Monday, April 30, 2012


I do believe I've written on this before, but I will again.

     Position of the earth.  A creationist will claim that the universe was designed for us because of the position of the earth.  There are billions of galaxies, with at least trillions of stars/planets/moons in each.  How vain is humanity to suggest that it's all here for us?  So back to the position of the earth, which is perfect for life.  The earth is really a harsh environment for life.  We only do so well because we adapt and more yet, we adapt our environment.  The earth isn't naturally a good place for human life.
      Now, more literally on the celestial position of the earth and less on the planet itself.  There are billions of galaxies with trillions or quadrillions of celestial bodies in each to my knowledge.  Now think of earth as a candidate planet as I will call it.  A candidate planet is one which has the requirements to support life in a given form.  Keep in mind as well that this is based only on our carbon-based life and there may be many different kinds.  Can it be rationalized that earth is the only candidate planet in the universe/multiverse?  No, we can't rationalize that.  There can be so many candidate planets, not all of which will produce life.  What we wind up with is a grand dice roll.  We seem to have won that roll.
     Nature...  Can we call this cruel system designed?  Why would a designer make a prey animal fast, only to make the predator as fast or failing that, sneaky?  There's no clear reason why.  Natural selection has survival to account for on both sides.  But a designer has no motivation to make such a cruel game unless the designer is a sadistic bastard, to be polite.
     What evidence even suggests design?  Almost every science points to a materialistic origin.  I've come to the conclusion that either I am completely and horribly ignorant or there isn't much backing it up really.

No comments: