From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
I submit to you that evolution is unprovable and I use the same line of
argument you would use to say a God is unprovable.
You didn't see a God create the universe and don't see a God. He hasn't
whispered personally in your ear to make himself manidfest to you.
But also, we didn't see evolution take place. We don't see concrete
evidence that it has taken place. There are more holes in the fossil
evidence than shards of bone. There is no example of a species changing from
one into another, that is provable as such and that can't be explained by
special creation.
It is an unproven theory to at least the same degree you consider God to be
unproven.
Tom C.
