Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

[Magical Wand]

How’s that? I “cause” what I build. I’m no “law of physics”. It takes some degree of intelligence to accomplish my projects.

I'll use Aristotelian terms to help you here. An efficient cause is that which changes an object in some way by exercising its causal power. For example, a very violent hurricane is the efficient cause of the destruction of houses. A material cause, on the other hand, is the thing that is changed. For instance, the material cause of a chair is a tree. It is the thing out of which something is made of.

Notice, though, that many things can be efficient causes. I just gave one example (a hurricane). And there is no evidence it requires any degree of intelligence to destroy houses.

Regarding your question about the laws of physics. You (and the hurricane) can just cause something because the aggregates of atoms you're made of follow the laws of physics. And one law of physics is the law of causation. In other words, the same way your atoms follow the Pauli exclusion principle and the laws of thermodynamics, they follow the law of causation. That's why you're able to be the efficient cause of anything.

The “Big Bang” was a real event, from the evidence we’ve uncovered. Therefore, the premise is flawed.

I fully accept the Big Bang theory. However, it is not evidence of an absolute beginning. I can quote more than 20 recent books by prominent cosmologists agreeing with my claim. In fact, I had the opportunity to (briefly) talk to some of the most prestigious cosmologists alive today about this topic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Simply”, huh?

Nah, sorry...genetic mutations rarely produce novel, functional information. And if mutations do create a different process, the organism always loses function in another. The LTEE started by Lenski is a good example of this.

Producing novel function is what you get from the variation resulting from mutation. Negative function may not be protected by selection, but it too is novel. Tradeoffs, where they happen do not suspend novelty.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

An efficient cause is that which changes an object in some way by exercising its causal power. For example, a very violent hurricane is the efficient cause of the destruction of houses.

I don’t think the quoted scientist would include a hurricane as a cause of “functional design”! Would you say it is?

A material cause, on the other hand, is the thing that is changed. For instance, the material cause of a chair is a tree.

No, it is the source of it. It took intelligence to build it!

it is not evidence of an absolute beginning. I can quote more than 20 recent books by prominent cosmologists agreeing with my claim. In fact, I had the opportunity to (briefly) talk to some of the most prestigious cosmologists alive today about this topic.

That’s fine, I guess, for you. But most cosmologists, I’m sure like most scientists, are **married** to materialism! They have to interpret all evidence through naturalistic causes! (You get that, right?) They can’t afford even one facet of evidence to have an explanation supporting an intelligence behind it! That’s their liability, not mine. I look at their interpretations through the lens of their liability. So do many others, including Drs. Ross, Meyer, Axe, Behe, Wells, or those like the scientists in the OP.

Have a good one!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Producing novel function is what you get from the variation resulting from mutation. Negative function may not be protected by selection, but it too is novel. Tradeoffs, where they happen do not suspend novelty.

No, at times maybe not… but its a trade off, IOW, it’s curtailed. It has limits!

 

[Magical Wand]

I don’t think the quoted scientist would include a hurricane as a cause of “functional design”! Would you say it is?

That's not pertinent, though. That has nothing to do with the question of whether an efficient cause must be intelligent or not to be an efficient cause.

That’s fine, I guess, for you. But most cosmologists, I’m sure like most scientists, are **married** to materialism! They have to interpret all evidence through naturalistic causes! (You get that, right?) They can’t afford even one facet of evidence to have an explanation supporting an intelligence behind it! That’s their liability, not mine. I look at their interpretations through the lens of their liability.

So, it seems to me you're saying it's all a matter of interpretation. The cosmologist interprets the evidence as saying the universe may be eternal. The apologist, on the other hand, interprets the same evidence as saying the universe had a beginning.

But that's not the case at all. The apologist ignores some evidence in order to make sense of his little story, while the cosmologist does not. So, even if it is all "interpretation" (as liberal post-modernists like to say), it is a bad interpretation given it doesn't take some information into account.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's not pertinent, though. That has nothing to do with the question of whether an efficient cause must be intelligent or not to be an efficient cause.

No offense, but you don’t seem to grasp the flaw…why not?

Do you call a hurricane, ‘efficient’? I don’t. Destruction is not efficient. And it doesn’t apply to the subject discussed by those scientists. We’re talking about functional order. Hurricanes are inefficient for producing order.

 

[PureX]

I'm glad I found your post.

So, I honestly think there are several problems with these philosophically naive/unsophisticated scientists' reasons for believing in God.

First, one said there is evidence everything he observes has a cause. However, I can grant that for the sake of argument (ignoring most interpretations of quantum mechanics) and that still doesn't lead one to God for innumerous reasons. (1) The law of causation is a law of physics. The laws of physics are regularities of nature. But in the absence of nature, it doesn't make sense to say there is a law of physics. Therefore, while the law applies to the universe once it exists, it doesn't apply to it in its absence.

But aren't you assuming, here, that 'God' must be subject to the laws of It's own creation? On what are you basing this assumption? If 'God' is the 'first cause', then it would be more logical to assume that God is not subject to the laws of cause and effect, as all that God created, is.

That means the universe could come into existence without a cause given that there was no law of causation prior to its existence. (2) If the universe is past-eternal, then it doesn't need any cause, since only what begins to exist has a cause. Indeed, it doesn't make any logical sense to say something that never began to exist had a cause of its existence (it is a logical contradiction).

Yes, and we call that 'un-caused, cause', God.

Ergo, unless this guy provides reasons for believing the universe had a beginning, there is no reason to accept the conclusion that it had a cause.

We already know that the universe had a beginning, and that everything that exists within it originated there and then. You are trying to claim that the beginning was not 'caused' when it caused all that exists as we know it. Yet in doing so you are implying the necessity for some transcendent state or condition apart from or beyond existence as we know it. You are in effect actually arguing FOR 'God', not against it. As that transcendence beyond our comprehension would be a close definition to what most people refer to as 'God'.

Second, he said the laws are too stable. But how does the existence of an organizer follows from that? When has it been established uniformity requires something conscious? How can he prove that?

How can it be otherwise? Abject chaos cannot logically or actually produce anything but abject chaos. It cannot even be said to 'exist' in and of itself, because existence is an expression of order. It is the recognition of order, in fact. So the real question becomes where did the order come from, upon which all that exists is manifesting? Order is not chaos. And it is not "accidental" because it cannot spring spontaneously from abject chaos. Nothing can. The real origin of existence is the origin of order. THAT is what preceded causation. And THAT is why so many humans presume 'God' to be an expression of intelligence, or of conscious purpose.

 

[We Never Know]

“The law of causation is a law of physics.”

How’s that?

I “cause” what I build. I’m no “law of physics”.
It takes some degree of intelligence to accomplish my projects.

The “Big Bang” was a real event, from the evidence we’ve uncovered. Therefore, this 2nd premise is flawed.

If everything has a cause and a god is the cause, what caused a god?
If a god is uncaused then we know uncaused things are possible.

 

[PureX]

If everything has a cause and a god is the cause, what caused a god?
If a god is uncaused then we know uncaused things are possible.

Everything within the realm of what we know to exist has a cause. But the realm of what we know to exist is not all there is to know, or all that exists (because we keep learning new things, and discovering new aspects of existence). So we do not know the boundaries of causation in relation to what can and cannot exist. To us, any outcome relative to existential causation is equally possible, and impossible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

“The law of causation is a law of physics.” How’s that? I “cause” what I build. I’m no “law of physics”. It takes some degree of intelligence to accomplish my projects.

You are the cause, not the law. The law is describing your place in the cause-and-effect change that results, namely, the physical cause that preceded and led to the observed effect. That's physics, because it describes that regular relationships in physical reality, which, as physical objects subject to the laws of physics, we all are a part of.

Do you call a hurricane, ‘efficient’? I don’t. Destruction is not efficient.

I think you're using the common definition of efficient - maximizing productivity and minimizing waste. This use from Aristotle's philosophy has a different definition: " An efficient cause consists of things apart from the thing being changed, which interact so as to be an agency of the change. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter acting on wood." Change efficient cause to effect's cause, or the action that preceded the effect that led to it, and the meaning in this context will be clearer.

The hurricane is the preceding cause of the effect experienced as destruction, hence the efficient cause of that destruction, even though that effect would not be called efficient in the usual sense of the word. Hopefully clean-up and rebuilding will be efficient in the sense most people mean, but even if it is inefficient, it will be the efficient cause of whatever results from it.

The “Big Bang” was a real event, from the evidence we’ve uncovered. Therefore, this 2nd premise is flawed.

I'm curious that you accept the Big Bang theory, but (I believe) reject the theory of evolution (if I recall correctly, you advocate creationism). These two theories are analogous in that they describe the naturalisitic evolution of matter from a singularity and the tree of life from a single ancestral population. Why would God let matter evolve from a seed, but build life? Creationists often reject biological evolution as the sole source of biological diversity, so why not the universe as well for the same reason? What role does a deity other than one like the deity of deism as creator and designer of the singularity, who then became uninvolved in the subsequent evolution of the fundamental forces and particles into galaxies of stars, have in the Big Bang?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, at times maybe not… but its a trade off, IOW, it’s curtailed. It has limits!

All life and living has limits and tradeoffs. Something can be novel and not exempt from that.

 

[tas8831]

Fallacy of appeal to authority.

I thought this was informative. It just doesn’t give their names, but each one explains why they believe in a Creator.
None are YEC’s....I felt it necessary to point that out.

“Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature. They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came about by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.

Some of these have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are convinced that the God of the Bible is the Designer and Builder of the material universe. Why have they arrived at that conclusion? Awake! asked some of them. You may find their comments interesting.*

“Unfathomable Complexities of Life”

▪ WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG

PROFILE: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator.

“Everything I Observe Has a Cause”

▪ BYRON LEON MEADOWS

PROFILE: I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. Presently I am involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather, and other planetary phenomena. I am an elder in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Kilmarnock, Virginia, area.

In my research I often work with the principles of physics. I seek to understand how and why certain things happen. In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause. I believe that it is scientifically reasonable to accept that God is the original cause of all things in nature. The laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.

If this conclusion is that obvious, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Might it be that evolutionists look at their evidence with presupposed conclusions? This is not unheard of among scientists. But observation, no matter how convincing, does not presuppose conclusion. For example, a person researching laser physics could insist that light is a wave, similar to a sound wave, because light often behaves like a wave. However, his conclusion would be incomplete because the evidence also indicates that light behaves as a group of particles, known as photons. Similarly, those who insist that evolution is a fact base their conclusions on only part of the evidence, and they allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way that they view the evidence.

I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened. For example, would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly 6? If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.

“Something Cannot Come From Nothing”

▪ KENNETH LLOYD TANAKA

PROFILE: I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I spend about 70 hours every month promoting Bible reading.

I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be.

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense.

“The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell”

▪ PAULA KINCHELOE

PROFILE: I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.

As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.

My study of the Bible has revealed who the Creator is—namely, Jehovah God. I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer but also a kind and loving Father who cares for me. The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.

Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe. This can be a confusing time for them. If they believe in God, this is a test of faith. But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities. I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.

“The Elegant Simplicity of the Laws”

▪ ENRIQUE HERNÁNDEZ-LEMUS

PROFILE: I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

In addition, when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me, these laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician—they are like the signature of a Master Artist.

People are often surprised when I tell them that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sometimes they ask me how I can believe in God. Their reaction is understandable, since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs. However, the Bible encourages us to use our “thinking ability.” (Proverbs 3:21) All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible, convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.

............................

The views presented by the experts in this article do not necessarily reflect those of their employers.”

Source: Why We Believe in a Creator — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

(Article is from 2006; it changes the stats a little. For example, Dr. Lönnig now has over 40 years of plant mutagenic experience.)

 

[Magical Wand]

But aren't you assuming, here, that 'God' must be subject to the laws of It's own creation? On what are you basing this assumption? If 'God' is the 'first cause', then it would be more logical to assume that God is not subject to the laws of cause and effect, as all that God created, is.

Wrong. The part you're quoting has nothing to do with God obeying the laws of causation. Read again and more carefully this time.

Yes, and we call that 'un-caused, cause', God.

You can call it whatever you want. But unless you provide some argument to substantiate that, the past-eternal self-existent substrate could be the inanimate physical universe.

We already know that the universe had a beginning, and that everything that exists within it originated there and then.

I don't know it had a beginning. But feel free to present an argument to prove that.

You are trying to claim that the beginning was not 'caused' when it caused all that exists as we know it. Yet in doing so you are implying the necessity for some transcendent state or condition apart from or beyond existence as we know it. You are in effect actually arguing FOR 'God', not against it. As that transcendence beyond our comprehension would be a close definition to what most people refer to as 'God'.

I don't understand what you're saying. If the alleged beginning had no cause, then no "transcendental" substance is necessary to cause the physical world. That seems obvious to me.

How can it be otherwise? Abject chaos cannot logically or actually produce anything but abject chaos.

Even if that's correct, there is no reason to believe the universe is essentially chaotic. So, nothing chaotic has to produce order. And again, God must also be stable/orderly. He is not good today and evil tomorrow. What explains his uniformity? If it has no explanation, then there is no need to explain the uniformity of the natural world. If it is explained by non-conscious factors, then the order of the world can be explained in a similar way.

 

[Magical Wand]

You are the cause, not the law. The law is describing your place in the cause-and-effect change that results, namely, the physical cause that preceded and led to the observed effect. That's physics, because it describes that regular relationships in physical reality, which, as physical objects subject to the laws of physics, we all are a part of.

I think you're using the common definition of efficient - maximizing productivity and minimizing waste. This use from Aristotle's philosophy has a different definition: " An efficient cause consists of things apart from the thing being changed, which interact so as to be an agency of the change. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter acting on wood." Change efficient cause to effect's cause, or the action that preceded the effect that led to it, and the meaning in this context will be clearer.

The hurricane is the preceding cause of the effect experienced as destruction, hence the efficient cause of that destruction, even though that effect would not be called efficient in the usual sense of the word. Hopefully clean-up and rebuilding will be efficient in the sense most people mean, but even if it is inefficient, it will be the efficient cause of whatever results from it

You explained it very nicely.

 

[PureX]

Wrong. The part you're quoting has nothing to do with God obeying the laws of causation. Read again and more carefully this time.

I read just fine, thanks.

You can call it whatever you want. But unless you provide some argument to substantiate that, the past-eternal self-existent substrate could be the inanimate physical universe.

I DID provide a logical argument to support it. And neither one of us is going to "substantiate" anything related to this debate. Because neither one of us has a clue, or can have a clue what can or can't "exist" apart from or prior to what exists, now. We are trapped within what exists as we know of it. Period.

I don't know it had a beginning. But feel free to present an argument to prove that.

Of course you do, unless you deny the 'Big Bang' theory. It's true that's just a theory, but so are they all. That one seem to be the one that "works" for us at the moment.

I don't understand what you're saying. If the alleged beginning had no cause, then no "transcendental" substance is necessary to cause the physical world. That seems obvious to me.

Existence as we know had a beginning. what "existed" before that (whatever existence means in that context) is completely unknown and possibly completely unknowable to us. But there was a beginning. And everything that was begun, then, is the result of (therefor caused by) that beginning. So we naturally speculate about what caused the beginning. But, speculate is all we can do, because we are trapped within the existential result of that original 'cause'; the beginning of existence as we know it. So we cannot see beyond it in any "substantive" way.

Even if that's correct, there is no reason to believe the universe is essentially chaotic. So, nothing chaotic has to produce order. And again, God must also be stable/orderly. He is not good today and evil tomorrow. What explains his uniformity? If it has no explanation, then there is no need to explain the uniformity of the natural world. If it is explained by non-conscious factors, then the order of the world can be explained in a similar way.

The real question here is not of the "substance" of existence, but of the order. Because it's the order that creates all that exists; substance, relation, circumstance, all of it. The real question is the origin of that order. And because it is order, and that order results in a very complex expression of being, we also must consider the possibility of purpose in that order.

 

[Magical Wand]

I DID provide a logical argument to support it.

Well, then perhaps I'm blind. Because I didn't see any argument there.

Of course you do, unless you deny the 'Big Bang' theory. It's true that's just a theory, but so are they all. That one seem to be the one that "works" for us at the moment. Existence as we know had a beginning.

I addressed this here and here.

The real question here is not of the "substance" of existence, but of the order. Because it's the order that creates all that exists; substance, relation, circumstance, all of it. The real question is the origin of that order.

Sheesh. You don't know what you're talking about. "It's the order that creates... substance." No! Order of what? What is ordered? Does nothing have order? No. Only something (namely, a substance) can have order or disorder. Therefore, order presupposes substance; order doesn't actualize existence/substance. Order is something the substance manifests.

order results in a very complex expression of being, we also must consider the possibility of purpose in that order.

That's just an assertion. In fact, complex order can arise out of simpler order. For example, very complex orderly biological mechanisms can ultimately arise from very simple orderly rules of Quantum Mechanics (which are thought to be fundamental). So, order is a very simple expression of substance.

I never understood this claim that order points to a designer, and I've read many books about apologetics by professional philosophers. Why is it that order can't simply be ultimately essential and natural? I simply don't get it. It is not at all logical or intuitive to me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If everything has a cause and a god is the cause, what caused a god?
If a god is uncaused then we know uncaused things are possible.

Scientists have already discovered the answer to this, by understanding the nature of energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy, proposed by mathematician Gabrielle Émilie du Châtelet, and tested by great scientists since (including Einstein), states that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another.

We can deduce from this truism, that energy has always existed in some form or another. Even prior to the Big Bang.

This explains God, His eternal nature (Isaiah 40:22), and as the “Superintellect“ who “monkeyed with physics”.

So let’s put this “who created God” supposed enigma, to rest, shall we?

 

[We Never Know]

Scientists have already discovered the answer to this, by understanding the nature of energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy, proposed by mathematician Gabrielle Émilie du Châtelet, and tested by great scientists since (including Einstein), states that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another.

We can deduce from this truism, that energy has always existed in some form or another. Even prior to the Big Bang.

This explains God, His eternal nature (Isaiah 40:22), and as the “Superintellect“ who “monkeyed with physics”.

So let’s put this “who created God” supposed enigma, to rest, shall we?

Sure. Energy can neither be created or destroyed. It just changes form. Therefore nothing has a cause, its simply just a change of form from something else.
I can live with that. Can you?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Therefore nothing has a cause, its simply just a change of form from something else.
I can live with that. Can you?

No, I can’t. All complex structures have a builder, from the Taj Mahal to an FA-117. Even Stonehenge.

But that wasn’t your question, was it? Don’t move the goalposts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I can’t. All complex structures have a builder, from the Taj Mahal to an FA-117. Even Stonehenge.

But that wasn’t your question, was it? Don’t move the goalposts.

All those are things built by builders we know and can demonstrate.

Does not being able to demonstrate that the universe and life had a creator mean that there is no creator?