Jack Chick mocked yet again, con­tin­u­ing #2, begin­ning with #1.

One of the eter­nal ques­tions faced by reli­gion, phi­los­o­phy and sci­ence is where did it all come from?

This is a damned good ques­tion and should occupy any think­ing person’s mind from time to time. It’s one of those queries that may well never be answered, because we’re within the sys­tem that has caused us to be. In order to really under­stand it in all its com­plex­ity, we might have to be entirely beyond it — but the idea of being beyond the entire uni­verse raises another set of equally unan­swer­able dilemmas.

So we come to the ques­tion of prob­a­bil­ity — or, more accu­rately, improb­a­bil­ity. Which sounds less improb­a­ble to you?

1. The cos­mos came into exis­tence by a process we don’t entirely under­stand just yet, but we think that in the first few moments of its emer­gence most of the laws of physics and mat­ter we con­sider de rigeur now were some­how coa­lesced into a rea­son­ably pre­dictable set of steady states. Following those sim­ple rules all the heav­ier ele­ments past hydro­gen fused in the hearts of ancient stars, and some of those ele­ments coa­lesced into com­pounds which devel­oped a means to remain inter­nally coher­ent and, even­tu­ally, a way to repli­cate their pat­terns with a rea­son­able degree of verisimil­i­tude. However, the processes involved in that repli­ca­tion were so com­plex that occa­sional errors crept in, some of which caused repli­ca­tion fail­ure but most of which had no appar­ent effect — until the set­ting changed some­how, forc­ing cer­tain erro­neous pat­terns into a state of greater suc­cess at repli­ca­tion. After sev­eral mil­lion years of such errors and suc­cesses, even­tu­ally some of the universe’s ele­ments devel­oped an emer­gent prop­erty called con­scious­ness, con­tin­gent entirely upon a niche posi­tion in an oth­er­wise entirely-​​reactive and non­sto­chas­tic field. Of course, this cur­rent under­stand­ing could well change with fur­ther iter­a­tions of dis­cov­ery and refine­ment; sci­ence is a lot like a cal­cu­lus approach to a limit, always work­ing toward com­plete under­stand­ing but always baf­flingly, tan­ta­liz­ingly just falling short — which is frus­trat­ing to many, but beau­ti­ful to some.

2. God did it. Now eat the cracker, drink the wine and stop ask­ing so many questions.

Episode 3: “But a mon­key can’t redeem the sins of the world!”

Darwinism: The Devil's Religion

Darwinism: The Devil's Religion

Darwinism: The Devil's Religion


No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.