Nov 5, 1997
Natural selection still relies on chance to produce variations of a species. Without chance, there would never be any changes to a species that would drive out whether that variation has an advantage in a particular niche. Darwin and Darwinian science still can't explain how the first life form started. I'm not saying I am a total creationist either. I do believe that evolution occurs due to chance mutations having an advantage over earlier versions of a species. I also think the universe has a design that is made for the creation of life, which can evolve. Those newly evolved creatures change their environment along with various geological factors. Science will never explain faith. That's why it's called faith. You have to believe it without the benefit of being absolutely sure of what your faith tells you.
Nov 5, 1997
The first lifeforms (as science explains it) were amino acids in a
pool on some rock. So.. how can biological material come from non-biological material?
It has been done in labs, the beginning of biological material on
our planet has been simulated and successfully carried out on earth and
apparently on mars. That was the beginning of life (as science explains it).
I have noticed that this page has not been added to very often. I can't
imagine getting bored with talking about such a controversial subject.
I like reading what all of you have to say and would personally like to
thank Keith for creating this page, and everyone else who has contributed
their viewpoint.
Nov 8, 1997
I'm up at college, and every Sunday night they show a free movie at the school's
theater. Last week, since I really didn't want to study, I went to see
this movie called Contact. I heard it was good, and I was kind of curious.
I didn't know it would change my life. I don't see how the movie provided
a negative view of religion. It showed the debate as a debate of equals,
since Ellie's analytical questions really made you think about it, but
Palmer also presented some interesting ideas. I just loved the part when
she's at the White House and the two of them go outside, and she keeps
saying how she needs proof. Palmer turns around and asks her "Did you love
your father?" and Ellie looks at him as if he's just asked the stupidest
question on the planet. "Yes," she answers. "Then prove it," Palmer challenges
and she can't. And then at the end, when she says that as a scientist she
must question what she's saying. Yet she can't deny it. And when she comes
out, there are hundreds of people who are standing out there, waiting to see her.
They have no proof, they just believe. I don't think science limits faith,
rather, it expands it. Nature and physics and chemistry are so perfect
that you must wonder where it all came from. If life started from amino
acids, then where did the elements to make amino acids come from? There
is an origin of the beginning of things that can only be explained by the
existence of some higher being. There can be a marriage between science
and faith, if only our minds are big enough. Palmer and Ellie represent
that. Palmer's faith (which was sort of unusual because it accepted science)
was always ready for that union. Ellie's analytical mind wasn't. Her ideas
had to grow until she could accept faith as well, which she had to both during
and after her trip. Then, she and Palmer, representations of science and
religion could merge together.
Beyond reaffirming my faith, Contact gave me a whole new perspective on life.
Yes, we can be alone at a given time and a given place, but we are never
wholly alone. There are people who care about you and miss you somewhere
on this planet. There is someone waiting to meet you. There is an entire
world of people who are like you in some fundamental ways. Beyond this
planet, there is a vast expanse of universe where someone else exists as
well. If there was nothing out there, it would indeed be "an awful waste
of space". And watching over all of this, every great vista and every
minute detail, is our Creator. If I just look at the stars, I can't ever
feel lonely again. It's impossible to believe that this all came from a
movie.
Nov 8, 1997
Great entry Caroline. Thank you.
Nov 11, 1997
I feel that there are millions of civilization's through out the Universe which are more advanced then us, and also millions that are less advanced. I feel that the Universe is apart of a big circle of life, as the universe has create itself so well that it has populations of different kinds of "Beings." The Universe is a big clock which each planet, sun, moon , solar system and comet, will all come to a end at some stage of the Universe Life span. The way that I see is that everything has a biological clock which runs out at some time. Each Human will die, Each plant, animal, comet, moon, planet sun, solar system and finally the Universe. Although the Universe will most probably be around for at least another 1000000 billions, everything must come to an end at some stage........
Nov 11, 1997
This is a summery of my thoughts surrounding some of the themes explored in Contact, the movie and the book.
Well Keith, I quite enjoyed your comparison of Contact, the movie and the book. I don't want to cause any spoilers here about the book version (if you are concerned about that then stop reading now!) but I would like to say that although I greatly enjoyed the film, probably the best science fiction movie this decade (I mean real science fiction - like the informed writing of Arthur C Clarke who explores the possibilities extrapolated from existing scientific knowledge, and who in my opinion is the master of this kind of `proper` science fiction), the book goes into much more detail than the film and the ending is much more significant than the movie ending. The book actually ends after arriving at the conclusion of the existence of a creator of our Universe or at least a beings powerful enough to alter its very structure. This fact outshines the confirmation of `normal` ET existence, which also takes place as in the film version. This revelation is proved through the decryption of a message in the transcendental numbers of PI.
This in turn proves Ellie's experience to be real, however in the movie the PI discovery is replaced by the movie footage. So you see the story concludes in the film that extraterrestrials exist, but the book goes much further, it actually discoveres the existence of what you might call god, written in the universal language of mathematics.
I call myself an agnostic. That means I will accept the existence of a `god` only if its existence is proved. I will NOT rely on blind faith, or `simply knowing in my heart` as some zealots would say.
That is what was so great about the ending of the book. `God's` existence was proved through science, it was proved beyond all doubt.
Simple faith is not enough. The reality of the evidence banishes all delusion.
As to what the `god` of the book and the `god` that many people on Earth believe exists, this is open to debate.
I would postulate (and I think this is what Sagan hints at in the book) that `God` is a highly evolved lifeform or civilization which has evolved so far that it/they can actually re-order reality itself, mold the Universe as they wish. They may even be able to create universes of their own. Perhaps the creators of our Universe is simply one of a never-ending chain of universe-creating lifeforms.
In fact, maybe it is the ultimate destiny of all highly evolved civilizations, that they eventually reach a point where they can begin creating universes of their own. Maybe that's OUR destiny!
The point is, I don't think the word `god` is appropriate. It conjures up the wrong images. What is termed the creator is still a lifeform, although vastly more evolved than us. The chances are, they evolved from the primordial slime just like we did, all life whatever stage it is at can claim similar ancestry. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to WORSHIP more evolved lifeforms. I think lesser creatures like us should RESPECT them yes, but groveling at their feet is wrong and probably not what they even want. They are probably not even aware of our existence, just as we are not normally aware of bacteria around us, so save your prayers.
In order for a civilization to evolve it must learn to stand on its own two feet, not grovel in front of tribal god images. that path leads to extinction.
Remember what your mother told you, respect your elders. That doesn't mean licking their shoes.
We are approaching a brave new world, a new century, hopefully we can cast off religious barbarism and approach the future with a sense of hope, that humanity will see the light of scientific reason. Only armed with this and NOT blind faith will the people of the Earth then begin to truly comprehend the wonders of the universe at large. Let's hope it's not to late.
Best wishes, Douglas.
URL: `The Stargate` http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/xnf90/
`Contact - What a movie!!!`
Nov 11, 1997
Wow! Thank you Douglas.
Since you have read my entry you know that I don't agree with you in principle, but I do believe that your analysis of Sagan's 'hint' about highly evolved civilizations is correct. Because of you and Ellie I now have a better understanding of the word 'agnostic' and if I didn't believe in hope and faith I would probably think a lot like you do. I believe that 'eternal life' means to be given everything that God has, and I mean everything! I believe that by the grace of God we can become that 'highly evolved civilization' and that we don't have to wait umpteen billion years to do so. Thanks again Douglas for your contribution to this site.
Nov 13, 1997
Very interesting discussion. From my perspective, it is first of all
important to separate God from Religion. I believe in God. Religion
is our best explanation of God. This is why there are three major
religions all devoted to worship of the same God. Unfortunately, God is
beyond our comprehension. We cannot know the whole of God. What we
can see, hear, feel, smell, and taste are manifestations of this
physical universe created by God. God set the rules. Science is
trying to understand those rules, much the same as religion is trying
to understand the rules.
As for intelligent life on other planets, how narrow minded an
interpretation by many "religious zealots" that God created life only
on Earth! Life evolved on our planet as an outgrowth of the physical
laws established by God. The fact that we are conscious of our existence
is another outgrowth of those physical laws. The Human Soul is similarly
an outgrowth of laws established by God, but not understood (yet?) by
scientists. Anyone who has ever looked through a telescope at the
night sky realizes that our universe is vast beyond our ability to
comprehend. God is vaster yet. How can we ever hope to understand
everything about God?
Nov 13, 1997
What I would like to know is, why do most people (whether they be
religious or scientifically prone) seem to feel that they have all
of the explanations? How can we as a mortal and limited species
have all of the answers about the universe its creation? In fact,
why must we know the answers to these questions that we cannot
possibly understand right now? I understand the need for knowledge
and the need for learning but why must we have a need to be right?
Clearly we have no idea if there is a being of supreme power. There
probably is but for all we know it is mankind combined with other
alien races who creates the universe in the end of time or shall I
say the beginning of the circle. But we don't know that either.
I concede that there probably is a race of beings that created the universe
and that certainly if there were we are of no interest to them... there are
likely much more fascinating creatures in the universe than one on some
small blue planet struggling to understand why it's delusions of grander
that once worked hundreds of years ago no longer are enough to suffice.
I will submit only to that fact that the church has provided many people with
a reason to have morals and live their life. I feel that it only hinders us
in other areas as it's very nature is preventative of higher understanding
and individual thought. (If you would disagree with that statement than please
think about all of the times that the entire "mass" of people you are around
chant "and also with you" or some other unthinking forced comment)
I think that everyone should just watch "The Life of Brian" that explains it.
Nov 15, 1997
Well, I could tell you about my life, but I'll stick to the topic. #
You say that we are a limited species. Maybe in some way
we are, but if were not then it's people who say that we are limited
who actually hold us back. # Some people believe in the pursuit of
happiness. This is a bit selfish in my opinion. Many others believe
in the pursuit of truth. And it is this that motivates people to
know everything, including the (non) existence of god. If a god
(creator) does exists, then it would not have a stronger relation
to humans than it would to every other atom in the universe. We are
not more special than anything else, including the chairs we sit on.
Everything else in this universe, including extraterrestrials, would
be subject to the same god. But why must we distinguish god? Maybe
god IS the laws of nature.
Nov 16, 1997
Contact was a movie.(period) It was meant as entertainment. If you
choose to take it beyond that, well, wonderful, at least something has
turned on what should have been on inside you all along. This is a
good thing, don't get me wrong. It's just that there are many, many
different books/movies/poems/events/sunsets that could have evoked
this response from you.
Brian, I think you make a very good point with the idea that every
atom is sacred and "everything" is god. Some of us do believe this.
Although, I don't think that calling it god is exactly appropriate,
perhaps sacred is a better term. Religion does not need a church,
and I don't know if this qualifies as agnostic or not. But it does
leave room for both science and intelligent aliens. I am a scientist,
but that does not mean that I have no faith. I believe in the physics
that surround me in everyday life and the "supernatural" that I have
seen on occassion.
And I agree with one of the prior notes talking about a comparative
intelligence. Have you ever considered the close comparison between
humans and ants? There are workers, breeders, providers, defenders,
aggressors and even lay abouts in many ant societies. (I even read
that some ants milk a certain aphid for the euphoria causing substance
it excretes.) Doesn't that sum up human society? There is no way to
say that an intelligent species is necessarily defined by how they
change their environment (ants do as well if not better than we do in
this aspect.) or even how they overcome their instincts as in Dune, or
do you think there is?
Who is to say that intelligence isn't defined simply by peaceful
coexistence? Which, if aliens were capable of communicating, would
almost certainly exclude humans from contact. And who is to say that
we would even recognize any signal from an alien species? Perhaps, if
contact was feasible, it would be more akin to either Star Trek IV or
Sea Quest, in that we are not the oldest intelligence. A signal sent
considering more than a couple thousand years would not be addressed
to humans. Why are we so egocentric?
There are too many things on this page I would like to respond to;
perhaps I'll try again later.
Nov 29, 1997
I just saw the movie two days ago, and yesterday I bought the book as soon as possible, and I'm reading it right now. "Contact" is simply the most fascinating movie I've ever seen, and it asked some of the big questions that I had been wondering about already before I saw it.
IS THERE A GOD? The first 15 years of my life I declared myself a total non-believer, because there was no proof that some kind of god should exist, but in the last few years I've been wondering: How can we be sure that there is or isn't one or more supreme beings? We can't. Therefore, the big question is, which possibility is most likely to be true? This is the point that separates religious people and atheists. AND I TRULY DON'T KNOW. I think that when people feel joy or sadness because of something that happened, they have to have someone to thank/blame, because they can't figure out why that thing happened to them. Some people call it God. Some call it Fate. Maybe that's the same thing. It's all about not being able to take responsibility. Maybe we don't control our own lives. Maybe we do. If you can't reach the girl you love, you may blame yourself, or you may blame Destiny. If a friend of yours dies, it's the same.
I think that if there really is some kind of god, then IT ISN'T a specific one.
IT ISN'T a He, and it isn't a She either.
But, on the other hand, how can I be sure? Who knows? I don't, and I'd like to hear what somebody else thinks about it. Please mail me: roja@post9.tele.dk
Thanks.
I'd like to add my opinion on some basic things, and in this first mail I'll concentrate on the subject:
You may say that I have a double standard of morality, or you may call me a false believer, because I am never sure if I believe in something or not - because I'm not sure if it exists...
When I am afraid or worried that something bad should happen, I pray to God - just to be sure that IF he existed, he would save me or my family. But, on the other hand, when someone tell me that the true and only God created the Earth in seven days, I don't believe them.
Anyway, I don't like fanatic religious people. As you can see in the movie "Contact", a very religious man blows up the first Machine because he thinks that he is saving the world by doing it. The same kind of things happen everyday all around the world. We all know the fanatic Muslims in Algeria or Israel, where innocent people are killed just because of a question of religion, and some Christians are just as bad.
IT ISN'T the God of Christianity, it isn't the Allah of Islam, and it isn't the specific god of any other religions.
IT DIDN'T create the world in literally seven days.
IT DIDN'T have a son that could walk on water or bring people back from the dead... Important: I'm not denying the possible existence of Jesus, I just don't think that he was divine!
IT DIDN'T give Moses ten commands... But some of them show a pretty good view of life, and whoever wrote them down was a good person!
IT DIDN'T create the human being to rule over the Earth or over any other species.
IT ISN'T up in the sky in some sort of Heaven sitting on a cloud.
Maybe the god is in within yourself, and it is only what you want it to be. I believe that no SPECIFIC religion is THE RIGHT ONE, but every single one of them has some good ideas and intentions. Most of them have both a bright and a dark side - if you take them to literally. Therefore, don't prejudice any religion. For instance, don't prejudice Islam or Christianity, just because 0,1 % of the Muslims or Christians are fanatic! THEY have misunderstood something, but that doesn't mean that the whole religion is bad - there may be some useful things in it.
RBP - a wonderer...
Dec 10, 1997
> What do you think about the movie?
Loved it.
> How does it compare with the book?
It left out a lot. Why did the machine have only one occupant
instead of five? And why no reference to the "pi" message?
> What do you think about science and religion? Are they compatible?
I believe thay are compatible, but also independent of one another
> Can you prove the existence of God?
No. It is strictly a matter of faith.
> Should you prove the existence of God?
No, since one's faith does not necessarily require objective proof.
> What do you think about faith?
See above.
> Do you think we will ever make contact with another world with
intelligent life?
Not enough information to determine.
> What about intelligent life on other planets?
What about it?
> Are they out there?
Possibly. Not enough info at present.
> Did God create them?
See above.
> What do you think that they would be like?
Not likely to resemble us at all
> Kind and benevolent?
One would hope so.
> Too advanced to consider us worth while?
Probably.
Dec 10, 1997
From what I know about astronomers and the like most do not claim to be a religious authority. Instead most maintain that God is non-provable by science therefore it not considered a scientific notion. I wish people in our society could separate the two and learn about our universe without being threatened or always trying to make a connection or reference to religion. Science is pure and raw it does not deal with "beliefs" or "faith". I have a feeling that if intelligent life does exist that it probably would not be to interested in us especially if they are years more developed than us. To them we may be like what is being found on Mars. Some type of simple life form. Also I have a hard time understanding why certain people believe the government is hiding UFOs in Area 51. If UFOs really did land on earth then wouldn't someone think that the hundreds/thousands of astronomers on this planet would pick up on their signals or even make contact with them? We humans are bizarre. We are just intelligent enough to realize the more we find out the more we don't know. I have not seen the movie Contact as of yet but I am a fan of Carl Sagan!
Dec 13, 1997
Dec 14, 1997
Contact made me stop in my track of thought and say, "Humans don't have all the answers and never will, but they sure can try to find them." Science is not the knowledge itself, but the quest for knowledge. But when our body of knowledge stops, religion takes over. There is a God, and He is not a living being in the natural sense. Our proof of this is stated perfectly in the book Contact. Pi is the "Artist's Signature" of the Universe. It runs through everything great and small.
All through history, people have created religions to explain the unexplainable: Creation of man, the Universe, and human values. God has shown Himself in the form of many things in the Universe, not just in human form. If there has been anything that we have learned in our long history, it is that everything is different. Therefore, God exists in a form that humans or any other being cannot comprehend. I myself believe that I belong to no religion, since each one has discrepancies made by people without all the knowledge. But the underlying theme in every religion is still constant--there is a God.
Dec 15, 1997
For years, I have believed that science and religion go hand in hand.
Creationists swear that evolution did not happen and Evolutionists think
that creationists are fools. I am of course generalizing both sides
for the sake of the argument. What I believe is that Evolution and Creation
happened together. I know for a fact that there is a passage in the
bible that says something to the effect, "What is time to God? A day to God
could be a thousand years to us." I unfortunately do not know the passage
number or the book that it can be found in. The important thing is that
if we take the above scenario, then God would have created the earth in
6000 years. And if a day to Him is longer, then that would be even more evidence of my belief. Both sides of the argument have said that you can't believe in
one if you believe in the other. I disagree highly.
I really enjoyed the movie Contact. A very important question was posed that I think should be
addressed. If we indeed ever make contact with another life form (if we
haven't already), who should we send to greet them, a scientist or a Christian?
Dec 16, 1997
As a Christian who is enamored by all of God's creation, especially the cosmos, I was not threatened at all by this wonderful movie. In fact, I was amazed to see how much credibility the story gave to religious faith, whether intentionally or not. The irony of Contact is that the scientist proves, in the end, that even science is a faith.
"Nature is mortal; we shall outlive her. When all the suns and nebulae have passed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol, but it is the symbol Scripture invites me to use. We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendor which she fitfully reflects. And in there, in beyond Nature, we shall eat of the tree of life." C.S.Lewis, 1949.
Dec 19, 1997
I don't know if this has been said because I haven't got the time to
read it all, but... I don't believe anyone can deny that the teachings
of Jesus and the Bible if followed correctly, can make you a better
person. What is taught through the Bible is good things that would
make a better society. So, I ask you this: If you spend your life
following Jesus and his teachings, and it turns out that he's not real,
what really have you lost? If you spend your life believing science
and Jesus is real, you've lost everything.
Just my 2 cents...
Dec 20, 1997
Dec 21, 1997
I haven't read everyone's thoughts yet (you're right, this page IS too
big, but it's great, so I don't really mind! :-) ) so forgive me if I
repeat some things that have already been said. I just wanted to say
that I don't think religion is only about believing things without any
proof. I rather see it as "needing" to believe in something, and needing
to find answers. Where science doesn't have all the answers, here comes
religion, entirely created by men. That does not mean I don't
believe in a God (which I still haven't found yet, science or not).
I just think both science and religion are answers to the same need
of knowing where we come from: one has it easy and can provide real
answers, while the other one must rely entirely on faith.
Dec 23, 1997
Once again I am reminded that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. Faith by definition means to believe in something un-provable, so to those like Christian Johnson who demand proof there is not much to say (except thank you Christian for a very well written entry).
I believe that it is possible to be a lover of truth and a believer in God. In fact the truth that science is approaching is already known by God. Like all light and truth, the knowledge that science contains came from God. The glory, power and essence of God is intelligence. Even theories as cold and harsh as natural selection contain truth that God already knows.
There is a God given desire in each of us to understand truth. That fire burns hotter in some than in others, but it is there, and the reason that it is there is so that we will seek our creator out, or in other words so that we will find truth. All of us sooner or later have to grapple with the question of God and this is by design. It is the love of God that allows natural selection to occur. It is that same love that gives us the freedom to choose to believe whatever truths have been placed before us. Faith demands that we come to know God with an initial blind leap. Actually it is not a leap, it's more like a baby step. Just having a small desire to believe will allow us to be taught by a higher power, but because of the principle of freedom the truth of God will never be forced upon us. We just have to be willing to take that first step.
When I look through a telescope and see dust lanes in M31 I marvel at its beauty and I marvel (or worship) the power that created it. It is wonderful to have science begin to understand the truth of God.
Dec 23, 1997
The questions that have been asked on this page are as old as the ability to understand them. Everyone has asked themselves these questions and none of us have been able to provide a sound response. I know of no explanation of reality that fully explains what we know to be the definition of the word. Perhaps we should not be impatient enough to need all of the answers to these questions immediately.
I find many of the entries on this page rather closed minded. First of all, because I have made it clear in previous messages that I am a strong believer in science I would like to mention to many of those out there who would also believe in science that religion is a very broad spectrum and that just because a few of them believe the world was created in a week and that Adam was the first man doesn't mean they all believe that. But to those who are religious I would say, the reason that everything in life is an intricate and tangled web of beauty and marvel has nothing to do with the existence of a god but with the existence of necessity. Others would say that emotions are a thing not explainable by science, I disagree with them as well, human emotions have very real and practical reasons (as do our reactions to music and art).
I would also like to point out that humans have something that we don't know exists anywhere else on earth, and that is the ability and desire to learn and be creative coupled with the all important knowledge of a broader range of possibilities. We are a very special phenomenon, as is all life, apparently such a thing is few and far between in the universe as we know it. Scientists did not take little interest in the fact that there was life on Mars. I WAS BLOWN AWAY WHEN I FOUND OUT. It changed everything, and proved undeniably that we are not alone. That small bit of life was groundbreaking, it changed everything. We, being as little advanced as we are, I hypothesize would be of much interest to beings of other worlds. Which brings me to another subject I would like to speak about.
It very well may be that if there were aliens that they would look much like us. True there would be differences dealing with the size of their planet and types of radiation involved, but think carefully here, many of the plants on our world look very similar as do most animals (yea , we're animals). We look similar because it is what is required of us, and the requirements would be fairly similar for others in our universe in a similar situation (you know that life supporting one). Two eyes in the front of the head is my favorite example, most animals that have risen to the top of the food chain have them, it helps them eat. Also, dealing with their intelligence. You must remember that for this part of the universe, the matter has all been around for a relatively similar amount of time, so any other civilization out there would have to be "fairly" close to our intelligence fairly is being used very loosely here.
I don't know all of the answers to all of the questions that can be asked, I wish I did. I do know that it is unhealthy to think that you know all of the answers, which I see far too many people both religious and otherwise doing. I feel somehow though that we have a destiny to fulfill, a certain amount of knowledge that is key to our importance in the universe, an importance which we have yet to determine.
There are some out there who wish to find the truth, and there are some out there who wish to find a convenient explanation. Each of them clings tightly to their findings.
With the question regarding who we should into space when we do make contact,
(please notice I say when, not if), I personally think that it should
be a scientist. I don't understand how the human race could possibly
send someone based on Christianity rather than science. Who says that
Christianity is the ultimate religion therefore making a person of that
belief the one to represent all of human kind. I think it should
definitely be a scientist, period. I'm only 14, but I know the person
that I want representing my home. My dream is to become an astronomer,
and I hope that someday I'll become an astronomer and make contact. I
would love to be the person to go, but I think the important issue is
that the person is a scientist.
Jan 4, 1998
Does god exist? How do we define god?
The movie contact is a very complex movie, in this movie science
contradicts science, very clever. She makes a comment about
existence of aliens by saying a century ago no body could imagine
we could be traveling to other worlds or we could be having a
conversation from other side of the world, these would have sounded
like magic a century ago, now it is part of every day life. On the
other hand she was arguing god does not exist simply because there
is no evidence.
I am a biologist; therefore I believe in evolution cosmic wide. I can
not say god does not exist because what I do not understand, I can't
reject. On the other hand if there is no proof of god how do I accept
it? What science has taught me is very simple, study and analyze
to understand and do not accept or reject what you do not understand.
My dilemma is: How is it possible to analyze what does not have
a existence as we humans understand.
Jan 7, 1998
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, along with some reading on evolution, has prompted this entry. It is another long one so I added a link: Here it is.
Jan 14, 1998
Keith,
I just read your thoughts on Hawking's Brief History of Time. It's been on my "to read" list for a long time, so I can't comment directly on the book. But everything I've heard Hawking say leads me to believe you have the right idea.
A couple of corresponding thoughts:
Second, in the instant that creation happened (however it happened) time was set into motion. Therefore, before creation God existed in a timeless state, since time is the measure of the movement of creation. I believe as the Bible teaches that God will one day call an end to creation as we know it. I wonder, will this usher in a new creation, one that we cannot comprehend, one that is outside of time again?
Also, here's my favorite commentary on the stars from the Bible (these words are almost 3000 years old):
First, doesn't a crucial part of the miracle of the incarnation (God becoming man) lie in the fact that He who existed outside of time and space submitted himself to the boundaries of time and space on planet Earth. If this is true, then Jesus Christ really "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, [and was] made in human likeness" (Philippians 2:6-7). This is incomprehensible!
What do you think?
Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. Isaiah 40:26
Jan 20, 1998
Hi Keith,
I enjoyed reading your entry regarding "A Brief History of Time", Darwin's theory of natural selection and how they relate to the role of God in creation.
There are several books out there on the subjects of theoretical physics and cosmology which refer to the concept of "God". This term when used by most physicists isn't referring exclusively to the Christian concept we all know, but usually refers instead to the force of creation and the mechanics involved.
As with all other great revolutions in human thinking, the theory of evolution by natural selection has been greatly misunderstood by laymen and scientists alike. One of the most prevalent misconceptions of Darwinian evolution is that it relies solely upon purely random events. This idea is illustrated by examples such as Paley's watch in the desert, a hurricane assembling a Boeing 747, and the famous monkeys typing all the works of Shakespeare by accident. Each of these ideas show that within the confines of finite time, random events cannot create enormously complex structures such as bacterium or humans. The vital component missing from these illustrations - and from most misunderstandings of evolution - is what Darwin called "natural selection".
Natural selection is the "blind watchmaker". It is the magic that allows change within species. Without natural selection very little would have ever come from life. While it is true that random mutations provide the required raw material of evolution, it is natural selection, which brings order out of chaos - new species from old.
All offspring look somewhat different from their parents. This difference can be external such as the shape of the nose or it can be internal such as an increased metabolism due to a tiny change within the cellular machinery. These new variations can arise by miscopying of genetic information during cell division or simply from a new blend of the existing genetic information inherited from the parents. These tiny changes may be detrimental, in which case the offspring either dies immediately or is otherwise less fit and therefore leaves less offspring. Every now and then, a mutation occurs which is actually beneficial to its owner. In this case, the new variety gives its owner an advantage over the other members of the species and therefore it leaves more offspring (which also contain the new variation). Over time, the entire species will contain the new gene. Evolution has occurred.
We have a brain, which is equipped to understand timescales measured in decades. It is difficult for us to comprehend 100,000 years. It is even more difficult for us to comprehend 3,000,000,000 years. Many things which seem impossible to us based on our limited timescale become probable and even inevitable over 3 billion years, especially when natural selection is included.
Most scientists believe that the early earth was once covered with the building blocks of life (In fact, even the interstellar clouds are filled with amino acids). Given a nice warm ocean, plenty of energy, and an abundance of the chemical precursors to life, is it not possible that over a hundred million years or so a molecule with the ability to make copies of itself may have been assembled? Still not convinced? Don't forget that the universe contains approximately a trillion galaxies each containing approximately 500 billion stars. Countless other worlds must have had similar conditions to the early earth. Given all this, I personally feel that life was inevitable.
The scope of natural selection is not limited to biological organisms. Even if it turns out that natural selection is not responsible for the evolution of life on earth, it is still an immensely useful idea. Programs have been written which mimic the process of natural selection. These programs are used by engineers to develop new structural designs. Mathematicians have used them to find answers to complex algorithms. Many cosmologists are applying the theory of natural selection to explain the origin of the universe. Natural selection is a very powerful idea. It is simple and beautiful - hallmarks of a great theory.
As great as natural selection is, it could still turn out to be wrong. Scientists don't "believe" in natural selection (they certainly don't have "faith" in it either). They merely recognize that it is the best explanation for the existence of life that we have so far.