Evolution and God
In one of the lessons on faith, you talked about how evolution might make it unnecessary to have a guiding hand because everything is random, and you argued that even if everything is random, it still happens within a framework of laws that some entity must have created. You added that it is indeed possible that it is not random but deterministic, only that we do not know all the data and therefore cannot calculate evolution. But if we could calculate, then already at the Big Bang we would have known that in so and so many years there would be humans. In this regard, you argued that then there must certainly be a guiding hand, and I did not understand this argument because why, if at the Big Bang we could in principle (if we knew the data) calculate that humans would appear, does that prove more that there is a guiding hand than if it was random? Because to argue that if it is deterministic, then necessarily someone wanted it is seemingly circular because you have to first assume that there is someone (I hope I explained myself well).
And in the framed article, I thought that regarding causality and quantum theory, it is the atheists who use the God of the gaps because they use the fact that we don’t know the reasons in quantum mechanics as proof that not everything needs a reason, while if we do research, we might discover the reasons.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The fact that the entire process is deterministic and not random can at most tell me about the creator (perhaps he wanted something to come out of the end of the process that came out as a person and not something else complex) but it can't tell me that there is a creator any more than if the process is random because the issue is whether there is a creator or everything happened by itself. And if I think for some reason that such laws can happen by themselves, then a process of laws that randomly leads to the existence of complex life and a process that deterministically leads to complex life can equally happen, and this doesn't reveal anything more and doesn't add to the likelihood that such a process was created by someone.
I'll repeat myself once more, even though I don't understand what's not understood.
There is a very surprising result here (the emergence of life) that is unlikely to have happened without a guiding hand. Hence, there must be a Creator. This was the case until Darwin, and the evidence was very strong. When Darwin proposed evolution, people thought (and still think) that this refuted the evidence because they see that even in a random process (without a guiding hand) this result can be reached.
Now I come and claim that it is not refuted, since the evidence is from the existence of these laws that govern the random process. But this is still a weaker argument than the argument that would exist if progress were deterministic to the result. When something happens purposefully and progresses directly to the goal, it is clear that there is someone directing the process and wants this result. On the other hand, when something happens randomly but in the end still reaches the result, then it is less clear that there is a guiding hand. There is more room to say that the result was achieved by chance.
Very simple.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
