RationalWiki:EvoWiki/Is There a Creator Who Cares About You


 * Author: Anonymous
 * Title: Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?
 * Published: Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A. (1998): Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

Overview of Chapter One
This book, hereinafter referred to as Creator, promises to consider the "evidence available" in order to answer the question of whether life and the universe had a creator. It asserts that belief in a creator can make one's life more meaningful. This assertion is reiterated in a plate in a later chapter (see p. 69).

Creator makes the claim that science is inadequate to completely explain the existence of life and the universe. Further, it claims that while scientific views constantly change that there are still many unanswered questions.

The authors state that many choose not to believe in a creator due to a desire to avoid responsibility to that creator. The implication is that our responsibility to ourselves is insufficient to guide decision making.

Creationist claims made in Chapter One

 * If man comes from random causes, life has no purpose or meaning
 * Scientific findings are always changing
 * Acceptance of evolution instead of creation has psychological rather than scientific reasons

Overview of Chapter Two
Creator frequently utilizes the argument that evidence of design can be identified. The claim is presented in this chapter that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe indicates it was designed, citing as evidence the speed of expansion of the universe, the balance of fundamental physical forces, Earth's characteristics, and the orderliness of the elements.

Creator notes that science's observation that the universe had a definite beginning concurs with the assertion that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, although by science one can not explain what existed before the beginning.

Science on reasonableness
In an effort to demonstrate that the universe was designed, Creator offers:


 * Can experts now explain the origin of the universe? Many scientists, uncomfortable with the idea that the universe was created by a higher intelligence, speculate that by some mechanism it created itself out of nothing.  Does that sound reasonable to you? (pp. 14-15)

This question of reasonableness is presented in nearly identical form many times in Creator (pp. 40, 44, 47, 79, 96, back cover).

Physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne, in a work referenced later in Creator (p. 72), notes:


 * Scientists do not ask, "Is that reasonable?", as if we knew beforehand what the world is going to be like. They know that when we move into regimes far away from everyday experience, all sorts of surprising things can happen. Common sense will not be the measure of all things. We are not clever enough to see very far ahead. Therefore, the scientific question is "What makes you think this might be the case?". A different question, you see, from "Is that reasonable?" - a question that is open to the possibility of enlarging our understanding of how things are.

Scientists ask, "Does this hypothesis allow one to make useful predictions?"

Linde on origin of the universe
In an effort to show that scientists believe there are problems with origin of universe theories, Creator states:


 * Dr. Andrei Linde was more explicit in a Scientific American article: "Explaining this initial singularity - where and when it all began - still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology." (p. 16)

In context one can see that this criticism of the standard big bang theory was presented in proposing a new scientific scenario of the origin of the universe and was not made in an attempt to defend creationism.

The second law of thermodynamics - settling the issue
In an effort to bolster the claim that the universe should be tending toward disorder, Creator invokes the second law of thermodynamics:


 * ...when left to themselves, things tend to break down or disintegrate. Scientists refer to this tendency as "the second law of thermodynamics."...What about the universe?  The law applies there too. (p. 24-25)

In actuality the second law of thermodynamics merely states that in a closed system, entropy, usually in the form of uniform distribution of heat, will increase. It does not prevent localized areas of decreased entropy as long as there is a net increase to the system as a whole. It in no way specifically invalidates the theory of evolution.

Creationist claims made in Chapter Two

 * Design is detectable
 * The Anthropic Principle: Earth is perfectly in the habitable zone, proving design
 * There must have been a first cause
 * Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder

Overview of Chapter Three
Creator frequently relies on argument from incredulity, the notion that because certain scientific principles can not be proved directly they are therefore invalid. In this chapter aspects of abiogenesis are portrayed as being unproven and unbelievable. Examples cited include the inability of scientists to produce life in the laboratory as well as the complexity of the cell and the unlikely steps that would have led to its spontaneous development.

Either/or reasoning
Inherent in the use of argument from incredulity is the assumption that disproving spontaneous generation is sufficient to prove creation. For example, Creator notes:


 * Millions of people of all educational levels believe that an intelligent Creator, the original Designer, produced life on earth. In contrast, many scientists say that life arose from nonliving matter, one chemical step after another, merely by chance.  Is it one, or is it the other? (p. 29-31)

This is also one instance of many in which Creator asserts that creationism is reasonable because many people believe in it (pp. 44, 47, 52, 66, 72, 104, back cover).

Kenyon on chemical origins of life
As a substitute for actual scientific research, Creator relies heavily on quotes from scientists in its attempt to show a lack of support for principles of evolution. For example, Creator quotes biology professor and creationist Dean Kenyon, unreferenced, as noting that it is "fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems" and that there is "a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life." (p. 38)

Kenyon's views do not represent the scientific consensus. The quotes in fact come from the introduction and a review, respectively, of The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Thaxton, Charles, et. al. (1984). This work, a foundational publication for the intelligent design movement, is also quoted in Creator (pp. 36, 39).

Various quotes on nature of early atmosphere
To support its claim that life could not originate by natural processes, Creator presents a panel on the Miller-Urey abiogenesis experiments. Alleged origin-of-life researchers are quoted suggesting that Miller and Urey's assumptions regarding the composition of the early atmosphere were inaccurate. Creator also poses the rhetorical question:


 * If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent? (p. 37)

Perhaps the answer is "natural processes."

Dose on theories and experiments
As evidence supporting its claim that ongoing research in abiogenesis has met with negative results, Creator offers:


 * You may know that origin-of-life scientists have not ceased trying to formulate a plausible scenario for the drama about the first appearance of life...For example, Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, observed: "At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." (p. 39)

The quote from Dose, unreferenced in Creator, is from The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p.348 (unverified). It should be noted that in the original source Dose goes on to state, "New lines of thinking and experimentation must be tried." Thus Dose's quote was not intended as a complete lack of support for the possibility of abiogenesis, as implied by Creator.

In fact, the argument that scientists have yet to produce life in the laboratory does nothing to falsify theories of spontaneous generation of life or to support creationism. Moreover it shows that origin-of-life research conforms to the scientific method in that hypotheses are still being proposed and experiments conducted.

Hoyle on big numbers
In an attempt to show the unlikelihood of a protein developing spontaneously, Creator quotes Sir Fred Hoyle, unreferenced:


 * ...it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements [ of amino acid links ] is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. (p. 41)

Creationist arguments from incredulity occasionally employ the use of extremely large numbers to demonstrate that life could not have generated spontaneously. Hoyle in fact uses large number arguments to promote his theory that life originated in outer space. Hoyle is quoted elsewhere in Creator (pp. 20, 25).

Bernal on supporting life's existence
In its effort to explain why scientists hold to theories of abiogenesis, Creator quotes scientist John Desmond Bernal:


 * A few decades ago, Professor J. D. Bernal offered some insight in the book The Origin of Life: "By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [ the spontaneous generation of life ], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small." He added: "Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence." (pp. 42-43)

The authors of Creator then provide their interpretation of Bernal's statement:


 * It is as much as saying: "Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously."...Does not such reasoning call for a lot of 'bending' of the facts? (p. 43)

Thus a single out-of-context and most likely tongue-in-cheek quote noting that "arguments have to be bent round" has been transformed by Creator into a general accusation of "'bending' of the facts."

Creationist claims made in Chapter Three

 * Abiogenesis has never been observed
 * The odds of life forming are incredibly small
 * First cells couldn't come together by chance
 * DNA needs proteins to form; Proteins need DNA
 * Life uses only left-handed amino acids
 * Creationism and evolution are the only 2 models
 * Many scientists find problems with evolution
 * Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are evolutionists
 * Miller's experiments had invalid assumption of type of atmosphere
 * Many scientists are willing to bend observations to make them fit evolution

Overview of Chapter Four
Next, Creator cites unique features of human beings, most notably qualities of the human brain, as evidence that we were created by an intelligent entity. Mentioned are our use of language, appreciation for art, and God consciousness.

Creator makes the claim that during our lifetime we only use a percentage of our brain. This observation is noted to be a "fact" in a later chapter and is used as evidence to support the Biblical concept of immortality (p. 116).

Creator argues that consciousness implies design and that the human brain can not be used to explain its own consciousness scientifically.

Premack on human language
In its attempt to demonstrate that evolution can not explain human language, Creator notes:


 * Having worked to teach chimps simple nonverbal communications, Dr. David Premack concluded: "Human language is an embarrassment for evolutionary theory because it is vastly more powerful than one can account for." (p. 60)

Premack's statement, unreferenced in Creator and without ellipsis, in fact continues, "â€¦in terms of selective fitness." The argument then becomes not that language could not have evolved but rather that its complexity exceeds that necessary for survival benefit.

Creationist claims made in Chapter Four

 * The brain is too complex to have evolved
 * Evolution doesn't explain language ability
 * Evolution doesn't explain art
 * Evolution doesn't explain religion
 * Evolution doesn't explain our using 1/10th of our brain
 * Evolution doesn't explain personality and emotions
 * An evolved mind is fallible, its conclusions untrustworthy

Overview of Chapter Five
Creator then attempts to demonstrate that one can determine aspects of an intelligent creator's personality by observation of life. The interrelation of earth's natural systems is cited as evidence of the trait of forethought. The immune system is cited as evidence of the trait of impartiality.

Creationist claims made in Chapter Five

 * Functional integration indicates design

Overview of Chapter Six
In an attempt to show that creationism is reasonable, Creator cites examples of concepts in the Bible that have been confirmed by modern science. Creator points out parallels between Biblical and scientific explanations for the origin of the universe, the Earth, and human beings.

Creator notes that the term "dynamic energy" translated in the Bible to describe a power capable of creating the material universe accords with scientific concepts of converting energy into matter. The term is used elsewhere in Creator in a similar manner (p. 12). It should be noted that the Hebrew term has also been translated "great might," a translation unlikely to refer to a power that created the universe.

In an attempt to defend belief in unseen entities, Creator notes that science affirms the existence of unseen objects. This defense is used elsewhere (pp. 9, 24). What Creator fails to mention is that science's affirmation of unseen objects is based on hypotheses and experimentation while creationism's is based on faith.

Subsequent chapters cite further examples showing how the Bible is confirmed by modern science. Throughout, Creator offers quotes from the Bible that it claims parallel modern scientific thinking.

It is self-defeating that Creator uses the reasoning that some acts of an alleged designer can be explained by science. It would seem that the ultimate logical conclusion of this reasoning would be that science will fill all the gaps in the knowledge of our origin, thereby making a creator unnecessary.

The origin of photosynthesis
Creator argues that the complexity of the system of photosynthesis is evidence that it was designed rather than evolved. This is also a previously mentioned instance in which Creator asks which view is more "reasonable."

The Bible as literal
By way of introduction to this chapter, Creator states, "...we invite you to consider the Creator's factual and fascinating account of his creation activities." (p. 84) To further demonstrate that Genesis should be interpreted literally, Creator notes, "The Bible in no way suggests that the first man, Adam, was merely a mythical figure." However, in a subsequent chapter it is noted regarding Genesis 3:15, "Obviously, that is figurative, or illustrative, language." (p. 119) It is unclear how Creator determines when Genesis is to be interpreted literally and when it is figurative.

The flood as historical
Creator observes in a footnote that the Biblical flood was a historical event confirmed by anthropologists. This claim is repeated later in order to offer proof of the Bible's accuracy (p. 121).

Creationist claims made in Chapter 6

 * Bible's accuracy on other scientific points shows overall accuracy
 * Genesis 1 got the order of events right
 * Evolution can't explain photosynthesis
 * Genesis must be literal; it is straightforward narrative
 * There are flood myths from all over the world

Overview of Chapter Seven
Herein Creator cites the Bible's accuracy as proof that it comes from a superhuman source and is therefore a factual account of creation. Creator mentions the books' internal harmony and agreement with historical and archaeological facts.

As further proof of divine inspiration, Creator attempts to demonstrate that prophecies made in the Bible have been confirmed. The argument of the fulfillment of prophecies is restated in a subsequent chapter (p. 177).

In addition, Creator points out the Bible's accurate medical advice. The high level of understanding of issues of hygiene, sanitation, and disease is noted in a subsequent chapter (p. 127).

Creationist claims made in Chapter 7

 * Bible is harmonious throughout
 * The Bible must be accurate because archaeology supports it
 * Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible
 * Bible specifies good medical and hygienic practices

Subsequent chapters
The final chapters of Creator contain no new significant claims of a scientific nature.

Acknowledgements
zieber