I just read an article that declares it has the answer to why life exists. I paste here only a sample of it. The irony I found in it is that this recent 'scientific' article is actually proof that a supreme programmer exists, as in His creativeness we can find living and according to the article non living matter (proposed in the full article) replicating, making copies of itself. How? Both are following a program, created by a programmer.
Title of Article ~ Why does life exist? (see source at the bottom of the page).
The first statement made is - "Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning, and a colossal stroke of luck."
... Mmmm luck. According to the rest of this article, luck is not possible in a program by design. All theory and findings proposed in this article actually support a supreme programmer who created an incredible self aware reproducing program, that has fallen into a corrupt state and is scrambling to reboot.
"But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”
From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat.
Jeremy England an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that, under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life (Who is providing the 'certain condition'?).
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said. (Wow - Praise God! This is not meant as sarcasm, because I mean that; but then I could say that the sarcasm is actually directed toward anyone who claims to be 'self- made scientist' as that is what England in fact declares to be since I see no credit being given to the true Creator-the One who started).
England’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides a powerful description of life at the level of genes and populations. “I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”
His idea, being delivered at universities around the world, has sparked controversy among his colleagues, who see it as either tenuous or a potential breakthrough, or both. England has taken “a very brave and very important step,” (really? oh to be so bold to take such credit) said Alexander Grosberg, a professor of physics at New York University who has followed England’s work since its early stages. The “big hope” is that he has identified the underlying physical principle driving the origin and evolution of life, Grosberg said.
“Jeremy is just about the brightest young scientist I ever came across,” said Attila Szabo, (and who was Albert Einstein?) a biophysicist in the Laboratory of Chemical Physics at the National Institutes of Health who corresponded with England about his theory after meeting him at a conference. “I was struck by the originality of the ideas.” (Really??? guess he never read the Bible).
Others, such as Eugene Shakhnovich, a professor of chemistry, chemical biology and biophysics at Harvard University, are not convinced. “Jeremy’s ideas are interesting and potentially promising, but at this point are extremely speculative, especially as applied to life phenomena,” Shakhnovich said. (Mmm, finally someone with sense.)
England’s theoretical results are generally considered valid. It is his interpretation — that his formula represents the driving force behind a class of phenomena in nature that includes life — that remains unproven. But already, there are ideas about how to test that interpretation in the lab.
“He’s trying something radically different,” said Mara Prentiss, a professor of physics at Harvard who is contemplating such an experiment after learning about England’s work. “As an organizing lens, I think he has a fabulous idea. Right or wrong, it’s going to be very much worth the investigation.”
... Mmm, let a Christian propose that God created the universe and he/she will definitely get called radical and even stupid rather than genius.) Its ok for England to be right or wrong... he is potentially promising. FYI - God is potentially promising!
Thanks for this ~ Courtesy of Jeremy England, a computer simulation by Jeremy England and colleagues shows a system of particles confined inside a viscous fluid in which the turquoise particles are driven by an oscillating force. Over time (from top to bottom), the force triggers the formation of more bonds among the particles. (All self made scientists would tag on such a 'courtesy', they support each other because what is real for them is based on 'their' agreement reality- their selfish social imagination).
At the heart of England’s idea is the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of increasing entropy or the “arrow of time.”
... Yes, now England is finally using the right argument ~ the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. And in fact, throughout the article discussing his 'great potential find' all arguments for the existence of God are present. Thank you and Praise the Lord!
Arguments for the Existence of God
1- Ontological
Argument – If there is an idea for something; the idea itself can’t just pop up
out of thin air, it is only possible because of prior experience or knowledge
as the essential basis for it. It means that there is a pre event for it or condition
or situation or instruction.
2- Cosmological
Argument – If there is a beginning, then there was a beginner as in cause and
effect. If there is you then who caused
you? If there is a universe, then who or what caused the universe? If the earth
was caused of cosmic dust, who caused the dust? If life on earth exists in
complexity, then what caused such complexity including the fact the earth is
just the right distance from the sun, on a specific orbit spinning on its axis
at a specific tilt to the sun. Such complexity as there is in the universe
cannot just ‘pop up’ out of nothing.
3- Teleological
Argument – If there is complex designer, there is a complex designer. Information
comes from other information or informer. No thing can just pop up out of
nothing. Design is not realted to chaos
in any way possible. Design is caused and its cause came from someone who
caused it = Designer. Complexity begets complexity, simplicity does not beget
complexity.
4- Anthropological
Argument – Universal Moral Law. In all people simple or elegant, civilized or
intellectual and even in some animals, killing one’s own kind is understood
innately as wrong. In Romans 2: 14-15,
Paul tells us that the Gentiles have the law but they do (by nature) what is
required by the law. How/Why? Because, it is/was written on their hearts by
their Creator. Where did universal law come from? From a universal law maker. Atheists like to say they don’t need God to
be kind, or obey the law. Where did they get the law?
One might ask how could these 'self made' scientists, not know this and think that they have just discovered why life exists. It is because this program, created by God (the supreme programmer) was corrupted and is still corrupt hence in a state of entropy. Because of that corruption, some programs in it fail in their function and deny the Creator. They now think that they are the creators or that they are discovering what they imagine to be true. As one reads the article, this is made obvious. That is all... what they imagine is real. What drives their imagination is the greater question. This was a question put to Albert Einstein. He responded "I want to know the thoughts of God.... I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details".
Most people don't know that Albert Einstein did believe in a God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, Albert Einstein view on atheism. He said:
“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”
Knowledge of God is the mind’s greatest good: its greatest virtue is to know God ~ Baruch Spinoza.
* In this text, the term self made in the meaning of denying that man is a creation, created by a Creator.
If you care to, read the rest of the article here ~ http://www.businessinsider.com/physicist-has-a-groundbreaking-idea-about-why-life-exists-2016-1
Somehow, I admire their innocence or even ignorance. Why? Because, those who know more will be expected more. A Christian who already knows why life exists will be expected more here and now and beyond. It is our job to be salt and light, to stand firm by resting in His Presence a display of our confidence, our faith that the Creator is our everything. For in Him, we live, we have our breath and life. "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me" ~ Gal 2:20.
ReplyDelete