PDA

View Full Version : Ice-crystals and Evolution



nirotu
20 March 2010, 03:26 PM
Dear Sanjaya:

I hope it is all right with you to start our discussion on a fresh page.

…. So the entropy of the universe can increase while the entropy on earth can decrease. Just as a snowflake can form without being specially created, the earth can evolve human life without any need for a creator.
The last part of your statement is quite bold! I would tread carefully when you bring theological conclusions based on snowflake analogy.

Your statement begs the question:

Q. Does the growth of ice-crystals provide evidence to support the theory of evolution that required no intervention of God?

The answer is No!

Here again, some basic physics facts are in order.

Ice-crystals:

First, Ice-crystal formation requires thermal exchange. They form from withdrawal of heat to the surroundings. When you say snowflakes can form without being specially created, it implies it forms spontaneously without the act of external agents. That is hard to swallow especially when it directly violates 2 nd law of thermodynamics (There is no spontaneous flow of heat from cold to hot side). Thus, it can only form under special conditions formed in the surrounding environment.

Human creation:

Second, you are extending your conclusion based on false premise to prove human life does not need external agent to evolve either! That is amazing!!
First of all, your first premise itself is wrong and even if it is correct, these two are totally two non-analogous processes. Ice-crystals form from the withdrawal of heat whereas, evolution only sustains by adding energy from the sun. The evolution is supposed to be open-ended, continuing indefinitely its growth in order, whereas ice-crystals, once formed deterministically by the pre-coded system which produced it, is at a dead end, and can go no further toward higher order. Beside, how in the world you arrive at a conclusion that a system (human) spontaneously increase in complexity through evolution is a puzzling to a common reader.

My view is that the growth of ice-crystal is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Because, the local order has been created with disorder in the surroundings. What is more important is to realize that in nature whenever there is ordering, whether in beauty, symmetry, synchrony or growth, which does not happen by chance or by a random mechanism. I do believe it requires a pre-designed code. The fundamental truth is: if it indeed happens through any random process in the physical world then it must always move in the direction of greater total disorder, according to the second law of thermodynamics. This never happens in human evolution that progressively increases complexity. As Ilye Prigogine, who won the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1977 proved all that is required to create order in a non-equilibrium system is an influx of energy (external agent).

To summarize, in each and every case in the nature, the agent (the one that pre determines) that is responsible, is operating at a higher level and functions with a greater power and order than the effect it produces. In the ultimate sense, the cause which controls all secondary process on earth that locally brings in order must surely have infinite power and might and intelligence. Such a first cause is what I like to refer to as God. Thus God either directly or by secondary processes produces order.

As for your Big Bang argument, Stephen Hawking has actually proposed a model in which time turns into space at the beginning of the universe. This means that there is no need for a creator at all, and it poses a severe problem for ex nihilo creation.
Ah, that Steven Hawking!

Here again, you are confused with the abstract and the concrete. Please, be aware that Stephen Hawking’s ideas are based on imaginary time. You should know that we live in a real world where only real time makes sense. He was trying hard to avoid singularity – a point of nothing that evolved from Big Bang theory. He makes an honest statement in his own book, “Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularity.” (Brief history of time- Page 139 bottom line).

If you get a chance, please read Roy Peacock’s book, “A brief history of eternity.” It was written with intent of demonstrating how astronomical discoveries, coupled with the laws of thermodynamics, logically lead to the conclusion that the universe had an origin. (Roy Peacock, A brief history of eternity, 1990, page 106).

It is unfortunate that even in science, ever since the discovery of Big Bang and accompanying theories based on it that clearly show the origin of the universe, there are many scientists with self-professed atheistic persuasion have tried very hard – notably among them were Fred Hoyle, Isaac Asimov Stephen Hawking and many more - only to reconcile in the end with the fact of science.

Even before the discovery of the Big Bang, Einstein also tried unsuccessfully to discredit the origin of universe. The expansion of universe is a direct consequence of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which predicts that the universe had a beginning and is expanding in all directions. Reversing that expansion and going back in time means that the universe would get smaller and denser until it vanished into nothing. This is what disturbed Einstein; his own theory demanded a beginning (or initial starting point) for the universe.

In his 1917 paper” cosmological considerations on the general theory of relativity”, Einstein decided to introduce a simple mathematical device called “the cosmological constant” in to his theory. He did it so because the solution required finite, expanding universe, which was offensive to him. In fact, that idea turned out to be one of Einstein’s biggest blunders, as documented in a book by Robert Jastrow (God and the astronomers, 1992, page 20-21).

I wouldn’t say these atheist-scientists were exercising in futility. In fact, they proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that nothing else could possibly explain other than realizing the definite origin of the universe. Sort of a story, I am reminded of. When Edison tried thousands of elements to see if they could be a candidate for filament in a bulb until he found tungsten, he was asked by a journalist about the time he wasted in doing all the work in studying all those elements. His immediate reply was, nothing is wasted and in fact, I have proved conclusively that these other elements are of no practical use for making filament for electric bulb.


I would be careful about holding on to the Big Bang as a proof of Christianity's truth.
Please, understand that I am not defending anyone’s view but I am only defending a view based on solid science and if Christians happen to agree with that, what more can I say other than I am happy. To Paraphrase Norm Geisler, "The beauty of God’s creation is that if you are not willing to accept the truth in science, then you are free to reject it. This freedom to make choices – even freedom to reject truth – is what makes us moral creatures and enables each of us to choose our ultimate destiny."

Blessings,

sanjaya
20 March 2010, 08:47 PM
I hope it is all right with you to start our discussion on a fresh page.

Yes, it is all right with me. This is very much a side-discussion, and deserves its own thread.


The last part of your statement is quite bold! I would tread carefully when you bring theological conclusions based on snowflake analogy.

I should start by saying that I'm not making any theological conclusions here. In fact I believe that the universe has a Creator (granted, by this I as a Hindu mean something very different than what you would mean, coming from your Christian perspective). My thesis is quite simple: Christian Intelligent Design and/or creationist arguments are fundamenally flawed, and the scientific principles you mention don't necessitate an intelligent Creator. Theological conclusions need to be approached from a more philosophical point of view. If you want to discuss theology, I'd certainly be amenable to starting another thread for this as well.


Your statement begs the question:

Q. Does the growth of ice-crystals provide evidence to support the theory of evolution that required no intervention of God?

The answer is No!

I think you may be misunderstanding what I said earlier. The fault is probably mine, so I'll clarify. The growth of ice crystals as snowflakes is an example of self-assembly. It refutes the belief, held by creationists, that systems which exhibit patterns require an intelligent designer. I hope to draw an analogy here. Much like the snowflake, life can evolve from a lifeless planet without the need for any intervention, divine or otherwise. Biological evolution is self-assembly on a grand scale.


Here again, some basic physics facts are in order.

Ice-crystals:

First, Ice-crystal formation requires thermal exchange. They form from withdrawal of heat to the surroundings. When you say snowflakes can form without being specially created, it implies it forms spontaneously without the act of external agents. That is hard to swallow especially when it directly violates 2 nd law of thermodynamics (There is no spontaneous flow of heat from cold to hot side). Thus, it can only form under special conditions formed in the surrounding environment.

Snowflakes form in the upper atmosphere, where water has been super-cooled below its freezing point, and hasn't turned into ice because of a lack of nucleation sites. The water, which is warm when it comes from the lower troposphere, becomes super-cooled because it transfers heat to a region of lower temperature (i.e. the upper atmosphere). And it forms crystals because nucleation will still occur at temperatures much lower than the freezing point of water at STP. What sort of special creation do you believe is occuring here? The water only forms crystals because this happens to be the lowest energy state of the system. Yes, you could say that God created the laws of physics that allow this to happen, but now you're squeezing God into an awfully tight gap. And he'll have to make way when physicists find an answer to the question of how the laws of physics are determined.


Human creation:

Second, you are extending your conclusion based on false premise to prove human life does not need external agent to evolve either! That is amazing!!
First of all, your first premise itself is wrong and even if it is correct, these two are totally two non-analogous processes.

Well, it's just meant to be an illustration. I think it's a good one, but if you don't find it helpful, feel free to discard it. There are plenty of other examples of self-assembly in nature for me to draw on. I can even choose one from biology, if you prefer.


Ice-crystals form from the withdrawal of heat whereas, evolution only sustains by adding energy from the sun. The evolution is supposed to be open-ended, continuing indefinitely its growth in order, whereas ice-crystals, once formed deterministically by the pre-coded system which produced it, is at a dead end, and can go no further toward higher order. Beside, how in the world you arrive at a conclusion that a system (human) spontaneously increase in complexity through evolution is a puzzling to a common reader.

While evolution isn't an intelligence with a specific goal in mind, it isn't simply open-ended. It necessarily causes certain results because of the way the universe works. We can only speculate on what life would be like if the initial conditions on earth were different. However, the formation of ice crystals occurs on a much smaller time scale than the evolution of humans, and crystal growth can continue for quite awhile if left undisturbed. These two things are similar because they both involve a local decrease in entropy without any divine intervention.

That's the point of the snowflake analogy. You're puzzled by how I could believe that a system would spontaneously increase in complexity. The snowflake is an example of a system that spontaneously increases in complexity. Why is it hard to believe that life can evolve spontaneously? Is this really a scientific objection, or do you object because evolution disproves the truth of the first two chapters of Genesis, and thus the Christian doctrine of original sin? Ask yourself: if the Bible said nothing of creation, would you have the same objections to evolution? I'm simply asking because the cosmological model of galaxy formation and stellar evolution is philosophically similar to biological evolution. But I've never seen any Christians object to this.


My view is that the growth of ice-crystal is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Because, the local order has been created with disorder in the surroundings.

The same is true of evolution. Local order is created at the expense of global disorder. The earth radiates heat into space, thus increasing the entropy of the interstellar medium. This is a classic example of a heat engine moving heat from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir. Again, I don't see the problem.


What is more important is to realize that in nature whenever there is ordering, whether in beauty, symmetry, synchrony or growth, which does not happen by chance or by a random mechanism. I do believe it requires a pre-designed code.

But you yourself just stated that a snowflake is an example of the creation of order, and nowhere did you describe the process whereby a pre-designed code is input. You're stating this assumption ad hoc, and there's no way to test it.


The fundamental truth is: if it indeed happens through any random process in the physical world then it must always move in the direction of greater total disorder, according to the second law of thermodynamics. This never happens in human evolution that progressively increases complexity.

Again, you just agreed with me that entropy can decrease locally. I think that in the case of biological evolution, you're forgetting that the entropy of the entire universe still increases, while the entropy of the biological system decreases. You may be neglecting the fact that the earth doesn't exist in a vacuum (figuratively speaking), but is part of a larger system, namely the universe.


As Ilye Prigogine, who won the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1977 proved all that is required to create order in a non-equilibrium system is an influx of energy (external agent).

The sun provides that influx of energy.


To summarize, in each and every case in the nature, the agent (the one that pre determines) that is responsible, is operating at a higher level and functions with a greater power and order than the effect it produces. In the ultimate sense, the cause which controls all secondary process on earth that locally brings in order must surely have infinite power and might and intelligence. Such a first cause is what I like to refer to as God. Thus God either directly or by secondary processes produces order.

This conclusion is a priori, even based on your own claims about the physics of crystal growth. You agree that the snowflake can be created as an ordered system, at the expense of disorder in its surroundings. But you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that some sort of intelligent design is required for this. I'm quite confused as to how you make this leap.


Ah, that Steven Hawking!

Here again, you are confused with the abstract and the concrete. Please, be aware that Stephen Hawking’s ideas are based on imaginary time. You should know that we live in a real world where only real time makes sense. He was trying hard to avoid singularity – a point of nothing that evolved from Big Bang theory. He makes an honest statement in his own book, “Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularity.” (Brief history of time- Page 139 bottom line).

Singularities also don't make sense in the real world. In essence, you can't divide by zero. I'm not sure how one alternative is better than the other, except that for reasons I don't understand, Christians find the singularity more philsophically acceptable.


If you get a chance, please read Roy Peacock’s book, “A brief history of eternity.” It was written with intent of demonstrating how astronomical discoveries, coupled with the laws of thermodynamics, logically lead to the conclusion that the universe had an origin. (Roy Peacock, A brief history of eternity, 1990, page 106).

In the interest of honesty, I should admit straight out that I don't read books by Christians (unless they have nothing to do with Christianity), especially books on Intellient Design. I've read many such books before, and the arguments are all the same. And said arguments are wrong. Thus, I no longer spend time reading different wordings of the same faulty logic. I don't say this to sound insulting, but only because it would be impolite of me to let you recommend books to me, only to find out I never read them.

However, I can guarantee that I will read everything that you post, and give your arguments full consideration.


It is unfortunate that even in science, ever since the discovery of Big Bang and accompanying theories based on it that clearly show the origin of the universe, there are many scientists with self-professed atheistic persuasion have tried very hard – notably among them were Fred Hoyle, Isaac Asimov Stephen Hawking and many more - only to reconcile in the end with the fact of science.

Actually, not that many scientists oppose the Big Bang model. It's true that Fred Hoyle did, but most atheistic scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads. They don't have a religious book to defend.

Besides that, until the last thirty years or so, the Big Bang wasn't well tested, and there were legitimate scientific reasons to dispute it. This has nothing to do with the scientists' atheism.


Even before the discovery of the Big Bang, Einstein also tried unsuccessfully to discredit the origin of universe. The expansion of universe is a direct consequence of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which predicts that the universe had a beginning and is expanding in all directions. Reversing that expansion and going back in time means that the universe would get smaller and denser until it vanished into nothing. This is what disturbed Einstein; his own theory demanded a beginning (or initial starting point) for the universe.

In his 1917 paper” cosmological considerations on the general theory of relativity”, Einstein decided to introduce a simple mathematical device called “the cosmological constant” in to his theory. He did it so because the solution required finite, expanding universe, which was offensive to him. In fact, that idea turned out to be one of Einstein’s biggest blunders, as documented in a book by Robert Jastrow (God and the astronomers, 1992, page 20-21).

I wouldn’t say these atheist-scientists were exercising in futility. In fact, they proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that nothing else could possibly explain other than realizing the definite origin of the universe. Sort of a story, I am reminded of. When Edison tried thousands of elements to see if they could be a candidate for filament in a bulb until he found tungsten, he was asked by a journalist about the time he wasted in doing all the work in studying all those elements. His immediate reply was, nothing is wasted and in fact, I have proved conclusively that these other elements are of no practical use for making filament for electric bulb.

This is all factually true, but perhaps you could explain to me where you're going with it. Are you inferring from all this that scientists have demonstrated a tendancy to obscure any need for a God in the Big Bang model? Do remember that Einstein believed in a God, if only a deistic one. A universe with a beginning would not in any way conflict with his beliefs.


Please, understand that I am not defending anyone’s view but I am only defending a view based on solid science and if Christians happen to agree with that, what more can I say other than I am happy. To Paraphrase Norm Geisler, "The beauty of God’s creation is that if you are not willing to accept the truth in science, then you are free to reject it. This freedom to make choices – even freedom to reject truth – is what makes us moral creatures and enables each of us to choose our ultimate destiny."

But the problem is that Christians seem to hold a very distorted view of science. Science doesn't necessitate a creator. I think you may be preemptively concluding that Christian Intelligent Design agrees with science. It may be helpful if you succinctly explain your thesis, and explain how it can be tested scientifically.

Here's a thought for another thread (if you wish): remember that Hindus and Christians are in agreement on the issue of the existence of a personal God. I'm curious as to what fruit Christians can obtain from this Intelligent Design business. I know that in evangelical Christianity, the end goal is to preach the gospel and convert as many people as possible to the Christian religion (since I don't know what tradition you belong to, I don't know if that's the case in your denomination). So I would thus assume that Intelligent Design must have some evangelistic merit. Even if you can use ID to prove that God exists, how does this take one any closer to the foundational Christian doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in the atoning work of Christ? After all, the God whose existence you prove may not bear any resemblence to the God of the Bible.

atanu
21 March 2010, 05:54 AM
Dear Sanjaya and Nirotu

This is an interesting discussion. The following opinions are offered for your consideration.

The example of ice crystals organising at the expense of its environment is actually so very organic -- not from the material organic view, but from the view of an organism that organises and decays. This example in itself seems to point to the forces of oranisation and disintegration -- science can however study any phenomena with measurable parameters only and not otherwise.

I can never think of inanimate material exhibiting such instinctive ideas of organisation, to grow or disintegrate. But my view itself is materialisitic. What if that what we call life is in the heart of the matter also. In fact Hindu Gurus do revere Earth, trees etc. as containing God as nurturing principle within. Soma is that. If only science could make nature of Brahman a measurable parameter!!

That said. Science works with measurable parameters and control experiments. Why should the vague Intelligent Design fellows, with their own limited unprovable ideas of God sitting on a throne, intrude into the arena of science, if not for evangelical purpose and to further eat into state funding of education?

Science is empirical and let it be so, for good of all. Intrusion is sinister from every angle, including from the angle of spirituality. Veda does not deny Intelligent Creator as a natural function that evolves out from the basic matrix of nature (Sat-Chit-Ananda) of Brahman. Ananda provides the impetus for intelligent existence that expands and evolves. But Veda also teaches that the Intelligence cannot be known by the intelligence. So, intruding into Science with concepts that cannot be ever proven is sinister, in my opinion. Experience of Brahman's work is personal experience, which can always be another subject but not a part of science, which has empiricism in its heart.

We had discussed this issue earlier also.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
21 March 2010, 08:58 AM
Dear friends,

The snowflake and creator theory assumes that there is no intelligence within water particles to arrange themselves into such fantastic patterns.

Think of "Creator and the Creation are not different" theory and "everything is Consciousness". It solves all dilemma.

Upanishads can really help. Believe me. :)

OM

sanjaya
21 March 2010, 11:06 AM
Dear friends,

The snowflake and creator theory assumes that there is no intelligence within water particles to arrange themselves into such fantastic patterns.

Think of "Creator and the Creation are not different" theory and "everything is Consciousness". It solves all dilemma.

Upanishads can really help. Believe me. :)

OM

Well I don't know that I'd say that water molecules are "intelligence," unless you consider the eletrostatic interaction to be intelligent. However, I do agree that Bhagavan is part of the creation.

I doubt the Intelligent Design fellows would appreciate this idea though, since Intelligent Design is just a front for Christianity. But that's probably also a discussion for another thread.

nirotu
24 March 2010, 10:22 PM
Dear Sanjaya:

Sorry for the delay and also, sorry for the long response.


I should start by saying that I'm not making any theological conclusions here. In fact I believe that the universe has a Creator (granted, by this I as a Hindu mean something very different than what you would mean, coming from your Christian perspective).
Perhaps, you can clarify what you mean in your qualifying statement in parenthesis.


Theological conclusions need to be approached from a more philosophical point of view. If you want to discuss theology, I'd certainly be amenable to starting another thread for this as well.
If you truly agree with the idea that creation indeed took place, I don’t think my invoking of divine creator is any different than what you are saying about creator God. There is no theology involved here other than to reconcile the scientific facts based on Big Bang theory. I would like to hear any other plausible explanation that ascertains the source behind this Big Bang other than God! I am not sure what flaws you are referring to.

However, using ice-crystal analogy for human creation and evolution is bit far fetched to me. I do think comparing DNA, for example, to crystals of an element or compounds, is something like comparing a bolt to a space shuttle. As I understand it (and it's been more than 20 years since I had a chemistry course), crystals form and grow as a result of their molecular structure.


My thesis is quite simple: Christian Intelligent Design and/or creationist arguments are fundamentally flawed, and the scientific principles you mention don't necessitate an intelligent Creator.
I don't understand what you mean with certainty. Perhaps you could answer a question or two to clarify.

Do you mean that ID or Creation:

1) could not have happened
or
2) could have happened but there is no reason to believe it happened
or
3) could have happened but the evidence is in favor of the position that it did not happen?
In other words, what are the fundamental flaws that make ID or creation either impossible or not likely? I hope your argument will go beyond faith and belief.


The growth of ice crystals as snowflakes is an example of self-assembly. It refutes the belief, held by creationists, those systems which exhibit patterns require an intelligent designer. I hope to draw an analogy here. Much like the snowflake, life can evolve from a lifeless planet without the need for any intervention, divine or otherwise. Biological evolution is self-assembly on a grand scale.
This seems an overstatement. Ice crystals are the result of an alignment. The molecules align themselves with each other based on their physical characteristics and the external environment. It is a repeatable process. The six-fold symmetry of a snow crystal is derived from the hexagonal geometry of the ice crystal lattice. The way it works is through faceting. No long-range forces are necessary to form facets; they appear simply because of how the molecules hook up locally in the lattice. Faceting is how the geometry of the water molecule is transferred to the geometry of a large snow crystal. We can observe it happening. With rock crystals, it is sufficiently robust to occur even if there is contamination in the primary material -- and the results are precious stones of different shades. We sprinkle salt crystals on our food and larger ones on icy roads.

Then, there are liquid crystals which change their pattern observed under microscope when temperature is gradually changed. If forms patterns due to its mean field described in terms of order parameters that are highly temperature dependent. There are also liquid crystals in biology called membranes (lyotropic liquid crystals), which also changes its order and pattern of appearance based on surrounding aggregates. Such formation of patterns can be easily reconciled with existing mean-field theories.

That said, a six-foot long strand of DNA, with many different materials that are not contaminants but are essential to the material being DNA, are different from an alignment of identical molecules that move in place based on physical characteristics such as polarity.

While snowflake and blue diamonds are beautiful things, they are alignments of atoms or molecules that naturally occur through processes we can understand. The beauty of DNA, on the other hand, can only be appreciated by something much more complex.

I think that complexity, the assembling rather than the alignment, makes a difference. The basic flaw among evolutionists is that they draw untenable conclusion from snow-flakes (alignment) to DNA (complex assembly).


Much like the snowflake, life can evolve from a lifeless planet without the need for any intervention, divine or otherwise. Biological evolution is self-assembly on a grand scale.
Although I hesitate to complicate matters, this does raise a difficult question: what is life? It is certainly more than assembled or aligned matter. The bio in "biological evolution" is the life that carries with it concepts and things such as self-awareness, the desire for self-protection, the efforts to reproduce. Do you see ice-crystals replicating on it's own? The gap between assembled or aligned matter and life, with all that defines life, seems a great chasm.


What sort of special creation do you believe is occurring here? The water only forms crystals because this happens to be the lowest energy state of the system. Yes, you could say that God created the laws of physics that allow this to happen, but now you're squeezing God into an awfully tight gap. And he'll have to make way when physicists find an answer to the question of how the laws of physics are determined.
I don't see the squeeze. We can recognize the laws of physics, and that seems completely independent of the discussion of the potential role of a creator in the existence of what we in life all around us.

It is true that Christians, sometimes ones with little or no knowledge of science, make bold and unreasonable statements about the role of God in development of life or even the alignment of the planets and stars. About 1500 years ago a Christian name Augustine wrote a book called "City of God" and discussed this subject.


There are plenty of other examples of self-assembly in nature for me to draw on. I can even choose one from biology, if you prefer.Please, do so. I would be interested in knowing about it. I do recall having read Fred Hoyle’s statement, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” (The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, Engineering and science, Nov 1981, page 12). While Hoyle was vague about just who this “super intellect” is, he recognized that the creation and fine-tuning of the universe requires intelligent force.


Ask yourself: if the Bible said nothing of creation, would you have the same objections to evolution? I'm simply asking because the cosmological model of galaxy formation and stellar evolution is philosophically similar to biological evolution. But I've never seen any Christians object to this.As a serious student of science, I would still consider how Science can explain away things that are not easily comprehensible. I also believe, more I know about science, more I come to know about God. I find that it is hard for Science to explain away the cause behind the Big-bang other than accept that there was a force responsible behind the Big-bang. I would like to hold on to an option, perhaps, there is a greater force behind it all, causing the Big-Bang. As to why that happened, would become clear, perhaps, when we come to understand how the mind of God works.

There are creation hymns in Vedas that attempted to describe how and why the Universe came into existence. Vedic thinkers were not unmindful of the philosophical problems of the origin and the nature of the world. After the Rig-Veda, the Taittiriya Brahmana says, “ formerly nothing existed, neither heaven nor atmosphere nor earth.” Prajapati desires offspring’s and creates. There are accounts in the Bible explaining the same. Regardless, the fundamental tenet of both faiths is to believe in creator God. These theories, however, soon related themselves to the non-physics, and physics by alliance with religion became metaphysics.


Singularities also don't make sense in the real world. In essence, you can't divide by zero. I'm not sure how one alternative is better than the other, except that for reasons I don't understand, Christians find the singularity more philosophically acceptable. It is possible we understand singularities differently.

When Scientists come up with laws to explain how nature works, the equations they formulate must be able to explain away at every scenario mathematically. It is bothersome when the quantity they describe becomes infinite. How do you interpret an infinite mass or energy or even force? It isn’t true to say that all laws of physics breakdown at a singularity. Therefore, singularities they come across, which can be either from flaws in formulating the law or actually predicting something real from singularity.

Take for example, Hooke’s law for the force exerted by spring. Assuming a mass less spring (inertia can be ignored) the displacement causes restorative force acting in opposite direction: F = -kx (k is the spring constant and x is the amount of stretch). Therefore, one can write this as x = -F/k. What happens when x = 0? There is an obvious singularity because k blows up. However, this can be explained away using quantum mechanics where indeed there is no singularity. The quantum mechanics says that the shortest distance cannot be less then atomic diameter. We could say that the singularity has been resolved.

However, Big Bang and Black-hole do actually predict singularities. In Bing bang, time and space emerged from nowhere, whereas, in black hole time-space have disappeared into no where. These are experimentally verifiable and, therefore, the theory in this case correctly predicts singularity.

Einstein, Hawking tried hard to explain away with fudge factors that did not fit well with science. As repugnant as it may have been to both, in the end, they including Eddington and many others had to concede the origin of the Universe being created by a super force.


In the interest of honesty, I should admit straight out that I don't read books by Christians (unless they have nothing to do with Christianity), especially books on Intelligent Design. I've read many such books before, and the arguments are all the same. And said arguments are wrong. Thus, I no longer spend time reading different wordings of the same faulty logic. I don't say this to sound insulting, but only because it would be impolite of me to let you recommend books to me, only to find out I never read them.It is your prerogative to read it or not. Let me say Robert Jastrow is a scientist and not a theologian. He is the founder of NASA’s Goddard institute for space studies and a recipient of NASA’s gold medal for excellence in scientific achievement. Many times we tend to build within our selves, a pre-conceived prejudice due to our beliefs. I do believe, when it comes to science, if one stays objective and with an allegiance to science based on a sincere desire in seeking the truth should not be prejudiced due to emotional attachments to religion or philosophy.


Actually, not that many scientists oppose the Big Bang model. It's true that Fred Hoyle did, but most atheistic scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads. They don't have a religious book to defend.

Besides that, until the last thirty years or so, the Big Bang wasn't well tested, and there were legitimate scientific reasons to dispute it. This has nothing to do with the scientists' atheism.That is precisely my point. Let me reiterate: We can recognize the laws of physics, and that seems completely independent of the discussion of the potential role of a creator in the existence of what we in life all around us.


But the problem is that Christians seem to hold a very distorted view of science. Science doesn't necessitate a creator. I think you may be preemptively concluding that Christian Intelligent Design agrees with science.
There are many Christians who believe in evolution also. There are those who believe in ID and those who believe in creationism. I am surprised by you’re your assessment of me strictly belonging to one of these. I like to think that God was responsible for the creation on the Universe and He alone shaped laws of nature (physics, chemistry and biology) that is responsible for the governing and evolution of humans, spiritually or otherwise. You may not see His active participation in the affairs of the Universe but I do.


It may be helpful if you succinctly explain your thesis, and explain how it can be tested scientifically.

I can show you God’s hand in creation just as you can show me gravity or the mind of man. We cannot observe gravity directly; we can only observe its effects. Likewise, we cannot observe the human mind directly, but only its effects. From those effects we can make rational inference to the existence of a cause. It is the same rational inference I draw to conclude the presence of an infinite intelligent force behind the Big Bang.

Blessings,

atanu
25 March 2010, 01:27 AM
Dear Sanjaya:
There are creation hymns in Vedas that attempted to describe how and why the Universe came into existence. Vedic thinkers were not unmindful of the philosophical problems of the origin and the nature of the world. After the Rig-Veda, the Taittiriya Brahmana says, “ formerly nothing existed, neither heaven nor atmosphere nor earth.” Prajapati desires offspring’s and creates. There are accounts in the Bible explaining the same. Regardless, the fundamental tenet of both faiths is to believe in creator God. --

Namaste Nirotu

However, your citation of Vedic account of creation makes me think further. If “ formerly nothing existed, neither heaven nor atmosphere nor earth.” -- with what the Creator God created all these?


I can show you God’s hand in creation just as you can show me gravity or the mind of man. We cannot observe gravity directly; we can only observe its effects. Likewise, we cannot observe the human mind directly, but only its effects. From those effects we can make rational inference to the existence of a cause. It is the same rational inference I draw to conclude the presence of an infinite intelligent force behind the Big Bang.

Well. Again it makes me think further. If we surmise an infinite intelligence behind the big bang, then we must also surmise the substratum of that and substratum of that ------- ------ , like a never ending do loop? How can you rationally stop this looping?


Om Namah Shivaya

nirotu
26 March 2010, 12:31 PM
Namaste Nirotu
However, your citation of Vedic account of creation makes me think further. If “ formerly nothing existed, neither heaven nor atmosphere nor earth.” -- with what the Creator God created all these?

Well. Again it makes me think further. If we surmise an infinite intelligence behind the big bang, then we must also surmise the substratum of that and substratum of that ------- ------ , like a never ending do loop? How can you rationally stop this looping?

Om Namah Shivaya

Thank you, Atanu for your response.

If we are to ascribe God with potentialities then He deserves to be “Omni” of everything. If in some inscrutable manner and due to “omni”-ness, God is able to fashion the world out of atoms without a body, we may as well say that He can create the Universe without any pre-existing material.

Perhaps, God as the creator of this Universe as mentioned by Badarayana in his sutra may put you in an uncomfortable position. As an Advaitin, you may claim that God is “nirvisesa” – attribute less and aspect less – and hence cannot be the source of its creation or sustenance or dissolution in any actual sense of terms. In fact, Sage Shankara repudiates the causal argument and asks us to admit boldly that we know nothing except that the Universe appears to us to exist from eternity. I respect Shankara’s view but here also I have difficulty. May I ask, how can you maintain the dualism of an infinite creator on the one side and the infinite Universe on the other? Do they not limit each other? More over, things which are defined each against the other cannot but be finite.

There is no infinite regress to put us in a loop. Here again, one can use argument based on Nyaya. The Nyaya doctrine of theism has been the subject of great discussion in the history of Hindu thought. Nyaya resorts to adrsta whenever natural explanation fails. It is supposed to call for an intelligent controller, Isvara, for the creation, remarkable regularity with which events happen cannot be explained apart from God, who has jnana (wisdom), iccha (desire) and prayatna (volitional effort).

Again, please note that in my answer I try not to be disrespectful of other’s views. Such opinions can be debated that is purely brimming out of an academic curiosity. That said, I will admit that the utmost that we can say is that the existence of God cannot be established through perception. Inference neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. The hymn 129 in Rig-Veda describes the creation and closes with verse 7 in which author admits with great humility that leaves the question of creation open. In the end, in the absence of inductive method or observable / verifiable proof of creator God, I would rely on faith that is not objectionable to reason but one that is beyond reason. Somewhere in the Bible I read, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” In the absence of having all the answers, I take comfort in knowing by faith.

Blessings,

atanu
26 March 2010, 01:24 PM
Thank you, Atanu for your response.

If we are to ascribe God with potentialities then He deserves to be “Omni” of everything. If in some inscrutable manner and due to “omni”-ness, God is able to fashion the world out of atoms without a body, we may as well say that He can create the Universe without any pre-existing material.

Perhaps, God as the creator of this Universe as mentioned by Badarayana in his sutra may put you in an uncomfortable position. As an Advaitin, you may claim that God is “nirvisesa” – attribute less and aspect less – and hence cannot be the source of its creation or sustenance or dissolution in any actual sense of terms. In fact, Sage Shankara repudiates the causal argument and asks us to admit boldly that we know nothing except that the Universe appears to us to exist from eternity. I respect Shankara’s view but here also I have difficulty. May I ask, how can you maintain the dualism of an infinite creator on the one side and the infinite Universe on the other? Do they not limit each other? More over, things which are defined each against the other cannot but be finite.

There is no infinite regress to put us in a loop. Here again, one can use argument based on Nyaya. The Nyaya doctrine of theism has been the subject of great discussion in the history of Hindu thought. Nyaya resorts to adrsta whenever natural explanation fails. It is supposed to call for an intelligent controller, Isvara, for the creation, remarkable regularity with which events happen cannot be explained apart from God, who has jnana (wisdom), iccha (desire) and prayatna (volitional effort).

Again, please note that in my answer I try not to be disrespectful of other’s views. Such opinions can be debated that is purely brimming out of an academic curiosity. That said, I will admit that the utmost that we can say is that the existence of God cannot be established through perception. Inference neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. The hymn 129 in Rig-Veda describes the creation and closes with verse 7 in which author admits with great humility that leaves the question of creation open. In the end, in the absence of inductive method or observable / verifiable proof of creator God, I would rely on faith that is not objectionable to reason but one that is beyond reason. Somewhere in the Bible I read, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” In the absence of having all the answers, I take comfort in knowing by faith.

Blessings,

namaste Nirotu

Thank you for your response. Two questions that i put in were to stimulate metaphysical questions. I wish to make three points.

1) Brahma Sutra actually defines Brahman as that from which the creation, sustenance, and dissolution proceeds.

2) Most Hindus believe, except the Dvaita school, that Brahman iself is both the efficient and material cause of Universe. Most also accept that the material is chit, which He is. Beyond this however, differences start.

3) I understand the Nasadiya Sukta differently. The end of Nasadiya Sukta appears to be inconclusive. But close inspection reveals that it is actually talking with certainty of a Seer - who surely knows or who does not know. I understand that the creation is upto the Seer - the Maharishi. The Nasdiya does not create any doubt that indeed there is an ultimate Seer. This concurs with other accoiunts mentioned elsewhere that the Seer unfolds the Universe and withdraws it just as a spider spreads its net and withdraws.

I am happy to note that finally you say: In the absence of having all the answers, I take comfort in knowing by faith. Yet you ask certain questions that were actually not my target of discussion.


Perhaps, God as the creator of this Universe as mentioned by Badarayana in his sutra may put you in an uncomfortable position. As an Advaitin, you may claim that God is “nirvisesa” – attribute less and aspect less – and hence cannot be the source of its creation or sustenance or dissolution in any actual sense of terms. In fact, Sage Shankara repudiates the causal argument and asks us to admit boldly that we know nothing except that the Universe appears to us to exist from eternity. I respect Shankara’s view but here also I have difficulty. May I ask, how can you maintain the dualism of an infinite creator on the one side and the infinite Universe on the other? Do they not limit each other? More over, things which are defined each against the other cannot but be finite.

It was pointed out above that Sutra does not actually say that Brahman is the creator. The exact verse is: 1.2. (Brahman is that) from which the origin, &c., of this (world proceed), (I have taken this from shri Ramanuja so that no blame of bias is made). The verse does not say that Brahman creates, though it can be thus interpreted and also believed. And therein lies the answer to the question shown in blue.

Om Namah Shivaya