A simple proof of intelligent design

One of the biggest, and most consequential, debates in science is the question of whether the universe, and the life it harbors, are intelligently designed, or whether we all exist only by random chance.  Many minds far greater than mine have debated the matter pro and con for years.  I have the audacity to propose a simple theorem that will put the matter to rest.  Here it is:

Randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.

The truth of that utterance is manifold, and its implications are all-embracing.  Acceptance or rejection of that simple statement decides whether we, as a society, accept moral principles that cannot possibly come from the human mind, but only from the Supreme Being.

Although this very brief commentary cannot encompass all the complexities, let us nevertheless begin with the manifold layers of proof, and then proceed to the implications.

To start us off, here is a trick question, using a pair of dice as the example.  Rolling a single die from the pair, what are the chances of the die-roll “landing a six?”  If you answered, one chance in six, then you fell for the trick.  I never said that the die being rolled has six sides.  Dice can have any number of sides, from four upward.

As you know, dice are not produced by random chance.  They are designed and manufactured for a purpose.  Some dice have four sides, some have six, and some have many more than six.

This trick question has fooled scientists for many decades now.  Why?  Because physical science relies on the principle of chance events.  The scientists failed to ask, what defines those chances?  How many sides do the universal dice have?

From the smallest subatomic particle, to the universe itself, and even to the theory of the multiverse, physics tells us that the universe operates within a narrow range of about twenty-seven parameters.  These parameters are called, physical constants.  The physical constants define the strength of gravity, the speed of light, the strength of the nuclear forces that hold atoms together, the mass/energy ratio of protons, neutrons and electrons, and many others.  Each parameter not only defines the universe, it determines whether any particular universe can sustain life, and indeed, which universes can or cannot exist.

Think of each of these constants as being one die among many dice.  Each die has many sides; some of them reflect values from zero to infinity.  Each constant governs uncountable numbers of ways in which the universe is coordinated to sustain life, civilization and technology, along with art, science and the other qualities of human existence.

According to physicalist science, each property of the universe, each constant, was determined at random.

Amazingly, the values of these constants have to be, collectively, and in some cases individually, within such a tiny range, that they have been compared to the ratio of one grain of sand to all the beaches on earth.  Not even the most ardent physicalists claim that our universe resulted from those odds being overcome in one try.  Instead, they propose a multi-universe, with uncountable numbers of universes, which correspond to so many rolls of the dice, that eventually, our universe has to result.

But wait.  Would not the multi-verse itself have to have parameters?  Would not those also, have to fall within narrow ranges?  And what principle of physics defines how many constants there are?  What defines what ranges those parameters must have?  What law of nature decides what the laws of nature must be?  (That would be circular causation!)  What governs the dice?

In other words, we come back to the reality that dice do not design and manufacture themselves.  They require planning and purpose, intelligent design.  Once again, to repeat for emphasis,

Randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.

Now for the consequences.

One of the most controversial theories in science is the Theory of Evolution, and more fundamental than that, the theory of the Origin of Life.

Physicalists assert that there is no, per se, life force (or Élan Vital) that causes life to necessarily arise and evolve.  According to physicalism, life arises by chance, and evolves by chance.

If we accept the physicalist view of life, then we define ourselves as atoms, as arrangements of matter, without any spiritual component.  If we accept that dismal definition, then by what logic can we define human rights in any specific form?  Human rights then become defined by what those in power say they are.  And let’s be frank, they will define us to suit themselves, not us.  They may say, “What inalienable rights?”

This brief commentary cannot encompass essential reality, but allow me to add three quick items:  That life, consciousness and free will do not arise from a blind, uncaring nature.  Life is not its chemical reactions; consciousness cannot even be adequately defined in physical terms.  Free will, according to determinist physics, is impossible.  We are therefore said to be witnesses to our own lives, but not participants.

I have further detailed this, and much more, in my book, The God Paradigm, if anyone is interested.

In any case, do not be deceived by those who tell you that you are a random happenstance of nature.  Your life has meaning and purpose.

 

One of the biggest, and most consequential, debates in science is the question of whether the universe, and the life it harbors, are intelligently designed, or whether we all exist only by random chance.  Many minds far greater than mine have debated the matter pro and con for years.  I have the audacity to propose a simple theorem that will put the matter to rest.  Here it is:

Randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.

The truth of that utterance is manifold, and its implications are all-embracing.  Acceptance or rejection of that simple statement decides whether we, as a society, accept moral principles that cannot possibly come from the human mind, but only from the Supreme Being.

Although this very brief commentary cannot encompass all the complexities, let us nevertheless begin with the manifold layers of proof, and then proceed to the implications.

To start us off, here is a trick question, using a pair of dice as the example.  Rolling a single die from the pair, what are the chances of the die-roll “landing a six?”  If you answered, one chance in six, then you fell for the trick.  I never said that the die being rolled has six sides.  Dice can have any number of sides, from four upward.

As you know, dice are not produced by random chance.  They are designed and manufactured for a purpose.  Some dice have four sides, some have six, and some have many more than six.

This trick question has fooled scientists for many decades now.  Why?  Because physical science relies on the principle of chance events.  The scientists failed to ask, what defines those chances?  How many sides do the universal dice have?

From the smallest subatomic particle, to the universe itself, and even to the theory of the multiverse, physics tells us that the universe operates within a narrow range of about twenty-seven parameters.  These parameters are called, physical constants.  The physical constants define the strength of gravity, the speed of light, the strength of the nuclear forces that hold atoms together, the mass/energy ratio of protons, neutrons and electrons, and many others.  Each parameter not only defines the universe, it determines whether any particular universe can sustain life, and indeed, which universes can or cannot exist.

Think of each of these constants as being one die among many dice.  Each die has many sides; some of them reflect values from zero to infinity.  Each constant governs uncountable numbers of ways in which the universe is coordinated to sustain life, civilization and technology, along with art, science and the other qualities of human existence.

According to physicalist science, each property of the universe, each constant, was determined at random.

Amazingly, the values of these constants have to be, collectively, and in some cases individually, within such a tiny range, that they have been compared to the ratio of one grain of sand to all the beaches on earth.  Not even the most ardent physicalists claim that our universe resulted from those odds being overcome in one try.  Instead, they propose a multi-universe, with uncountable numbers of universes, which correspond to so many rolls of the dice, that eventually, our universe has to result.

But wait.  Would not the multi-verse itself have to have parameters?  Would not those also, have to fall within narrow ranges?  And what principle of physics defines how many constants there are?  What defines what ranges those parameters must have?  What law of nature decides what the laws of nature must be?  (That would be circular causation!)  What governs the dice?

In other words, we come back to the reality that dice do not design and manufacture themselves.  They require planning and purpose, intelligent design.  Once again, to repeat for emphasis,

Randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.

Now for the consequences.

One of the most controversial theories in science is the Theory of Evolution, and more fundamental than that, the theory of the Origin of Life.

Physicalists assert that there is no, per se, life force (or Élan Vital) that causes life to necessarily arise and evolve.  According to physicalism, life arises by chance, and evolves by chance.

If we accept the physicalist view of life, then we define ourselves as atoms, as arrangements of matter, without any spiritual component.  If we accept that dismal definition, then by what logic can we define human rights in any specific form?  Human rights then become defined by what those in power say they are.  And let’s be frank, they will define us to suit themselves, not us.  They may say, “What inalienable rights?”

This brief commentary cannot encompass essential reality, but allow me to add three quick items:  That life, consciousness and free will do not arise from a blind, uncaring nature.  Life is not its chemical reactions; consciousness cannot even be adequately defined in physical terms.  Free will, according to determinist physics, is impossible.  We are therefore said to be witnesses to our own lives, but not participants.

I have further detailed this, and much more, in my book, The God Paradigm, if anyone is interested.

In any case, do not be deceived by those who tell you that you are a random happenstance of nature.  Your life has meaning and purpose.