The news about the 'possible' discovery
of the Higgs particle, popularly called the 'God' particle, because
it is thought to be the particle within particles that gives them
mass and shape,1 has rocketed across the world. It's
existence is needed so scientists, based on present knowledge, can
have a way to explain how the universe may have formed without God
being involved. You did notice the words “possible”, “could”,
and “may have”. These are words that imply doubt not certainty.
They reveal a lot about God, science, and us when thoughtfully
considered.
What does this
discovery say about God?
Basically, it says a lot, if you think
about it. It does add another layer to the complexity of the
universe. In fact, the more we discover how God put the universe
together the more evidence there is for God not against God. The more
complex the structure the more billion and trillions of years have to
be added to the evolution time line to allow for all the miraculous
coincidences to accidentally occur. Fictional police detectives are
often heard saying, “I don't believe in coincidences.” Well, as a
former police officer, I concur. The more intricate the design the
more improbable it happened by accident. The more intricate the
design the more it demands a designer. You don't need a PhD. to
understand this. Anyone with a B.C.E., blue collar education, and
some common sense can see the logic in this.
Did Mount Rushmore occur by natural
means? Is it a coincidence that the four heads look exactly like four
of our former presidents? Would a visitor who knows nothing about
them credit their formation to a natural explanation? Would they
conclude that the wind and the rain just happened to shape the rock
so it resembles the heads of four presidents? A visitor could say
that, but no one does because the likeness of the presidents is so
perfect that it is obviously the work of a sculptor. You could ask
any science teachers. None was support the belief that nature created
it. However, many of these teachers will stand up in class the next
day and teach their students that not only the single cell, but the
very presidents themselves were formed by the blind forces of nature.
They teach that the sculpture could not have formed by accident yet
they teach that the much more complex human person did. The
intricate complexity of all parts of our universe from the single
cell to the universe as a whole demands a creator. Nothing else makes
sense. To overlook such a simple and sensible solution says volumes
about those who do?
What does this
discovery say about science?
An impartial and logical analysis of
some of the announcements reveals a lot about the made up mind of
many scientists and the limitations of the scientific method.
Consider the following excerpts from an AP report posted on al.com
describing the experiments leading to the evidence of the Higgs
particle. Careful reading of the words show that more is still
guesses and unknown that fact.
- “Physicists say they have all but proven that the "God particle" exists. They have a footprint and a shadow, and the only thing left is to see for themselves the elusive subatomic particle believed to give all matter in the universe size and shape.” Notice, they have all but proven. They have not proven. Many people have found footprints and have obtained shadowy pictures of 'big foot'. Yet, the number of people who truly believe in an abominable snowman is very small.
- “They don't plan to use the word discovery.” You know why? Because, they know that footprints and shadows do not make up particles.
- “He cited 'strong indications of the production and decay of Higgs-like bosons' in some of their observations....Out of some 500 trillion collisions, just several dozen produced 'events' with significant data, said Joe Incandela of the University of California at Santa Barbara.” Here we have indications not an actual observation of it and that only in a very small percentage of their observations. Yet, I remain unconvinced. Of course, I don't believe in big foot either. I guess this makes me a curmudgeon.
- “Sean M. Carroll, a California Institute of Technology physicist flying, 'only the most curmudgeonly will not believe that they have found it.'” I am not an ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions. What I am is a logical person who is intellectually from Missouri. As a boy, I learned, that resorting to name calling was usually the sign that the name-caller knew they had no valid point or proof of their statement.
What this means is that science may
have learned a bit more, but they are still a long way from “knowing”
much less “proving” how the world operators and how it came into
existence. "This is just the beginning," says James
Gillies, a spokesman for CERN. Scientists will keep probing the new
particle until they fully understand how it works. In doing so they
hope to understand the 96 percent of the universe that remains hidden
from view. This may result in the discovery of new particles and even
hitherto unknown forces of nature. Or, it might prove that things
are so complex that only the most curmudgeonly can still not believe
that God formed it.
Science has improved our lives. This
project along has changed our lives with “its creation of the world
wide web and it has also boosted the development of distributed, or
cloud-computing, which is now making its way into mainstream
services. Advances in solar energy capture, medical imaging and
proton therapy, used in the fight against cancer, have also resulted
from the work of particle physicists at CERN and elsewhere.” While
the secondary benefits of scientific investigation into how the world
was made have been significant, I am not sure that these same
contributions might not have been obtained for less than the $10
billion spent on this project. I believe that they could and that the
rest of the money spent on helping humanity in even more ways.
Science spends a lot of money,
billions and billions, trying to find a way to argue God out of
creation. Is this the most crucial question facing mankind. Would not
the money be better spent on solving AIDs, finding water for African
nations, curing all forms of Cancer, cloning arms and legs for
amputees, feeding the hungry of the world, or using stem cells for so
many medical cures?
What does this
discovery say about us?
First
of all, it says to us that we must remember that what others conclude
from their discoveries is influenced by their beliefs about the
creation. What has been observed if it can be independently verified
is fact. It is truth. But, what one concludes for these facts or what
one believes is just that a belief. It
is a theory.
One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. A
hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a
hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or
more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be
true.
The number of theories scientists have formulated is only surpassed
by the number discarded along the way. A Google search for 'science
theories no longer believed' had a count of 21,900,000. And, they
often disagree about the interpretation or meaning of the findings. A
Google search for 'science disagree about meaning' had a count of
1,610,000. So, it's Okay to be an unbeliever when it comes to
accepting everything scientists believe or conclude from their
observations and experiments, since many of them have a hard time
also. It's Okay to look a gift horse in the mouth when the gift is
someone's interpretation or opinion.
It means that we should apply common sense when presented with the
opinions or beliefs of scientists. Consider the current debate over
how the universe came into being. Many science facts not beliefs are
contradictory to theories of evolution and the big bang. I will look
closely at only one - the production of proteins. Consider the
following facts about the natural formation of proteins.
- Proteins are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already living cells. Never! This scientific fact stands in stark contrast to what was taught....Amino acids do not concentrate in the ocean; they disperse and break down. Amino acids will not link together in nature to form proteins; not even when scientists help them by buying all left-handed amino acids from a chemical supply house to make the perfect “organic soup.”
- If proteins could form, they could not get together with DNA because DNA does not form outside of living cells either. Scientists can’t even make DNA in the laboratory.
- When faced with this what did the disbelievers do? They decided to reverse the process. However, most scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead, they now propose that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins.”{George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinhehart and Winston, 1996 p. 235}. The problem continues because “… no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA.”{Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 65, see also 62-6}.
- "To make proteins, agents known as ribosomes connect amino acids into long strings. These strings loop and fold around each other in a variety of ways. However, only one of these many ways will allow the protein to function properly.… proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, and even the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease.”
- “Evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science called the Principle of Biogenesis (living things come only from living things).”
Don't abandon your common sense to someone with a Ph.D.! What science
knows, believes and teaches has changed and will continue to change,
but logic and common sense will always be just that.
“For
the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
after their own lusts shall they draw to themselves teachers, having
itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and
shall be turned unto myths.” (2Timonthy 4:3-4 KJV)
Related websites:
No comments:
Post a Comment