How Did The Designer/God do it?

I’m pretty sure that many creationists/ID proponents and skeptics about materialism have heard that question many times often when materialists get  cornered about their beliefs about the origins of life…The usual question posed by materialists is: How Did The Designer/God do it? We can’t recreate life, so tell us how was it created!

Does anyone have a theory about how ID/God/ET did it?

I have my own,  but I’m just curious how much smarter people than me would answer  the skeptics who often add to their skepticism: Did ID/God/ET just “poofed”  life magically into existence?

 

61 thoughts on “How Did The Designer/God do it?”

  1. Gregory

    Beg your conclusion much? Skepticism of ideological materialism is a responsible and ‘normal’ human approach to life, meaning, purpose, etc. in the information era. Duh? Outright rejection of materialism is rather easy for the un-Marxed. That there are one-dimensional people (often called ‘scientists’) nowadays who *cannot allow themselves* more (uggh, ‘spiritual’ sounds so ‘mystical’ which to them translates as ‘unreal’) is no surprise; and so they smear the conversation with their superficial humanity.

    Origins of life is a notoriously political topic. Listening to USAmericans on this nowadays is almost bound to be a polarising experience.

    Try concurrentism…

  2. Gregory

    Another way to ask the header question:
    “What is the extent of God’s causal involvement in the ordinary course of nature?”

    Atheists have an obviously boring role in this conversation; as spiritual deniers.

  3. keithskeiths

    Gregory,

    Atheists have an obviously boring role in this conversation; as spiritual deniers.

    I continually assume God’s existence, for the sake of argument, in discussions here at TSZ.

    Go ahead and tell us, as a theist: How did the Designer/God do it?

  4. petrushka

    My question would be, does your design theory conflict with mainstream natural history.

    In such areas as age of the earth, common descent.

  5. keithskeiths

    Rumraket:

    *allakazam*

    Like that.

    The Abracadabrists will take issue with that, you Allakazamist heretic.

  6. faded_Gloryfaded_Glory

    Immutability of species is a two-sided concept. Not only do we need an explanation for the continuous arrival of new species, we also need an explanation for the continuous mass extinctions that have wiped out all the species we find as fossils but are no longer alive today.

  7. Tomato Addict

    If ID Creationism is any sort of science, then this is a perfectly fair question.

    If IDC is not science, then we can only expect continued criticism of real science.

  8. GlenDavidson

    Going by the evidence, God did it by setting up the conditions for evolutionary processes to produce the variety of life seen.

    The only remaining question would be if God poofed single-celled life into existence in the first place as Behe said could be the case, or if we just have to realize that ID will never achieve evolutionary theory’s “pathetic level of detail” as Dembski admits.

    Glen Davidson

  9. brucefast

    This is a valid question. However, the responses so far seem, well, childish. We have two responses so far: “poof, ha ha, you stupid theists”, and “I don’t know.” But much better answers are possible.

    As far as “poof, ha ha, you stupid theists” goes, I have only two words to say to you: BIG BANG. Modern science seems to think that the darn thing happened. Modern science seems to think that it happened “just right”. You atheists look at this incredible “poof” and say, “yeah, so. Good luck huh. Maybe there were a gazillion not just right poofs. What about that.” Well, the predominant theistic position is that someone designed the poof, and, well “poof”.

    So “poof” is a very viable possibility. Did poof happen for first life? I would say that so far that is the best explanation. Do you dare to “ha ha” in light of the big bang? Then you are childish.

    But when I read my Bible, I see a God who frequently works with a subtle style that leaves him seeming invisible. (I know, I thought you said ID isn’t religion. Well, religion, at lease the Judeo-Christian religion is ID even though ID is not religion. Yes, Fords are automobiles, not all automobiles are Fords.) Anyway, back to my case — look at how things got set up for Jesus to come: the Romans dominated the middle east, they called for a census (I know, no non-Biblical historical support), they had invented crucifixion which was necessary to fulfill David’s prophecy: “they pierced my hands and my feet” (Psalm 22: 16b). All of this careful weaving of history came together to fulfill a whole batch of prophecies.

    So we know that the Judeo-Christian God loves to work in subtle ways, showing that which appears random to be strategy. I think, therefore, that a lot of genetic engineering has been going on by strategy in a way that looks, well, random.

    Where is the line between the “poof” and the subtle strategy? That remains to be a question. My bias is to say that “poof” happened except where evidence of subtle strategy exists.

    I reiterate, poof happens. How do I know? Big Bang.
    brucefast,

  10. dazzdazz

    brucefast: I reiterate, poof happens. How do I know? Big Bang

    The Big Bang doesn’t posit that the entire universe was “poofed” out of nothing. And there’s no poofing invoked in the theory, it’s a great scientific theory with tons of explanatory power. Try again

  11. GlenDavidson

    brucefast: As far as “poof, ha ha, you stupid theists” goes, I have only two words to say to you: BIG BANG. Modern science seems to think that the darn thing happened

    Yeah, what do you think, that someone just made it all up, like Genesis or ID?

    Science was quite happy with a static universe, and then it was observed that the universe is overwhelmingly redshifted. How could that be except if the universe started from a very small region and then expanded? There were “steady state” models posited, to be sure, but in the end we got the cosmic microwave background at the right “temperature,” and there was little excuse for that to be other than the Big Bang.

    That such empirical issues escape you doesn’t seem surprising, as you’re simply out for a “gotcha” without much concern for the facts. The Big Bang idea exists because of the evidence, and that evidence has only mounted and become more exactly the kind predicted by the physics of the Big Bang theory.

    If you had remotely as good evidence for your claims, they’d be taken seriously by science.

    Glen Davidson

  12. brucefast

    Oh, um: “Earlier than 10^-36 seconds, we simply don’t understand the nature of the universe. The Big Bang theory is fantastic at describing everything after that, but before it, we’re a bit lost. Get this: At small enough scales, we don’t even know if the word “before” even makes sense! … Who knows what’s going on?” http://www.space.com/31192-what-triggered-the-big-bang.html

    Yup, science has it all in the bag. Nope. Not a clue. The biggest event ever, and mainstream science’s answer is “Who knows what’s going on?” We theists say, “creation happed”.

  13. dazzdazz

    brucefast: “Earlier than 10^-36 seconds, we simply don’t understand the nature of the universe. The Big Bang theory is fantastic at describing everything after that, but before it, we’re a bit lost

    Exactly. Emphasis on “describing”, which to me is pretty much the opposite of “poof”

    Way to shoot yourself in the foot. First you present the Big Bang as an example of “poofing”, then you go on to rejoice on the fact that it doesn’t really explain the origin of the universe.

    brucefast: We theists say, “creation happed”.

    Yawn

  14. brucefast

    Ok, this thread is boring the heck out of me. The big bang is a theory which describes something — agreed. What does it describe? Well, if I call it an explosion like universe today did, you would argue that it is not, but it is an “expansion”. Oh, well what the heck is a faster than light expansion then, other than, well, poof.

    Y’all twiddle with semantics to make yourselves feel smart, but it’s just childish.

  15. petrushka

    brucefast: Oh, well what the heck is a faster than light expansion then, other than, well, poof.

    It’s called physics. Deal with it.

    Yes, physics does not address the question of why there is something rather than nothing, but it does a fine job of describing the behavior of what exists.

  16. dazzdazz

    brucefast: what the heck is a faster than light expansion then, other than, well, poof.

    why would that turn a legit scientific theory into a mere “poofing” event? are you suggesting that space expanding faster than the speed of light violates relativity?

  17. brucefast

    “why would that turn a legit scientific theory into a mere “poofing” event?” Um, excuse me? When did I ever question the legitimacy of the big bang theory? I do not doubt that the big bang theory very nicely describes what happened. What it describes I describe as a “poof”, as “explosion” is probably not quite correct. All the stuff of the universe went from no size at all to the vastness that is through the process described by the big bang theory. How “all the stuff that is” got there is simply not known by science. A few strange hypotheses float around, but they are pretty sketchy.

    What is known is that the universe that is works for life. What else is known is that if the universe was just a wee bit different it wouldn’t work for life. The atheistic explanation for this “fine tuning” is just weak. The best explanation, by far, is that the universe that sparked off in the big bang was designed to be “just right”.

  18. J-Mac Post author

    I’m not sure what happened but my last edit of the post has not been updated. So what you are reading is the draft I never intended to publish…

  19. dazzdazz

    J-Mac:
    I’m not sure what happened but my last edit of the post has not been updated. So what you are reading is the draft I never intended to publish…

    Just tell us how you think it happened. Should be interesting

  20. AcartiaAcartia

    brucefast: What is known is that the universe that is works for life.

    No. The only thing we know for sure is that an insignificant rock in an insignificant galaxy amongst billions of galaxies works for life. That is some fine tuning you have there.

  21. J-Mac Post author

    So… so far nobody out of the “creationists” pool proposed an explanation as to how ID/God did it; created life…
    It is not shameful not to know, because the ‘science’ behind the origins of life doesn’t know either… but its proponents are getting and Noble Prizes … which are the sure expectations of …who knows what..

  22. Allan Miller

    brucefast,

    The best explanation, by far, is that the universe that sparked off in the big bang was designed to be “just right”.

    I’ve never quite got this argument. It implies that a Designer who is capable of designing the very stuff of physics is yet somehow constrained by it. Surely ‘it’ could design a universe using any parameters it liked and it would still work, because that’s just the way ‘it’ planned it? Fine tuning implies some external fabric which just happens to include a Goldilocks range which Ye Designer just happens to have cottoned on to. What a stroke of luck! I don’t see that as more compelling than physics just happening to have the right properties anyway.

  23. Allan Miller

    J-Mac,

    […] its proponents are getting and Noble Prizes […]

    I presume you mean Jack Szostak, a prominent OoL investigator – who got his Nobel for his work on telomeres, which has absolutely nothing to do with OoL.

    Nobody is getting Nobels for OoL work. It remains (and may conceivably forever remain) an unsolved problem.

  24. dazzdazz

    J-Mac:
    So… so far nobody out of the “creationists” pool proposed an explanation as to how ID/God did it; created life…

    No creationist has proposed an explanation either as far as I can tell. And why would someone who thinks the evidence doesn’t point to design even try to propose something? Try to make sense please

  25. brucefast

    Allan Miller,

    Wow, a thoughtful comment. Something that vaguely presents an interesting conundrum. Could the designer have produced any old design and it would have worked? Probably not. Could the designer have produced other designs that may have worked? I don’t know. Was the designer somehow constrained by the physics? Hmmm, worth a ponder.

    “I don’t see that as more compelling than physics just happening to have the right properties anyway.” Ok. don’t. I will go with strategy even if the strategy is constrained by the physics over a random guess just happening to be right. But that’s just me.

  26. Neil Rickert

    J-Mac: So what you are reading is the draft I never intended to publish…

    When you indicate that you have a post ready for posting, please indicate which one. We cannot read minds.

    I do see you have another with “atheist” in the title. Are you requesting that it be published now?

  27. dazzdazz

    brucefast,

    But this paints a picture where the laws of nature “precede” God, in the sense that He doesn’t have a say as to what those laws do. God can’t explain the laws, while the laws fully explain nature.

  28. brucefast

    dazz:
    brucefast,
    But this paints a picture where the laws of nature “precede” God

    Oh my, no! Surely God created the laws of nature. But surely not all law-sets for nature produce a nature that is life-compatible. In the infinite variety of possible universes, there may be other law-sets that could have been used. It still leaves an infinite number of useless models.

  29. dazzdazz

    brucefast: Oh my, no!Surely God created the laws of nature.But surely not all law-sets for nature produce a nature that is life-compatible.In the infinite variety of possible universes, there may be other law-sets that could have been used.It still leaves an infinite number of useless models.

    “It still leaves an infinite number of useless models”

    This is false for all I know, there’s a finite (although huge) number of possible combinations of fundamental constant values.

    But it doesn’t matter. was that a design decision? If it was, then there’s no fine tuning, because it means that God could have designed the laws in a way that ALL of them would produce life.

    Of course the alternative is “no design of the laws”.

    You simply can’t argue for design of the fine tuned laws of nature. It’s a self defeating argument as far as I can tell

  30. Allan Miller

    brucefast,

    It still leaves an infinite number of useless models.

    Not if you are so powerful that you actually have control over what works in the first place. The Design which is the starting point of much ID-style argumentation is a question of picking up what you find and trying to make something of it. But actually coming up with physical parameters, quarks, bosons, the basic quantum numbers – you aren’t just working with what you find lying around. You are designing the entire physics, from nothing. You have a blank slate. It works because you say ‘Let It Work’. And lo, It Did Work. It’s a kind of meta-design, and one not (IMO) subject to the kind of within-physics constraint which I think informs Fine Tuning.

    “Why did you make the speed of light c?”

    “What else could it have been?”

    You sit outside the world of constraint in which design more typically works. Like ‘atemporal being’, easy to say, much less easy to genuinely conceptualise.

  31. colewd

    Allan Miller,

    It’s a kind of meta-design, and one not (IMO) subject to the kind of within-physics constraint which I think informs Fine Tuning.

    Do you think life is possible without extreme fine tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry. How would you transcribe DNA without a very precise charge attraction of the hydrogen bond? This first atom from the big bang finely tuned for life.

    Chance event? 🙂

  32. brucefast

    colewd: Do you think life is possible without extreme fine tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry.

    This, I think, is the point. I do not believe that it is possible to create a life-compatible environment without creating a physics and chemistry that are extremely fine tuned. That said, this already could be seen as being “constrained by the physics”. Maybe it is.

    We know, however, that we live in a universe with an extremely fine tuned chemistry and physics. Is it this way because it must be? I dare to think so. Does that somehow place a limit on God? Maybe.

    I have heard the argument that God clearly created a universe that spontaneously produces life. He did, because he can. He can because if he can’t he is constrained. I don’t buy this argument. My current position is that life did not arise spontaneously. If it didn’t, maybe it is because even God could not make a universe that spontaneously produces life. If so, God is constrained.

    So let’s say that God is constrained. Let’s say that even God cannot create a set of laws of nature that spontaneously produce life. Let’s say that even God cannot create a set of laws of nature that do not require extreme fine tuning. What then? Well, he’s still some gazillion miles ahead of me. He is just somehow no longer a gazillion miles ahead of my wild imagination.

  33. dazzdazz

    brucefast: Let’s say that even God cannot create a set of laws of nature that spontaneously produce life. Let’s say that even God cannot create a set of laws of nature that do not require extreme fine tuning. What then? Well, he’s still some gazillion miles ahead of me. He is just somehow no longer a gazillion miles ahead of my wild imagination.

    WTF?

  34. keithskeiths

    brucefast:

    This, I think, is the point. I do not believe that it is possible to create a life-compatible environment without creating a physics and chemistry that are extremely fine tuned.

    Now if you could just

    a) demonstrate that, and
    b) show that God is the likeliest explanation of the fine-tuning,

    then you’d have an actual argument.

    All you need is a comprehensive theory of universe creation (and note, that is not the same thing as a comprehensive theory of the creation of our universe). Should be a piece of cake.

  35. OMagain

    I do not believe that it is possible to create a life-compatible environment without creating a physics and chemistry that are extremely fine tuned.

    I believe it is possible. Checkmate!

  36. AhmedKiaan

    fine tuning is inherently blasphemous. You’re saying if god wanted life, he was restricted to this and that narrow range of values. God replies, “And just who the fuck are you?”

  37. George

    AhmedKiaan:
    fine tuning is inherently blasphemous. You’re saying if god wanted life, he was restricted to this and that narrow range of values. God replies, “And just who the fuck are you?”

    This is in a nutshell why TEs say ID is not just bad science but also bad theology.

  38. brucefast

    This thread is very interesting. There seems to be a deeply embedded belief that if anything can be conceived by man, it surely can be done by God. God can do anything, any way.

    This reminds me of an ancient puzzle, “Can God create a rock so big that God can’t move it?” Catch 22.

  39. petrushka

    brucefast: This reminds me of an ancient puzzle, “Can God create a rock so big that God can’t move it?” Catch 22.

    Another puzzle: Can god make something out of nothing.

    Or: if god always existed, there never was nothing.

  40. PatrickPatrick

    brucefast:
    This thread is very interesting.There seems to be a deeply embedded belief that if anything can be conceived by man, it surely can be done by God.God can do anything, any way.

    This reminds me of an ancient puzzle, “Can God create a rock so big that God can’t move it?”Catch 22.

    What I find interesting about this thread is what Tomato Addict said at comment #8:

    If ID Creationism is any sort of science, then this is a perfectly fair question.

    If IDC is not science, then we can only expect continued criticism of real science.

    Look at what we’re seeing.

  41. keithskeiths

    brucefast,

    This thread is very interesting. There seems to be a deeply embedded belief that if anything can be conceived by man, it surely can be done by God. God can do anything, any way.

    This reminds me of an ancient puzzle, “Can God create a rock so big that God can’t move it?” Catch 22.

    I’m quite comfortable with the idea that an omnipotent God, if he existed, would be unable to do the logically impossible.

    What I haven’t seen is any evidence for your belief:

    I do not believe that it is possible to create a life-compatible environment without creating a physics and chemistry that are extremely fine tuned.

    Whence that belief?

  42. J-Mac Post author

    My other post is being held up… Anybody can tell why???

    Here it is:

    Are atheists really atheists as they claim?

    “I’m pretty sure that most knowledgeable people know that someone who claims to be an atheist is just making an overstatement about his/her own beliefs. As most knowledgeable people who claim to be atheist probably know that even the most recognizable faces of atheistic propaganda, such as Richard Dawkins, admitted publicly that they are less than 100% certain that God/gods don’t exist.

    My question is: Why would anyone who calls himself an atheist make a statement like that?”

  43. J-Mac Post author

    I have many other ideas hane been held up.? Since this blog is beings censored … for obvious reasons,… maybe people who are in charge of this …..who can’t handle the TRUTH should rethink their position … I’m not sure what the answer should be… But if you want the free expression of thought on the blog, you have to handle everthing else…

    If you don’t what makes you any different than the people you try to hard make it right.

  44. J-Mac Post author

    keiths:
    Jesus, J-Mac.Neil and I explained this to you already.If you have an OP ready to be published, notify the moderators via the Moderation Issues thread.

    keiths:
    Jesus, J-Mac.Neil and I explained this to you already.If you have an OP ready to be published, notify the moderators via the Moderation Issues thread.

    keiths,

    keiths:
    Jesus, J-Mac.Neil and I explained this to you already.If you have an OP ready to be published, notify the moderators via the Moderation Issues thread.
    It must be a a glitch and not a conspiracy … Because my post is being held up since the 21…of March … Thanks for assuring me that the the Darwin’s faithful can take no matter what… Because I will be the likely one doing it…

    keiths:
    Jesus, J-Mac.Neil and I explained this to you already.If you have an OP ready to be published, notify the moderators via the Moderation Issues thread.

  45. brucefast

    keiths: Whence that belief?

    Two reasons: first, we live in an extremely fine-tuned universe. If God had no need to make it so, why did he? I propose that it is so of necessity. Secondly, as you look at the scientific analysis of what the universe would be like if the forces of nature were twiddled a bit, you see the rapid ridiculousness of life existing without these precise parameters.

    I could conceive that God could have spun a totally alternative scenario, maybe one with 5 natural dimensions. (I know the quantum guys perceive more dimensions, but within the larger than quantum paradigm, the three spatial dimensions rule the roost.) However, the new scenario is likely to have very few configurations of natural forces that would be compatible with life.

    Though there may be many right answers, there are likely a heck of a lot more wrong answers.

Leave a Reply