Science On Your Side: Will Artificial Life Disprove the Existence of God?

Friday, October 19, 2007

Will Artificial Life Disprove the Existence of God?

A race is going on around the world to create artificial life. It started several years ago, and it is expected that the first artificial life form will be produced in the next 3-10 years. Some atheists are greeting this work with glee. Known as “Alife,” these organisms come in several forms: some are virtual, and some are expected to be actual “wet” single celled critters never seen before on the Earth. Craig Venter, one of the pioneers of the mapping of the Human Genome, has already applied for a patent on an artificial life form.

These plans currently center on taking existing biological materials and recombining them to produce a unique new organism. This has led some to point out that such life will not truly be artificial but only re-engineered life. However, this is usually shrugged off as nitpicking.

Be that as it may, the rationale for producing an Alife entity is the hope that such organisms can be designed to do wonderful and economically beneficial things such as producing cheap biofuels, disposing of CO2, cleaning up toxic waste, making new antibiotics, curing diseases, desalinating sea water, mining minerals, and just about anything else imaginable including figuring out how Darwinian Evolution supposedly works.

The prospect of making artificial life, of course, has its critics. Some point out that once introduced into the environment, there is no way to know what the long-range effects of these organisms might be. It is widely recognized that the law of unintended consequences has quite an unpleasant history. For example, the original hope for the use of the nuclear chain reaction was energy production to provide free electricity not the creation of super bombs. Consequently it is not difficult to imagine many Frankensteinian scenarios of Alife experiments gone awry. Destruction of entire ecosystems, new plagues, and bio-terror are just a few of the possibilities. However, those are not the main issues for this Blog.

Why This Is Important

Atheists often claim that the creation of artificial life will somehow disprove the existence of God. The reasoning runs something like this – religious people believe that only God can create life. Therefore, if man creates life, it proves that there is no God because God is not needed to produce life.

Ignoring the logical problems with the above line of reasoning, it can be argued that the atheist claim is not supported in Scripture. While Scripture does say that God created life, it does not say that man cannot. It can be argued on the basis of Scripture that, in principle, there should be no barrier to the creation of artificial life, and it can be asserted that it is also reasonable to claim that the creation of artificial life is consistent with Biblical discourse.

Genesis 2:9 recounts that in the middle of the Garden of Eden “were the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Adam and Eve are then told in 2:16-17 “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,…” They were not prohibited from eating of the Tree of Life. Now what exactly this means is in the realm of theological conjecture; however, Genesis 3:22 sheds further light on the subject. “He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever.” Later in Genesis 11:6 we are told “…then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”

Whatever the Tree of Life was or represented cannot be known with certainty; however, a biological implication is there in the Scriptures. Additionally, Genesis 3:22 indicates that even after the expulsion from Eden there was still “nothing” “impossible” for humans if they set their minds to it.

Therefore, the creation of artificial life by mankind, if it is accomplished and even if it is not in God’s will, will be in no way a proof against the existence of God, but if anything, it will be evidence in support of Biblical accuracy.

Source:

“Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years,” by Seth Borenstein, Aug. 19, 2007, AP, Washington, DC.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About This Blog

You are in the middle of a Culture War whether you like it or not. You are bombarded daily with statements that contain theological, moral, philosophical, political or economic implications - for example: “Evolution is a fact, Religion causes wars, Consciousness is an illusion, Intelligent Design is not science.”

While claiming objectivity, those making such claims are almost always attempting to advance an agenda. If you are like me, it is not the claimant’s agenda that interests you; it is the truth or accuracy of the claim. I do not care if Intelligent Design fits a particular definition of science. What I want to know is - Is there trustworthy scientific evidence that the Universe was intelligently designed?

The upside of the Culture Wars is that fascinating questions have been raised and an enormous body of scholarly literature and research has been produced. I have been following the main issues in the Culture Wars for years and have learned some things, which may be valuable to others interested in these new developments and their implications.

That is why this Blog has been established – to share some of these findings with a wider audience. The materials contained in this Blog are things that I want every one to know about in order to help them make up their own minds about the “truth claims” in the Culture Wars.

Critical Issues

Evolution vs. Darwinism

Few words have ever been subjected to the level of miss-use, as has “evolution”.This miss-use has charged it with emotion and loaded it with political baggage. When this miss-use is inflicted on a public, that is largely uninformed on the subject, the consequences are mass confusion.

Evolution Defined

The definition of evolution has been the source of much of this confusion.Webster’s Dictionary defines evolution as “a process of development, formation or growth”.Most simply put, it means, “change through time”. Biological evolution is the process by which organisms change over time. It is absolutely imperative to keep this in mind when thinking about the subject because everything in this universe changes over time: people change over time, cars change over time, language changes over time and biological organisms change over time. Even the strongest literal interpretation of the Bible reveals that Genesis chapters 1 & 2 report a change over time of living creatures. The Bible clearly states that different organisms came into existence over four days - days three, four, five and six. While Bible scholars differ on the nature or length of these days, even if it is argued that these are literal 24-hour days, the Bible still describes the addition or changing of organisms that occupy the planet or an evolution of life forms.

You will change slightly during the time you read this article. You will probable lose a minuscule amount of weight and your hair will grow a few thousandths of an inch and so on. By definition you will have “evolved.” Consequently when someone says, “evolution is a fact” they are indeed correct. Things change, that is a fact, they evolve. However very often when the term “evolution” is used the user does not actually mean “evolution” or change through time but instead mean “Darwinian evolution.” That is biological change driven by a purposeless, natural process, a process that does not need God.

The heart of the controversy then is not whether or not evolution (change over time) in living organisms actually takes place, the real argument is over what causes this evolution?There are two possible answers to this question. And two major philosophical camps have emerged around these two answers. One answer is that evolution is a purposeless natural process: this is the Materialist or Naturalist position, which is the predominant view among biologists. But a different answer is gaining currency. That answer sometimes referred to as “Intelligent Design” argues that natural processes alone are not sufficient to explain biological evolution and that these biological changes are driven in full or in part by a designer or a purposeful plan. This is the Theistic position.

It is imperative to keep these definitions clearly in mind when discussing evolution. Rejecting “Darwinism” is an intellectually tenable position but rejecting “evolution” is not. I have discovered that if someone is asked if they believe in evolution almost 100% will say yes. If you ask the same person if they believe that evolution is caused by a purposeless, purely natural process about 70% of them will say “no.” So if you begin a conversation by saying that you do not believe in evolution most people will conclude that you are in the same intellectual category as those who believe that the Earth is flat. As a consequence they are ready to dismiss any further information presented as coming from a benighted fool.

The correct distinction between Darwinism and Evolution is not a trivial matter but is central to making progress in this great debate.

Science On Your Side

Friday, October 19, 2007

Will Artificial Life Disprove the Existence of God?

No comments:

Subscribe

Contact Us

Discussion Group Meetings

About This Blog

Critical Issues