intelligent designer is not needed.

It is interesting to note how explanations of causation is highly important to some of the main defenders of evolution because without it, there is no growth of knowledge as Dawkins points out in his book called; “The BindWatch Maker”

“To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like “God was always there,” and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say “DNA has always been there,” or “Life was always there, and be done with it.”

I know some will argue these are two different fields, causation is more relevant to nature than the Universe itself. Well let’s take Dawkins perverted logic and apply it, if matter and energy are eternal which is like saying “God was always there” then it’s a lazy way out while explaining nothing which Dawkins contends is not science.

I maintain, The Universe: Order without design actually proves nothing, and gives no evidence for the causation of naturalism in the Universe, but draws it’s conclusion based on a story which is not science. It also makes up rules of evidence that it cannot abide by itself  but wants to apply it to creationism or intelligent design like we have seen with “The Blind Watchmaker.”

About these ads

4 thoughts on “Causation Considered A Non-Important Factor In Evolution

  1. Sounds like a good book to me … whether you call it a ‘story’ or not. It is a science book, of course.

    But why do you say that causation is important for science (the start of your piece) ? Where did you get that idea from ? You seem to simply propose this yourself.
    You say: “It is interesting to note how explanations of causation is highly important to some of the main defenders of evolution because without it, there is no growth of knowledge.”
    I do not follow this line of reasoning. Could you please elaborate on this, as I do find this interesting, but do not understand how you reach this conclusion.

  2. In your quote of Dawkins, he says:

    “To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer”

    This is a distraction. Not all people who are out to prove that there is a designer are worried about the identity of the designer. — Creationists are, but not ID proponents.

    It’s like asking “Who designed the designer.” Creationists will say “He’s eternal with no beginning.”

    However Intelleigent Design Proponents (the ones that don’t care about Bible interpretation) will say that it doesn’t matter who the designer is, or is he even what designed. They don’t care if the designer had a beginning, or about his identity.

    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147

  3. But asking who created God is just as much of a distraction as asking”Which god.”

    For God to have a beginning, (to be created), he has to be subject to time. But since it is believed that he created both the universe and time, then he doesn’t need a beginning.

  4. Michael, I really am interested in your causation argument, but it is unclear from your blog what your point is, i.e. about ‘growth of knowledge’ and all that.
    So could you please elaborate ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s