> > > Actually, no, the idea is "they must have been built by > somebody" which is, AFAIK, widely believed to be the case. > On the other hand, I haven't yet heard (you may be about to > share) a theory that they came about by the random blowing of > winds over the desert sands -- and so then, why should the > incredibly more complex universe be explained that way? > >
It isn't explained that way. That's just a straw man that God-ists throw up to try and discredit scientific attempts to explain the origin of the universe. Trying to explain complexity by invoking a god - which must be more complex than its creation - explains nothing. It simply brings up a new requirement for an explanation of how the god/s came into existence. Science does not claim to know how the universe came into existence - and it is humble enough to admit that it doesn't know. But it can propose theories that are testable without requiring an infinite regress such as gods. But explaining the creation of the universe in terms of gods is equivalent to saying "it's turtles all the way down". You may be getting your arguments mixed up. Anti-evolutionists often think they've refuted evolution by making an analogy with a 747 being spontaneously assembled from the contents of a scrap yard. This is essentially the same as your idea of the pyramids arising spontaneously from a dust storm. However, as an argument against evolution it is seriously flawed, and shows a lack of understanding of the principles of evolution. -- Cheers, Bob
