Combining Evolution and Creation
- Thread starter willson13
- Start date
Subsequently there isn't any evidence God didn't create these laws. The fine tuning of the universe and everything contained within it makes laws and others constants seem like miracles. Scientific attempts at proving random chance as the cause are absolutely hopeless. I ask you what does universal Darwinism pin it hopes on? Chance.
Hugh Ross outlined 28 evidences of design just relating to the sun-earth-moon relationship. Each of these 28 examples are within very strict tolerances. The odds associated with random chance accounting for each of these alone is beyond logical and reasonable computation, adding in the others that abound in biological systems increases those odds even further.
1. galaxy type
if too elliptical: star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available.
2. parent star distance from center of galaxy
if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
if closer: stellar density and radiation would be too great.
3. number of stars in the planetary system
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.
4. parent star birth date
if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase.
if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements.
5. parent star age
if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
6. parent star mass
if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would bum too rapidly.
if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.
7. parent star color
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
8. supernovae eruptions
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated.
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.
9. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
10. surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.
11. distance from parent star
if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.
12. inclination of orbit
if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.
13. orbital eccentricity
if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.
14. axial tilt
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.
15. rotation period
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
16. gravitational interaction with a moon
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities.
17. magnetic field
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
if weaker: inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.
18. thickness of crust
if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
19. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
if greater: runaway ice age would develop.
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
20. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.
21. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
22. water vapor level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.
23. ozone level in atmosphere
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.
24. atmospheric electric discharge rate
if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.
25. oxygen quantity in atmosphere
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily.
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
26. oceans to continents ratio
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
27. soil mineralization
if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would he limited.
28. seismic activity
if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
if less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.
How does Neo-Darwinism explain these 28 very narrow parameters that allow for life? Chance. It was all a cosmic coincidence is all they can say. A miracle in otherwords.
Bridge:
<i>Subsequently there isn't any evidence God didn't create these laws.</i>
Yes. But the point is: Occam's razor rules out the need for the God hypothesis.
<i>The fine tuning of the universe and everything contained within it makes laws and others constants seem like miracles. Scientific attempts at proving random chance as the cause are absolutely hopeless.</i>
I didn't realise any scientists were trying to prove random chance as a cause of universal laws. If random chance was to blame, there would be no point in searching for explanations, would there? You can't do science without patterns and causes.
<i>How does Neo-Darwinism explain these 28 very narrow parameters that allow for life?</i>
Well, I don't know about neo-Darwinism, but I'll have a go.
<i>1. galaxy type</i>
The laws of gravity and conservation of angular momentum make very elliptical or irregular galaxies a rarity.
<i>2. parent star distance from center of galaxy</i>
Fair enough. There are plenty of stars available at appropriate distances.
<i>3. number of stars in the planetary system
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.</i>
Half right. Stable orbits of planets in binary or trinary systems are quite possible. Planets don't tend to form without stars.
<i>4. parent star birth date
if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase.
if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements.</i>
So, a life-bearing planet won't develop near an unstable star or near a population II star. Ok. There are plenty of population I stars (like our Sun) out there to choose from.
<i>5. parent star age
if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.</i>
Again, lots of stars to choose from.
<i>6. parent star mass
if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would bum too rapidly.
if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.</i>
And again. Lots of G type stars. And a wide range of possible other stars could support life. The band is wider than you would think from this short description.
<i>7. parent star color
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.</i>
Hehe. This one made me smile, since it has causation backwards. Photosynthetic response develops in response to the solar spectrum, not the other way around. Photosynthesis is an <b>evolved</b> thing. If the peak of solar output was in the blue, plants would photosynthesize in the blue.
<i>8. supernovae eruptions
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated.
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.</i>
The supernovae distribution nicely complements the positions of population I stars in the galaxy - and for good reason.
<i>9. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated </i>
Lots of stars to choose from in lots of galaxies.
<i>10. surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.</i>
Depends on other factors, too, such as proximity to the star. The atmosphere is actually quite self-regulating. Our atmosphere is made and maintained by life on our planet. Again, causation is a bit backwards on this.
<i>11. distance from parent star
if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.</i>
The liveable band is actually quite wide, and there are lots of star systems to choose from.
<i>12. inclination of orbit
if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.</i>
Due to star and solar system formation processes, extreme inclinations from the ecliptic are rare.
<i>13. orbital eccentricity
if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.</i>
Ditto.
<i>14. axial tilt
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.</i>
Ditto.
<i>15. rotation period
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.</i>
Still a wide allowable range. Life existed on Earth when its rotation period was 10 hours.
<i>16. gravitational interaction with a moon
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities.</i>
The second half needs explanation. As for the first, it must be said that Earth's Moon is unusually large, compared to other satellites in the solar system. I expect most moons would be relatively smaller.
<i>17. magnetic field
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
if weaker: inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.</i>
Rocky planets like Earth tend to have iron cores, which have magnetic fields. On the other hand, the Earth has passed through periods when the magnetic field has been negligible, and life has survived quite happily.
<i>18. thickness of crust
if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.</i>
Basic tectonics ensures that neither extreme is likely.
<i>19. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
if greater: runaway ice age would develop.
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.</i>
Life helps regulate albedo.
<i>20. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.</i>
Life regulates this ratio.
<i>21. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.</i>
Life partially regulates this to some extent.
<i>22. water vapor level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.</i>
This is tied to orbital distance and so on. Should not be a separate point.
<i>23. ozone level in atmosphere
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.</i>
An oxygen-rich atmosphere in the correct habitable zone ensures the ozone level is ok. Again, shouldn't be a separate point. It is tied to other factors.
<i>24. atmospheric electric discharge rate
if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.</i>
Related to other factors mentioned previously.
<i>25. oxygen quantity in atmosphere
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily.
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.</i>
Plants and animals regulate oxygen content.
<i>26. oceans to continents ratio
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.</i>
True. Plenty of planets to choose from.
<i>27. soil mineralization
if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would he limited.</i>
Composition of crust determines this, and life helps regulate the process. Tied to other factors.
<i>28. seismic activity
if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
if less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.</i>
Tied to other factors.
Summary:
All these things are correct. But to use them as an argument to support the small probability of life existing on a planet is misleading. There is some chance involved, but not at extremely improbable levels - in many cases chance actually favours the favourable outcome when you examine the issue in depth. Moreover, some of the factors mentioned actually conspire to fix other factors to favourable values - there is a lot of unspoken linkage here.
In all, the argument presented in simply stating the 28 factors is a very pessimistic one. It is also misleading, in that actual ranges of acceptable values have not been estimated or given by the author (at least as these things have been posted here).
I have read numerous analyses of all these factors by SETI scientists attempting to estimate the chances of extraterrestrial life. Some of them are very encouraging indeed. Others are more guarded.
The bottom line is: the claim that a God is needed because of these factors is not a convincing one.
<i>Subsequently there isn't any evidence God didn't create these laws.</i>
Yes. But the point is: Occam's razor rules out the need for the God hypothesis.
<i>The fine tuning of the universe and everything contained within it makes laws and others constants seem like miracles. Scientific attempts at proving random chance as the cause are absolutely hopeless.</i>
I didn't realise any scientists were trying to prove random chance as a cause of universal laws. If random chance was to blame, there would be no point in searching for explanations, would there? You can't do science without patterns and causes.
<i>How does Neo-Darwinism explain these 28 very narrow parameters that allow for life?</i>
Well, I don't know about neo-Darwinism, but I'll have a go.
<i>1. galaxy type</i>
The laws of gravity and conservation of angular momentum make very elliptical or irregular galaxies a rarity.
<i>2. parent star distance from center of galaxy</i>
Fair enough. There are plenty of stars available at appropriate distances.
<i>3. number of stars in the planetary system
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.</i>
Half right. Stable orbits of planets in binary or trinary systems are quite possible. Planets don't tend to form without stars.
<i>4. parent star birth date
if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase.
if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements.</i>
So, a life-bearing planet won't develop near an unstable star or near a population II star. Ok. There are plenty of population I stars (like our Sun) out there to choose from.
<i>5. parent star age
if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.</i>
Again, lots of stars to choose from.
<i>6. parent star mass
if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would bum too rapidly.
if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.</i>
And again. Lots of G type stars. And a wide range of possible other stars could support life. The band is wider than you would think from this short description.
<i>7. parent star color
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.</i>
Hehe. This one made me smile, since it has causation backwards. Photosynthetic response develops in response to the solar spectrum, not the other way around. Photosynthesis is an <b>evolved</b> thing. If the peak of solar output was in the blue, plants would photosynthesize in the blue.
<i>8. supernovae eruptions
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated.
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.</i>
The supernovae distribution nicely complements the positions of population I stars in the galaxy - and for good reason.
<i>9. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated </i>
Lots of stars to choose from in lots of galaxies.
<i>10. surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.</i>
Depends on other factors, too, such as proximity to the star. The atmosphere is actually quite self-regulating. Our atmosphere is made and maintained by life on our planet. Again, causation is a bit backwards on this.
<i>11. distance from parent star
if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.</i>
The liveable band is actually quite wide, and there are lots of star systems to choose from.
<i>12. inclination of orbit
if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.</i>
Due to star and solar system formation processes, extreme inclinations from the ecliptic are rare.
<i>13. orbital eccentricity
if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.</i>
Ditto.
<i>14. axial tilt
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.</i>
Ditto.
<i>15. rotation period
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.</i>
Still a wide allowable range. Life existed on Earth when its rotation period was 10 hours.
<i>16. gravitational interaction with a moon
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities.</i>
The second half needs explanation. As for the first, it must be said that Earth's Moon is unusually large, compared to other satellites in the solar system. I expect most moons would be relatively smaller.
<i>17. magnetic field
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
if weaker: inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.</i>
Rocky planets like Earth tend to have iron cores, which have magnetic fields. On the other hand, the Earth has passed through periods when the magnetic field has been negligible, and life has survived quite happily.
<i>18. thickness of crust
if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.</i>
Basic tectonics ensures that neither extreme is likely.
<i>19. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
if greater: runaway ice age would develop.
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.</i>
Life helps regulate albedo.
<i>20. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.</i>
Life regulates this ratio.
<i>21. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.</i>
Life partially regulates this to some extent.
<i>22. water vapor level in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.</i>
This is tied to orbital distance and so on. Should not be a separate point.
<i>23. ozone level in atmosphere
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.</i>
An oxygen-rich atmosphere in the correct habitable zone ensures the ozone level is ok. Again, shouldn't be a separate point. It is tied to other factors.
<i>24. atmospheric electric discharge rate
if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.</i>
Related to other factors mentioned previously.
<i>25. oxygen quantity in atmosphere
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily.
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.</i>
Plants and animals regulate oxygen content.
<i>26. oceans to continents ratio
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.</i>
True. Plenty of planets to choose from.
<i>27. soil mineralization
if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would he limited.</i>
Composition of crust determines this, and life helps regulate the process. Tied to other factors.
<i>28. seismic activity
if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
if less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.</i>
Tied to other factors.
Summary:
All these things are correct. But to use them as an argument to support the small probability of life existing on a planet is misleading. There is some chance involved, but not at extremely improbable levels - in many cases chance actually favours the favourable outcome when you examine the issue in depth. Moreover, some of the factors mentioned actually conspire to fix other factors to favourable values - there is a lot of unspoken linkage here.
In all, the argument presented in simply stating the 28 factors is a very pessimistic one. It is also misleading, in that actual ranges of acceptable values have not been estimated or given by the author (at least as these things have been posted here).
I have read numerous analyses of all these factors by SETI scientists attempting to estimate the chances of extraterrestrial life. Some of them are very encouraging indeed. Others are more guarded.
The bottom line is: the claim that a God is needed because of these factors is not a convincing one.
everneo:
<i>if u apply the same occam's razor to einstein's SR/GR we get newton's classical theory.. and that does not mean - SR/GR is un-neccessary and hence does not exist.</i>
No. Occam's razor says that if you have two theories which explain the facts <b>equally well</b>, then you should prefer the simpler one - the one with the fewest postulated elements.
Newtonian theory does not explain the facts equally as well as relativity, so Occam's razor does not apply there. SR/GR is a superior theory to Newton's theory.
In comparison, the laws of chemistry work equally well with or without God, so God is an unnecessary element of the theory of how those laws came about.
<i>if u apply the same occam's razor to einstein's SR/GR we get newton's classical theory.. and that does not mean - SR/GR is un-neccessary and hence does not exist.</i>
No. Occam's razor says that if you have two theories which explain the facts <b>equally well</b>, then you should prefer the simpler one - the one with the fewest postulated elements.
Newtonian theory does not explain the facts equally as well as relativity, so Occam's razor does not apply there. SR/GR is a superior theory to Newton's theory.
In comparison, the laws of chemistry work equally well with or without God, so God is an unnecessary element of the theory of how those laws came about.
James ,
But Newtonian theory was doing well and was sufficient till we acquired the knowledge of constant velocity of light, effect of gravity on space-time etc. Before that Occam's razor could freely be applied to any theory (including relativity) as agaisnt Newtonian.
as u well know, GR was not taken seriously till the bending of a star's light (or the space around sun) by sun's gravity observed during a solar eclipse. Occam's Razor does not help disproving anything. It favours only the prevailing knowledge.
my point is the invalidity of Ocaam's razor in debates like God Vs No God. First disprove the existence of God and then apply Ocaam's razor to have the simplest of those theories that "disprove God". Not to the basic question itself..!
as a matter of fact 'OR' is literally just a weapon to cut the opponent into desired size. knowingly or unkowingly religious people used that to their favour.
pantheon of Gods --> Trinity (Three in One):christians --> one and Only one (Allah):muslims --> No God at all : atheists..!
None of the above people would like to see the 'OR' in others' hand..! its just a tool of convenience. not acceptable to theists if used against their faith. so 'OR' has no premises or common ground for an argument among theists and atheists.
But Newtonian theory was doing well and was sufficient till we acquired the knowledge of constant velocity of light, effect of gravity on space-time etc. Before that Occam's razor could freely be applied to any theory (including relativity) as agaisnt Newtonian.
as u well know, GR was not taken seriously till the bending of a star's light (or the space around sun) by sun's gravity observed during a solar eclipse. Occam's Razor does not help disproving anything. It favours only the prevailing knowledge.
my point is the invalidity of Ocaam's razor in debates like God Vs No God. First disprove the existence of God and then apply Ocaam's razor to have the simplest of those theories that "disprove God". Not to the basic question itself..!
as a matter of fact 'OR' is literally just a weapon to cut the opponent into desired size. knowingly or unkowingly religious people used that to their favour.
pantheon of Gods --> Trinity (Three in One):christians --> one and Only one (Allah):muslims --> No God at all : atheists..!
None of the above people would like to see the 'OR' in others' hand..! its just a tool of convenience. not acceptable to theists if used against their faith. so 'OR' has no premises or common ground for an argument among theists and atheists.
Last edited:
Bridge: In response to number 20,
It is not the substrate level that dictates the speed of the reactions, it is the enzymes involved. Most of the reactions, which normally take very little time, would be between 10<sup><font size="2">3</font></sup> and 10<sup><font size="2">9</font></sup> times slower if they weren't catalyzed.
I didn't know that, thanks for the info. I would add to my list of design implication arguements that all of sciences attempts at abiogenesis, like Miller-Urey, etc. have had chirality problems in the amino acids they created, they were right handed vs. left-handed. That doesn't take in to consideration that the lab tests were "designed" and the efforts to achieve conditions that mimiced the early earth were not really followed. So random chance was not a factor.
.....and of course by now we have totally strayed off the original topic.
I think evolution and creation can coexist. But the strictly naturalistic/materialistic philosophy of neo-Darwinists are forever going to clash with the religious beliefs of Young Earth creationists and vice-versa. Theistic evolutionists and secular/agnostic evolutionists might actually agree on many details..... It's the baggage we carry over into the topic which causes us to want to gouge each others eyes out.
.....and of course by now we have totally strayed off the original topic.
I think evolution and creation can coexist. But the strictly naturalistic/materialistic philosophy of neo-Darwinists are forever going to clash with the religious beliefs of Young Earth creationists and vice-versa. Theistic evolutionists and secular/agnostic evolutionists might actually agree on many details..... It's the baggage we carry over into the topic which causes us to want to gouge each others eyes out.
everneo:
<i>But Newtonian theory was doing well and was sufficient till we acquired the knowledge of constant velocity of light, effect of gravity on space-time etc.</i>
No. Newtonian theory had serious problems. If it hadn't had problems, there would have been no need for Einstein to look for an alternative. For example, at the end of the 19th century, people were starting to realise that Newtonian theory was inconsistent with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. Special relativity solved that problem.
<i>Before that Occam's razor could freely be applied to any theory (including relativity) as agaisnt Newtonian.</i>
No. Read what I said again:
"Occam's razor says that if you have two theories which explain the facts <b>equally well</b>, then you should prefer the simpler one"
When one theory explains the facts <b>better</b> than another theory, Occam's razor does not apply. Raltivity explains the facts better than Newtonian theory.
<i>as u well know, GR was not taken seriously till the bending of a star's light (or the space around sun) by sun's gravity observed during a solar eclipse.</i>
It was taken very seriously. But its novel predictions, such as the bending of light, went untested for some time.
<i>Occam's Razor does not help disproving anything. It favours only the prevailing knowledge.</i>
The first sentence is correct. Occam's razor is a rule of thumb. It cannot disprove a theory. It only helps us to select between two competing theories which each explain the same set of facts. It doesn't apply if one theory explains more than the other.
It doesn't favour prevailing knowledge, because it simply doesn't apply when new knowledge is created.
<i>as a matter of fact 'OR' is literally just a weapon to cut the opponent into desired size. knowingly or unkowingly religious people used that to their favour.
pantheon of Gods --> Trinity (Three in One):christians --> one and Only one (Allah):muslims --> No God at all : atheists..!</i>
It is arguable as to whether Occam's razor applies to the question of whether God exists. The reason is that theists think that the God theory explains more things than the no-God theory, and therefore Occam wouldn't apply. In fact, a theist believes that, ultimately, the God theory explains everything. Atheists, on the other hand, see no need for a god in any explanation of scientific things. God, to them, is a superfluous concept, and any theory without God is just as powerful as the same theory with a god added, so Occam's razor would tend to rule out the god theory.
That is the position for the ultimate question of whether god(s) exist. Things are different when we look at particular scientific problems. In that case, the issue is much more clear-cut. If a scientific theory correctly explains the relevant facts without god, then the same theory with god added is, according to Occam's razor, an unnecessary complication.
<i>But Newtonian theory was doing well and was sufficient till we acquired the knowledge of constant velocity of light, effect of gravity on space-time etc.</i>
No. Newtonian theory had serious problems. If it hadn't had problems, there would have been no need for Einstein to look for an alternative. For example, at the end of the 19th century, people were starting to realise that Newtonian theory was inconsistent with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. Special relativity solved that problem.
<i>Before that Occam's razor could freely be applied to any theory (including relativity) as agaisnt Newtonian.</i>
No. Read what I said again:
"Occam's razor says that if you have two theories which explain the facts <b>equally well</b>, then you should prefer the simpler one"
When one theory explains the facts <b>better</b> than another theory, Occam's razor does not apply. Raltivity explains the facts better than Newtonian theory.
<i>as u well know, GR was not taken seriously till the bending of a star's light (or the space around sun) by sun's gravity observed during a solar eclipse.</i>
It was taken very seriously. But its novel predictions, such as the bending of light, went untested for some time.
<i>Occam's Razor does not help disproving anything. It favours only the prevailing knowledge.</i>
The first sentence is correct. Occam's razor is a rule of thumb. It cannot disprove a theory. It only helps us to select between two competing theories which each explain the same set of facts. It doesn't apply if one theory explains more than the other.
It doesn't favour prevailing knowledge, because it simply doesn't apply when new knowledge is created.
<i>as a matter of fact 'OR' is literally just a weapon to cut the opponent into desired size. knowingly or unkowingly religious people used that to their favour.
pantheon of Gods --> Trinity (Three in One):christians --> one and Only one (Allah):muslims --> No God at all : atheists..!</i>
It is arguable as to whether Occam's razor applies to the question of whether God exists. The reason is that theists think that the God theory explains more things than the no-God theory, and therefore Occam wouldn't apply. In fact, a theist believes that, ultimately, the God theory explains everything. Atheists, on the other hand, see no need for a god in any explanation of scientific things. God, to them, is a superfluous concept, and any theory without God is just as powerful as the same theory with a god added, so Occam's razor would tend to rule out the god theory.
That is the position for the ultimate question of whether god(s) exist. Things are different when we look at particular scientific problems. In that case, the issue is much more clear-cut. If a scientific theory correctly explains the relevant facts without god, then the same theory with god added is, according to Occam's razor, an unnecessary complication.
James,
No scientific theory tend to include 'God' factor in their scope of explaining things. so its natural without god they could explain what ever they could. no point in analyising them 'with god' and 'without god' and subsequently applying occam's razor on both cases and arriving at conclusion that god is not necessary..! its a case of prejudice. simply there is no need to apply occam's razor to get the already decided theory..!
1) its the stand of theists, as a matter of faith, that occam's razor can't be applied to 'God' Vs 'No God' as with 'God' their view on world has more meaning than just depend on materialistic explanation.
2) its the stand of atheists, refusing to look beyond the pre-decided scope of scientific explanation, that god is not needed to explain things whatever they know thro these scientific theories. here too where is the need for occam's razor. the premises of scientific explanation itself excluded 'God' factor (it is reasonable too for any scientific theory, i understand).
both (1) and (2) don't need occam's razor.
faith and science don't have same scope. their grounds are different. science excludes faith for obvious reasons from the beginning. faith can absorb, and get enhanced, any scientific explanation from the view of 'will of God'..!
as for scientifc explanations, it is as simple as that occam's razor is unnecessary for u to come to the conclusion that 'God' is not necessary cuz the initial premises of scientific theory itself didn't include 'God' factor, there is no scope to include too.
No scientific theory tend to include 'God' factor in their scope of explaining things. so its natural without god they could explain what ever they could. no point in analyising them 'with god' and 'without god' and subsequently applying occam's razor on both cases and arriving at conclusion that god is not necessary..! its a case of prejudice. simply there is no need to apply occam's razor to get the already decided theory..!
1) its the stand of theists, as a matter of faith, that occam's razor can't be applied to 'God' Vs 'No God' as with 'God' their view on world has more meaning than just depend on materialistic explanation.
2) its the stand of atheists, refusing to look beyond the pre-decided scope of scientific explanation, that god is not needed to explain things whatever they know thro these scientific theories. here too where is the need for occam's razor. the premises of scientific explanation itself excluded 'God' factor (it is reasonable too for any scientific theory, i understand).
both (1) and (2) don't need occam's razor.
faith and science don't have same scope. their grounds are different. science excludes faith for obvious reasons from the beginning. faith can absorb, and get enhanced, any scientific explanation from the view of 'will of God'..!
as for scientifc explanations, it is as simple as that occam's razor is unnecessary for u to come to the conclusion that 'God' is not necessary cuz the initial premises of scientific theory itself didn't include 'God' factor, there is no scope to include too.