Philip: Ken, that, my friend, is the incredible organization you deny - which is astonishingly complex - and in just 20 minutes! No Intelligence required???!!! - and to think our best minds and experiments have taken up the past 100 years of testing and research to the present consensus!
Ken: Wait a minute! Are you saying Physicists are claiming an intelligent being is behind the Big Bang? If so perhaps you can provide a link or something to back this up.
And that post, Ken, shows precisely why you are not honest or sincere about this debate! Because you are not willing to address the necessity of intelligence for creating, organizing, and guiding what are obviously such complex designs, functions, coordination, and oversight and guidance for what occurred during the Big Bang. Because, as opposed to answering what you believe is possible with non-intelligent things - you are changing the subject - because, while individual scientist opinions abound, science doesn't and cannot weigh in specifically as to whether or not an intelligence caused the Big Bang's details. Science merely asserts what exactly occurred - but not WHY it did. And a very significant percentage of qualified physicists DO recognize an intelligence behind the universe, while, admittedly, many others do not. But that is merely opinion that varies from scientist to scientist, and typically lines up with whatever happens to be an individual scientists' theistic beliefs. And many qualified scientists ARE theists, yet not all of them are Christians. So, the CAUSE of the universe is a spiritual debate - because they all scientists are only able to go upon the very same data and research. But if you want a large list of renowned scientists who believe an intelligence was behind the universe, I can provide it. But something tells me that doesn't matter to you - as you only appeal to nonsense when that suits your unbelief.
Nonetheless, Ken, I asked YOU about the Big Bang, as science describes what happened, and whether or not it requires an intelligence or exhibited the markers of complexity, organization and operation that the world otherwise and only recognizes as possible as requiring intelligence. Why are you appealing to science, when scientists have a variety of views about this,
as if they ALL say no intelligence was required? And, btw, there are quite a few non-theist scientists who believe the universe itself happens to have its own intelligence. But whatever, I'm telling you that you have no reason whatsoever - scientific or otherwise - to believe non-intelligent things could produce either the required exponentially unique things, designs of detailed happenings of the Big Bang. So, without an intelligence involved, you are ONLY left with the option that non-intelligent things are capable of the equivalent of magic. But we DO have centuries in which NO science has EVER shown non-intelligent things exhibiting things requiring intelligence - which is also a witness of scientific evidences and observations. And that should tell us something!
Even Richard Dawkins, the famous evolutionary biologist and atheist hero has admitted that an intelligence source might have been involved in the universe's! Did you know that, when interviewed by Ben Stein, he agreed that to be a possibility. Here's a brief excerpt from the interview (Found here:
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option ... &Itemid=28):
Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?
Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.
Ben Stein: But, but
Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.
Ben Stein: (voiceover) So Professor Dawkins was not against Intelligent Design, just certain types of Designers, such as God.
Now, ask yourself, why would Dawkins ever ponder the possibility of an intelligence behind the universe? I'd say because he recognizes that what happened at the Big Bang, and what exists, required some kind of intelligent source. Even Stephen Hawking appealed to the Laws of the Universe to control things - while failing to recognize the obvious: LAWS are merely descriptive listings of the characteristics of how things work - so, they aren't an intelligence with power and control - huge blunder for him to say so.
