Letter 8: Let's Tackle A Few Theories First

In the previous letter, I shared what I learned when I questioned God about his making of the Earth. He told me that he purposely made it in such a manner that there would be viable evidence on both sides of the debate so as to allow for faith to be tested (one choice is no choice). Thus, now that I have incorporated this concept to my Matrix analogy, I want to analyze the major theories of science, with respect to the origin of the universe and the life that lives in it, against my analogy. The theories I will analyze are the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and the Theories of Quantum Mechanics (I can’t find that these theories have been given proper names yet). I will address these theories one at a time.

 

To set the stage, let’s review the four assumptions that my Matrix analogy is built upon:

 

(1) There is a God; (2) He has children and He wants them to learn faith via hands-on experience; (3) In order to create a situation where faith could be learned, He purposely created all things in a way such that there would be viable evidence for both theories (God existing & God not existing, creation & evolution); and (4) He created the Earth and universe in a virtual way, using light and conscious energy (like the Matrix) which He then plugs his children into systematically so they each get their respective chance to learn.

 

Also, before proceeding I want to point out that a logical Catch 22 exists when utilizing science to address things related to the question “Does God exist?” This is because the possibility that He exists eliminates the possibility of proving that He does not. It does not eliminate the “possibility” that He does not exist, but it does eliminate the possibility of proving such, because again, taking in account what we have discussed in previous letters, there is no way for a human to know if what they are observing is valid or not. Thus, rationale is the only thing that we have to work with, and so without further delay, let’s use rationale and analyze the Theory of Evolution.

 

This theory makes the assumption that there is no creator of the universe, but rather the universe is a naturally occurring thing, like a cloud floating through the sky that formed on its own as a result of the laws of nature. When looking at the scientific evidence at hand, a good deal of evidence exists to support this theory. However, aside from the possibility that God could exist and thereby render all such evidence meaningless, I find nothing in science that suitably explains how life began.

 

The incredible complexity of nature and its amazing balance make the concept that our universe all just sprung up out of nowhere by chance unbelievable. To me, believing such would be a million times harder than if you tried to convince me that my iPhone (including the apps and internet that make it work) suddenly sprang into existence out of the dust and atmosphere by chance without any intelligent assistance. It is not possible.

 

However, this is not what evolution declares. According to science, evolution is based upon a process that began a very long time ago with the simplest form of life, a single cell organism. Once this most simple form of life existed, it multiplied and evolved into higher and more complex forms of life, and this process thereafter continued. Thus, science believes that since that time, nature evolved from the simplest of beginnings to where it currently stands.

 

Well, the full details of evolution make it much more believable, but I still get held up on the same question: “How did the first single cell organism come to be?” The Theory of Evolution was postulated in a time when much less was known regarding life forms, and thus it was logical to assume that from this simple beginning, complexity could evolve. However, since that time science has progressed on all fronts and we now know that even a single cell organism is highly complex.

 

Consider if you will what it takes to replicate one of these tiny creatures. At the end of the day, a single cell organism is far more complex than the iPhone, and the proof is in the pudding. Science created the iPhone and all that makes it work, yet to date, despite the best efforts of many highly-educated people, utilizing state-of-the-art technology, science has been unsuccessful in all attempts to create a living single cell organism or even demonstrate how nature might have made one.

 

A more direct comparison is Nanobots. Nanobots are tiny machines that are the size of a single cell organism. They are complex enough that only recently has science possessed the knowledge, technology, and skill sufficient to make them (and they are not yet perfected; nanobots are still largely in R&D). However, despite their complexity, they are nowhere near as complex as a single cell organism for they have no ability to reproduce and/or evolve. Thus, what is the obvious question that screams out from these facts? Simple: How in the world does the concept that life began with a single-celled organism make the Theory of Evolution any more believable?

 

If the world’s combined intelligence, technology, and creative skill has come up empty in all efforts to replicate one of these tiny creatures, then is it not preposterous to assume that such a creation could happen by chance, without any intelligent assistance at all? It is utterly illogical and the theory is dead in regard to explaining the origin of life on Earth. Yes, science may someday find success in this effort, but it will only prove that their creative skill is finally catching up to that of the original creator.

 

The Theory of Evolution is not altogether wrong, though, for you do certainly have to account for the physical evidence that supports it. Study all of nature and you find that everything does indeed evolve. However, let’s view the occurrence of evolution through the prism of my Matrix analogy. Remember, under this analogy, we assume that God made the Earth in such a manner to support both creation and evolution. Well, would it not then be rational to conclude that God, being all-knowing and all-powerful, would do a perfect job of such a creation? All he would have to do is write the Matrix program such that the Earth appears to have been around for billions of years evolving, and such that the life forms on the Earth actually have the ability to evolve. Simple. The Matrix Theory easily explains what science has discovered regarding evolution, and yes, I purposely just called it “The Matrix Theory,” for I have decided to officially label it.

 

In the next letter, I will move on to the Big Bang Theory and the Theories of Quantum Mechanics.

 

Until then,

 

Joshua

Reviews

[Meat of Dog]

I think it’s a little quick of a jump to say disproving the existence of god is impossible due to only observing tangible reality. If you told someone in 1900 about quantum mechanics they their eyes would likely drift apart. They had no concept of that stuff. So, science is moving all the time. Like, right now there’s no ‘known’ cure for cancer but in time there will be. It is a HUGE undertaking but I believe eventually (if the earth exists long enough hur hur) we will reach a point where we could. So, it’s not impossible to disprove god, just as we see it right now HIGHLY unlikely. That seems like a nitpicky thing but wording is important here.

Suggestions:

“nature and its amazing balance” it’s

[bOhEmIa (mahim)]

Some philosopher you are Joshua.

[Little Birdie]

Great read.

[Amila Jay]

Great write:-)

[Parashar]

i m a econmcs mjor , but still i enjoyed it .......

[CHRIS ANDES]

gret thing you come up to this one!!!

[eatmills]

Mathmatically the theorists were able to create a Matrix-type Salamander. They were able to make it hunt, the could not however replicate the basic needs, eating, sleeping, mating. They could replicate the actions of course. The couldn't create the instinct of the Salamander. They could however randomize it. Are our needs random? If they could create the cyber instinct we will be in trouble. Oh wait they've already started.

Great delivery, enjoy the good read for thought.

[Coffee Vampier]

The Matrix Theory,I like it! Sorry I am just getting to these it's been hectic. I have never been able to believe that everything just popped outta no where. It's impossible.

[The old me]

very interesting.

[RainQueen]

"The Theory of Evolution (as well as the other theories of Science) make the assumption that there is no creator of the Universe"

Be cautious making statements like these. Darwin did not examine the existence or nonexistence of a creator. All he did was use the data we have to trace progress. It seems like a small sticking point, but it really isn't. Educated Christians would argue that all the theory of Evolution does is describe natural processes flowing from the ultimate "rule-maker."
Nice Write!