The Rules and the Rulemaker
I often encounter the argument that, since the mechanisms that govern life within an individual living organism are so incredibly complex, and since the diversity of organism in our world is legion, that this must be evidence of the existence of a Creator.
Conversely, others look at the mechanisms that led to the complexity and diversity of the world, and insist that all of it occurred randomly. They reach completely the opposite conclusion: a world that has come to be as it is so messily and haphazardly must be evidence that there is no Creator.
The logic for either of these arguments is spurious. Nothing can be concluded from scientific knowledge about the existence of a Higher Power, either now or at the inception of our universe. If you approach science with one viewpoint or the other, you can probably find the "evidence" to back up either conclusion. As of yet, I haven't heard an argument either way that holds water...though I keep an open mind.
Richard Feynman was adamant about describing the role of science in our world. He said that science is merely trying to understand the rules. The analogy he used was simple: imagine the entire observable universe is a large game of chess being played. We can watch the game in action, but we don't know the rules governing the actions of the players. So we watch, and after enough time, and enough moves, you begin to understand how each piece is allowed to move.
This is the role of science: to derive the rules governing our universe from observation. Nothing can be concluded from the scientific investigation about why the game exists, why the rules are the way they are, or whether or not a grand Rulemaker exists.
Conversely, others look at the mechanisms that led to the complexity and diversity of the world, and insist that all of it occurred randomly. They reach completely the opposite conclusion: a world that has come to be as it is so messily and haphazardly must be evidence that there is no Creator.
The logic for either of these arguments is spurious. Nothing can be concluded from scientific knowledge about the existence of a Higher Power, either now or at the inception of our universe. If you approach science with one viewpoint or the other, you can probably find the "evidence" to back up either conclusion. As of yet, I haven't heard an argument either way that holds water...though I keep an open mind.
Richard Feynman was adamant about describing the role of science in our world. He said that science is merely trying to understand the rules. The analogy he used was simple: imagine the entire observable universe is a large game of chess being played. We can watch the game in action, but we don't know the rules governing the actions of the players. So we watch, and after enough time, and enough moves, you begin to understand how each piece is allowed to move.
This is the role of science: to derive the rules governing our universe from observation. Nothing can be concluded from the scientific investigation about why the game exists, why the rules are the way they are, or whether or not a grand Rulemaker exists.