The Electric Commentary

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Dispatch from the Evolution War

Pat Buchanan chimes in at WorldNutDaily. Mr. Buchanan appears to want to show us all just how little he knows about Darwin and Evolution:

Our ordered universe was created out of chaos. Who or what created it? The latest theory of the evolutionists is the "Big Bang," a gigantic explosion, eons ago, did it.

Mr. Buchanan apparently believes that cosmological Big Bang theory has something to do with the biological theory of Evolution. Mr. Buchanan also makes the common ID proponent argument that the universe is so complex that it must have had a creator. I always found this argument very weak. My question (and maybe some of our religious readers could shed some light on this for me) is if the world is so complex that it must have been created by an intelligent being, than how complex must that being have been? It seems logical that a being that is so powerful and intelligent that he could create an entire universe would have to be a pretty complex dude. If that is the case, the creator could not have happened by chance. He must have... uh... been created by an intelligent being... er something. And we have a chicken and egg problem. If the creator wasn't created, than why would anyone be willing to believe that a creator "just happened" but that the presumably less complex universe could not have possibly "just happened"? I know I'm getting pretty philosophical and all and maybe this is one of those, "could god make a boulder so big that even he couldn't lift it" questions, but I'd really like to know if anyone has an answer.

Check out Ed Brayton's response to Buchanan here.

15 Comments:

  • This makes me think of Tom Cruise and his (scientologist) views on aliens that he expressed on a press tour for War of the Worlds. He basically said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Are you really so arrogant as to think that with a universe so vast that we are the only intelligent beings?"

    And I want to respond by saying, "Are you really so arrogant as to think that if the universe (being so vast and immeasurable) has other life forms that we must be the most advanced?" I mean, if we're going to believe that aliens exist because of the size of the universe...then how can we explain the fact that we've never seen them? I assume the answer would be something like "maybe they're not as advanced as us...maybe they haven't made it this far yet."

    I don't know. It's late in the day and I'm clearly rambling...and I don't think I even spoke to your point...but there you go.

    Specifically...for me...I find the complex nature of the world and the universe to be a marvel. Perhaps there's no proof or even reason in assuming a God created it all...but it seems easier to believe (for me) than that it all happened completely by chance. But that's just my non-theologian's two cents.

    By Blogger Kennelworthy, at 7:33 PM  

  • "Specifically...for me...I find the complex nature of the world and the universe to be a marvel. Perhaps there's no proof or even reason in assuming a God created it all...but it seems easier to believe (for me) than that it all happened completely by chance. But that's just my non-theologian's two cents."

    But doesn't that mean that you must either believe that god is less complex than the universe or that god was also created by a designer etc.?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:21 PM  

  • Nah. Not really. I tend to think of the universe as a marvel, and God as something even more marvelous and grand. Too complex for understanding.

    By Blogger Kennelworthy, at 9:28 AM  

  • So god is too complex for understanding and the universe is too complex to have happend by chance. Why is it that you are able to believe that one very complex thing just happened and not the other?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:39 AM  

  • Wow...what a light topic Creationism Versus Big Bang is. So free of controversy.

    I always find it funny that we have one person that believes one thing, and they have their reasons for it, and they may have very well considered the other argument...but choose to believe what they believe. But then we have the so-called "more enlightened" person continue to say, "So...if you believe this and this, how come you can't believe this and this?"

    He just told you. You refuse to listen. If you don't want to believe something, then no argument is going to sway you, and it works both ways.

    I've always liked to hear the various reasons for both arguments, mainly because no matter what is said, it sounds completely fantastic and impossible. Yet, when someone picks one side over the other, they defend it with vigor.

    The fact is, Danny, Paul...there is absolutely no proof or philosophy that is going to sway this argument. Ever. You guys (as well as millions of others) are going to believe in Science as well as other millions are going to believe in God.

    My question is, when Pat Buchanan speaks, a man who is clearly a religious follower, why do you listen? And since you unquestioningly believe in Science, why do his comments cause response? From the numerous posts concerning these topics, it sounds like you are looking for the one person out there who can give you the bones of Jesus Christ, and collect DNA that shows that he had the ability to heal the blind, and that his father was "not of this world."

    By Blogger Chris, at 10:38 AM  

  • This post has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. I was asking about ID theory, a political issue. ID theorists hold that the earth is so complex that their must have been a designer. This is allegedly a scientific theory. It allegedly doesn't have anything to do with religion (although we all know it does). I just want to know how complexity is designed and why one thing that is clearly complex is believed to have happened out of no where and another thing that is complex must have required a creator. If you have faith, that's a different thing. I'm asking about an alegedly scientific theory, about probability, about chance. If you don't have an answer or something posative to say, that's fine. I just want to be clear that this particular post is not an attack on faith. It is a question about ID.

    "My question is, when Pat Buchanan speaks, a man who is clearly a religious follower, why do you listen? And since you unquestioningly believe in Science, why do his comments cause response?"

    You seem to know about my religious leanings yet you read this post. And you commented. But I don't unquestioningly believe in anything. Science isn't something you believe in. It's not an alternative to religion.

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 10:57 AM  

  • What did I say?

    I beleive that science and religion should never be in conflict. It's like saying that there is a conflict between tennis rackets and hot dogs.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 11:04 AM  

  • Tennis rackets and hot dogs!

    That makes me laugh.

    For Mr. Anonymous...one last time: my belief in God is a matter of faith. Faith that there can exist a being so complex that I can't understand it fully. I'm not taking the argument the original author of this post referred to...that since the universe is so complex it must have a Creator...not that I entirely standed opposed to it either.

    I was just adding my reflections on what the author offered. My reaction to this ID stuff is just as I stated...I don't see how the complex universe can be a thing of chance. That's all. I'm really not trying to get into a debate with you on it. He asked for someone religious to comment and I did.

    By Blogger Kennelworthy, at 11:15 AM  

  • Fair enough KW.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 11:24 AM  

  • Fair enough. I guess I'd really like to hear from an ID advocate.

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 11:30 AM  

  • "...since you unquestioningly believe in Science..."

    There's really no such thing as unquestioningly believing in science. Science is all about questions. That's the whole reason for the conflict between science and religion. It's a conflict between people who want to question everything and people who want to question nothing.

    By Blogger MDS, at 11:36 AM  

  • My whole point was just the fact that people are never going to be absolutely swayed. As usual, whenever someone has something to say "against the grain," he is immediately pigeonholed. "Anonymous" kept the offensive even though there wasn't anything being said that needed to be attacked--it was a simple set of statements.

    As for my own comment--I knew that the simple nature of text as opposed to being face-to-face would cause confusion. Immediately, I myself have been misunderstood. I am suddenly getting a lecture on what science is. I don't have anything against science. I am one of those who believes the two can co-exist in some way...and I'm always looking for truth. There are just some who are ready to accept scientific theories over dogmatic ones. That's all. I never meant that everyone who believes in science only believes in science, and everyone religion, religion. I'm sorry that's how that sounded.

    I posed the questions because there are editorial comments within this post. This isn't just wondering, or just asking--it's dismissing as it asks. I don't know anyone's beliefs here, but certainly some comments paint a picture.

    Sorry. Maybe I should just be quiet.

    By Blogger Chris, at 12:03 PM  

  • I wouldn't recommend being quiet. What fun is that? (Although the "unquestioningly" line was basically bound to get a response). I've read you guys alot and I know don't discount science. But context is sometimes hard to figure in the comments section. I think there is a tendency to assume that everyone is an extremist.

    I haven't been hit by commenters this hard in a while so I'm happy.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 12:13 PM  

  • The "unquestioningly" thing was something I wrote, then published, then thought about later as a misleading choice of words. I didn't know how else to say exactly what I was thinking.

    By Blogger Chris, at 12:45 PM  

  • Well, reading back over the comments I am ashamed to learn that I somehow wrote the word "standed." No idea how that makes me look in the context of the religious and science talk...but there really is no excuse for grammar that poor.

    By Blogger Kennelworthy, at 3:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Search:
Keywords:
Amazon Logo