INTRODUCTION Darwin, with his theory of evolution, would heavily disagree with the statement. Darwin believed that the universe developed naturally and without any kind of aid from a superior being. He used evidence of natural selection and primordial soup to prove that evolution was a legitimate theory and strongly believed it could apply to the rest of the universe. He showed, with strong evidence that we develop from single cell organisms, and continued to develop through time, adapted to the environment we were in, in order to survive.
THESIS In this essay I will defend the view that God may not the only explanation for the existence of life but that other explanations are also successful.
ARGUMENT A supporter of the statement might include William Paley, who used the analogy of the watch to support Anselm’s design argument in an attempt to prove that God exists through irreducible complexity. Paley’s analogy is the idea that you are walking on a beach, and you find a stone. You don’t consider this out of place, and can think of a logical explanation for why the stone has arrived on the beach. You continue to walk, when you come across an old fog watch, and due to the complexity of the watch, with all its cogs and such, you cannot explain a natural way for the watch to have arrived on the beach. You must then, therefore conclude that some sort of intelligent designer is involved. An individual possible of creating such an intricate and working device. He goes on to explain the watch represents the universe, which is designed so intelligently, with its eco system, possibility for sustaining human life (the goldilocks theory), seasons and working cosmos, all of which makes the earth possible to not only exist, but develop human life and allow it to successfully thrive on the planet. This therefore would imply Paley strongly believes that God created the universe, since it is too complex to have created itself, which makes it possible for life to exist. Therefore concluding God is the purpose for the existence of life. He would also be supported by philosophers such as Swinburne and Tennet, who would claim it is possible to imagine a universe that was chaotic, and one that was designed. And since our universe is not chaotic, due to the irreducible complexity, it must have therefore been designed.
They also developed the anthropic principle, which claims that if the world developed naturally, humans would have created everything in order to survive, and that would be their main primal instinct. However, we have developed things such as art and music, which we enjoy for pleasure, but are not necessary for existence or survival, therefore why would we have developed it? They conclude we didn’t, so it must be part of some larger design by a higher intelligence. The argument is also supported obviously by Anselm, who created the original argument. Claiming everything had a purpose in existence, and anything that didn’t, such as inanimate objects, could be given a purpose by being guided by a higher intelligence. He used the example of an archer, the arrow is inanimate, but if the archer aims it and fires it, it suddenly gains purpose. God represents the archer and the arrow represents the universe.
COUNTER ARGUMENT One of his most common sayings is “survival of the fittest”, and this is what he believed lead to our extreme adaptions. He had to adapt in order to progress onto land from the sea, we had to adapt to survive against predators which were harming our species, we had to adapt to a changing temperature and environment in the world, etc. This theory certainly seems to think it has explained the origin of life, and concludes there is therefore no need for a God. But, the theory of evolution doesn’t offer an explanation for the existence of the universe (although it might claim the big bang, which still doesn’t explain how existence started), it certainly can’t account for the existence of life as we know it today. Though some might claim, without being able to explain how the single cell organisms came into existence, everything that happened since then could have been a natural progression, while the actual origin life was a higher power.
COUNTER COUNTER ARGUMENT Aristotle believed in an idea of a prime mover. Aristotle’s four cause’s theory contained a cause named “the formal cause”; this is the cause which questions what created the substance in question. For example, if it was a chair, a carpenter would have brought it into existence. But, difficulty came when the example was something like a flower.
Since a flower is not man made, who brought it into existence is very difficult and complicated to explain. While Darwin might argue that the flower progressed and developed from cell organisms, and was in fact created naturally, Aristotle had other ideas. He created the prime mover as an explanation for anything which could not fit into the formal cause.
The prime mover is a force or being that lived outside of existence, and back at the beginning of the time, created a chain reaction that resulted in the world we have today. However, the prime mover disappeared as soon as this chain reaction was created, and does not stay around to influence the world as it is now. It is not a “God”, Aristotle would claim, since it is an impersonal being. This could be seen as a concordist view, since it incorporates the idea of a higher power, but also what science has discovered in terms of the development of the human race. Aristotle then has clearly claimed, a higher power is the only possible explanation for life to have come into existence. Most scientists, including Darwin probably, would claim Aristotle’s theory is just a “God gap” theory, using a being that there is no evidence for, and no possible way to discovered evidence for, to explain anything unexplainable, rather than attempting to discover the truth.
COUNTER ARGUMENT Richard Dawkins did a lot of work supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution, and concluded there was no God, which would therefore mean he did not believe the statement of God creating life to be true. Dawkin’s is also a keen supporter of the theory of evolution, and set about disproving many claims of irreducible complexity by explaining how they could have occurred through evolution. For instance, Isaac Newton said the complexity of the human eye was a perfect example of how the human body must be designed, as it works so well and is so impeccably designed, it is impossible for it to have happened by chance.
COUNTER COUNTER ARGUMENT However, Dawkin’s explained that the human eye developed as time went on in order to aid homosapian’s in survival on earth. He explained the eye started out as just a shell, in which very little could be seen, but this wasn’t necessary due to the human state at the time. As the creature develop, as did others, which eventually became predators of homosapian’s, leading to numerous deaths of homosapian’s. To help prevent this, the eye develop to present a clearer vision, so that predators could be recognised and therefore increase the creatures chances of escape and survival. The eye continued to progress, fortunately in the right manner, until the human eye we have today. Other animal’s eyes did not progress as successfully, however evolution cannot back track, and this was clearly a mistake in its development. It was by chance humans develop such a well working eye. This provides a scientific explanation for the irreducible complexity of the human eye, and does not require a higher power to aid its explanation. Therefore, Dawkin’s would conclude God is not the only explanation for life, and he definitely is not.
SYNOPTIC LINKS IN Buddhism the question of the origin of the universe was though a speculative question unhelpful to gaining enlightenment by the Buddha. Buddhists until recently have not had to intergrate the finding so modern science into their religious system. Until recently the Tibetian view that that there was a flat earth at the heart of which was mount Meru. The Dali Lama has worked hard to developing Budhissm into "a sciecne of the mind". In Buddhism, the question of the origin of the universe is closely linked to the concept of dependent origination or dependent arising. This concept asserts that everything arises in dependence upon causes and conditions, rather than having an independent, permanent existence.
One of the key texts in Buddhism that discusses dependent origination is the Paticca-samuppada, which states:
"When this is, that is;
This arising, that arises;
When this is not, that is not;
This ceasing, that ceases."
This passage suggests that everything arises and ceases in dependence upon other factors, and there is no fixed, permanent existence. This idea is echoed in the teachings of the Mahayana tradition, which asserts that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence. In debates about the origin of the universe, some scholars have used Buddhist ideas of dependent origination and emptiness to argue against the concept of a creator God. For example, scholar David Loy writes: "Buddhism has never felt the need to posit a creator God who sets the universe in motion. Instead, it stresses the interdependence of all phenomena, including the causal interdependence of natural events. From this perspective, there is no problem in accepting that the universe is a self-organizing, self-creating system." Similarly, philosopher Mark Siderits writes: "Buddhism does not propose an ultimate cause of the universe. Instead, it describes a process of dependent arising in which the universe is seen as arising in dependence upon numerous causes and conditions. In this sense, Buddhism does not offer a creation myth in the way that other religions do."
in conclusion I side with Dawkins and Darwin, evolution is an incredibly clever and probably correct idea that can be evidenced and proven several times to explain how life came out the way it did. Although it does not offer an explanation for how the universe came into existence or existence itself, it provides enough to satisfy myself with the question “Did God create life?” so I can confidently tell them the answer is no. Life as we know it, developed naturally. What created the universe and existence therefore making it possible for those single cell organisms to exist is another question and therefore cannot be used to disprove evolution.
This answer will argue that science and religion do seem incompatible. Science uses the scientific method based on observations, the formulation of hypotheses and the testing of those hypotheses. Religion has its own method. It derives its beliefs from either revelation, rational argument or faith alone. Theists might argue, for example, that God exists because he is defined as ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’ and this means God must exist in reality as well as in the imagination because that is greater. This is the ontological argument based on rational argument. Scientists would not be happy with this argument because there is no element of observation involved. It is a deductive argument based purely on reasoning and, as David Hume pointed out, it says nothing about what actually exists. Scientists need evidence as proof, and this doesn’t provide such proof.
Miracles are believed to provide evidence for beliefs in some religions. Christianity is founded on such evidence, the resurrection of Jesus being one such miracle. In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad showed signs he was the prophet before he wrote the Qur’an. One miracle was when the prophet was fleeing from enemies and hid in a cave. The enemies didn’t enter the cave because they saw a spider’s web, fully woven, covering the cave entrance. Miracles are believed to be caused by God because they break laws of nature (Hume’s definition claims that miracles are ‘a transgression of a law of nature, by a particular volition of the Deity’) and only God can do this. However, scientists would argue that there can be no scientific laws in this sense because a law is not something that can ever be broken. If laws are broken, then more testing of that law is needed, and a new hypothesis needs to be developed. This is what Spinoza argued when he pointed out that natural laws are immutable and are the basis for science. Miracles, therefore, do not convince scientists of religion.
There are other arguments for the existence of God that use evidence. For example, the cosmological argument – the Kalam argument devised by the Muslim Al-Kindi being one of the first – uses evidence in the world of everything being caused. Aquinas adds, in his third way, that if everything in the world is caused and everything in the world is contingent, then there must have been a moment when nothing existed. Nothing comes from nothing and so a necessary being must exist to have caused all contingent things in the universe. Scientists would point out that this conclusion/hypothesis can’t be tested and so is not something scientists would argue. They would instead refer to evidence that the universe started. The red shift, for example, is evidence to support the hypothesis of the Big Bang. Some religious believers might not see their beliefs as being incompatible with these findings. They might add that the Big Bang was started by God, the necessary being. Scientists would still not accept this as it can’t be proved. Hume made a similar point that we have no evidence of universes being caused and so the cosmological argument is a very weak inductive argument.
Other evidence that religious believers might use to prove their hypothesis that God created the universe/world is evidence of design in the world. Paley was one who thought that the human eye looked designed and all designed things have a designer who designed things for a purpose with order and regularity so they can work. That designer has to be God. Scientists such as Charles Darwin and, more recently, Richard Dawkins, would disagree that there is design in the world. What looks like design is only the product of random mutations in organisms aiding the survival of those organisms and then being passed on genetically to their offspring. Dawkins believes there is no God and that the world is a result of chance events. Supporters of intelligent design might argue that the universe is so complex that it can’t be the result of chance events. Complexity can only be explained by intelligence, and that intelligence is God. Supporters of intelligent design consider themselves to be more up to date than creationists who take Genesis literally – God made the world in six days. This is also the belief of Sunni Muslims, who quote the Surah Al-Muminun: ‘Certainly did We create man from an extract of clay’. Intelligent design is supposed to be in line with science, but it isn’t because it makes the jump from complexity to an intelligent designer responsible for that complexity. It would seem that religion and science are incompatible.
In conclusion, science and religion are incompatible. They use different methods to come to their conclusions. Science relies solely on physical evidence and its hypotheses being verifiable and falsifiable. Religion does not. Religion might use evidence, but that evidence is either insufficient, personal or unrepeatable, and the conclusions that are drawn from the evidence are beyond this world and so beyond verification.