The old theory of a “life force,” has long since been
abandoned by physicalist biology, but in fact, the entire universe seems to be
an intricately coordinated life force, or at least governed by one. Physicalist attempts to deny this must
fail. Why is this so?
Any theory of evolution resembling Darwin’s must make several unwarranted assumptions, and then must inevitably encounter the brick wall of absurd conclusions.
There are two physicalist ways to approach the question of how life evolved.
One of them is to begin with the smallest units of physical
reality (quarks or strings, as the case may be), and show how they
incrementally combined to make living organisms.
The other way is to begin with the largest scale of physical
reality, (the cosmos or the multi-verse, as the case may be), and to show how
the universe evolved into a life-producing structure.
If we begin with the smallest units of reality, and if we wish
to show how they combined (evolved) to form living creatures, the physicalist
approach must deny cosmic intent to do so, and rely upon chance.
But not all the chance in the universe could form living creatures
if the smallest units did not fit together at every scale needed for life. Protons, neutrons and electrons must all have
the properties that cause them to form atoms.
The atoms must have the valences to form molecules. We have only begun the long list of chance
elements that must all come together in an extremely unlikely combination to
produce even the simplest life form.
Gravity, nuclear forces, electromagnetic properties and many, many more,
must all be precisely coordinated to form living organisms.
In short, even physicalists admit that these facts fit a theory of Intelligent Design, a theory which they reject.
In order to reject cosmic intent, and to replace it with randomness, physicalism must speculate that there are vast (or infinite) numbers of universes—bubbles within a multi-verse—such that each universe has a minuscule chance of having all the ingredients for life. But they conclude that the vast numbers (of universes) ensure a high likelihood of at least one universe being like ours. Bingo, universes and living things can evolve randomly. Case closed.
Or is it?
One big problem with the multi-verse theory is that the
multi-verse itself must have unlikely properties in order to form “bubble”
universes. If we must rely on a
multi-verse to explain our universe, then in turn, we must rely on an even
larger multi-verse (a multi-multi-verse) to explain the multi-verse. There is no end to it. It’s “turtles all the way up,” always an ever-bigger
universe to contain and give rise to ever-more multi-verses.
What principle of nature can physicalists cite to support such
a conjecture? Why would such a
physicalist theory be preferable to Intelligent Design?
And that is only the beginning of the endless problems that
physicalists face in their quest to explain evolution without cosmic intent.
Randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters. Dice, for example, do not have randomly determined numbers of sides. They are designed. If a die has six sides, it is designed and intended to have six sides; if it has four sides, then likewise, this is the product of intentional design.
Our universe has twenty-seven parameters called physical
constants. Why twenty-seven? And why is each and every one of those
constants at the exact value it is, a value within a narrow range that permits
life?
Finally, the answers to the really big questions remain
inaccessible to physicalism: why does
the universe produce or contain living creatures that can study the universe
and draw conclusions? Does the universe
produce life, or is it produced by life?
Does it produce consciousness, or does consciousness produce physical
reality? Do we, as conscious, living
creatures share in the power of cosmic intent through our limited power of free
will?
Is it not an irony that, in order to survive, evolution
theory has to evolve? Or is evolution
theory not fit to survive at all?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment