For me it makes sense to believe – close

For me it makes sense to believe - close

Western civilization was marked by the Christian faith until the Age of Enlightenment in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Most people believe that God created the universe, life, and man. There have always been those who believed that nature could explain itself, but these thinkers failed to win the majority.

The Age of Enlightenment reduced God. The human mind was put first. We should think and believe only what is the acceptable reason. This led to the deistic view and the emergence of naturalism. Naturalists believe that the most important causal mechanism is the random interactions between the matter and energy of the universe. These reactions go according to the laws of nature.

But since natural laws cannot create anything new, but only describe what is already there, pure chance becomes the great creative force of naturalism. God has been crossed out, and there is no plan, meaning, or purpose in existence. We ourselves must add meaning to life.

For a few thousand years it was believed that the universe is eternal and unchanging. for approx. However, 100 years ago, many scientists came to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning, which Sir Fred Hoyle called the Big Bang, which later became a term for the origin of everything. Today it is generally accepted that the universe had an origin, and that it did not exist forever.

Before the Big Bang, there was nothing, neither time, nor space, nor mass, nor energy. Everything appeared in the Big Bang.

One of the laws of logic states that nothing can create something. It’s just something that can create something. Another law states that everything that has a beginning requires a cause for its beginning. Then we have only two possibilities: either our universe arose by pure chance, or it was created. Personally, I cannot believe that our majestic universe has arisen on its own. I find it much more reasonable to believe in a Creator.

See also  Earth is on its way to its sixth mass extinction

Science has shown us that the universe has a particularly clear order. It made Einstein scream that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is intelligible. This order is expressed, among other things, in the so-called: the tuning of the universe: a number of natural constants have exactly the size necessary for the universe to exist, and it has the conditions for life. There are approximately two dozen such natural constants that should have exactly the same value. The slightest deviation is not tolerated, and it will have dire consequences.

Atheist Christopher Hitchens recognized that this remarkable position was powerful evidence of the existence of God. It is simply not possible to believe that good preparation can come about by chance. To mitigate this remarkable situation, naturalists have introduced the concept of a “multiverse”. There is not one universe but many. I allow myself to see the multiverse as a naturalist panic in response to fin tuning.

The third thing that characterizes our universe is that there is life here, and as far as we know there is life only on our Earth. This in and of itself deserves deeper thought.

Then we come to the origin of life. For more than 65 years, science has been searching to create life in the lab – but without success. A few billion dollars were spent, thousands of wise men participated.

I would like to introduce you to Professor James Tour at Rice University in the United States. He is one of the world’s leading researchers in his field. His research showed that none of the building blocks of life — proteins, fats, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids — could have formed on their own on the primal primordial Earth before life existed. The tour further says that even if you had all these materials at your disposal, no one would be able to put them together the right way. So the origin of life is an unsolved mystery, even if science wants to convey a different message.

See also  Accidents, you'll see | Fire on a clay ball in Stryn - everyone evacuated

This research is based on a naturalistic viewpoint, and believes that life is purely physical. Physics and chemistry are believed to be able to explain life, but life is much more than that. Life has a metaphysical dimension rejected by naturalism. Physics and chemistry can never explain love, infatuation, conscience, thinking…and much more.

Today we know that the origin of life requires information. This information is found in the DNA. Dead matter does not contain DNA. As far as I understand, science is unable to explain how DNA can be formed. DNA is made of nucleic acids and the sugar deoxyribose – substances that it cannot make on its own. But there is a connection that science cannot explain: how DNA can contain all the information that life requires.

You may not realize that in every cell of our body we have a DNA strand of approximately 2 meters long that contains 3.2 billion – repeat 3.2 billion – “letter DNA”. To accommodate such a long strand in the nucleus of a small cell, DNA is compressed 40,000 times. In the previous sentence, I had to put the letters in the correct order for the sentence to make sense. I can’t understand that 3.2 billion characters can come in the correct order as a result of random, blind natural processes. Personally, I am convinced that only intelligence can achieve this.

Biological information is a topic of debate. Naturalists must believe that such information should be generated on its own through development over a long period of time. However, this does not correspond to our knowledge. We know that all kinds of information, especially detailed and specific information, can only come from an intelligent source.

See also  When politicians become contributors of voter tax money

In biology, we are faced with many “chicken or egg” problems. What came first? You wrote that proteins cannot be made on their own. The proteins of life are formed in a small structure called a ribosome. Thus the first life protein had to be formed in the ribosome, but the ribosome itself is now made up of 50 proteins. Where did they come from?

We can also consider the fact that nine months before our birth, we consisted of a single cell that laid the foundation for the development of life not through billions, but billions upon billions of reactions. Since we were born healthy and without diseases or deformities, all these reactions must have gone the right way. Life is governed by a series of algorithms. The algorithms in our computers were created by experts. What about life algorithms?

After trying to learn about the natural sciences and the worldviews that define the view we should have about science, I came to the conclusion that dividing science into two parts can somewhat make it easier to choose what to think about. I divide the natural sciences into solid sciences dealing with dead or non-living nature, such as geology, meteorology, electricity, magnetism, astronomy, etc. – and SOFT science which is the same as biology. The stone is there, but it does not live. Naturalism can provide a good explanation of hard science, but in my opinion it doesn’t go far enough to explain life.

Here I have tried to give a logical reason as to why I believe that both the universe and life were created, and that neither the universe nor life could form on their own.

Dalila Awolowo

Dalila Awolowo

"Explorer. Unapologetic entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic. Certified writer. Wannabe tv evangelist. Twitter fanatic. Student. Web scholar. Travel buff."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *