Creationism

I think I understand the real issue between science and intelligent design/creationism. All the scientists see are a bunch of people who are trying to deride science by saying that it could not have happened on its own. All the creationist see are a bunch of people trying to disprove their religion and devalue their gods.

After the recent thing with global warming and suppressing unpopular theories and research, I really do not know the motives of those who are arguing against creationism, except that unproven theories should not be taught in schools as fact. The creationists however may have a valid point in their argument. Their argument is based on the fact that we really do not know how things came into existence. All science is is math. We cannot directly observe the creation of the universe. Even looking at microwave background noise cannot prove that the data obtained actually represents what happened at the beginning of time. The only part of science that is truly science is the math. Most scientific theories could easily be exchanged for a different theory that results in the same math. Maybe atoms do not actually exist, but when you look at them through a microscope, the math that we use to say they do exist results in images that appear to be atoms (I am not saying I believe this, just that it could be true). So, the creationists see scientific theories as just as valid as intelligent design, because there is no evidence that is absolute that science is right.

The real difference between science and intelligent design/creationism is this: Creationism can easily explain how we got here, but cannot understand the mechanics behind it. Science still cannot explain how we got here, but it is possible to understand the mechanics behind it (difficult, but possible). Beyond that, there are few real differences. Generally creationists do not care about the mechanics and scientists do, but that is the people, not the theories. There is not any evidence that creationism cannot be proven, but no one wants to prove it.

If you are still skeptical of my argument, try this theory. First I have to offer a disclaimer. I do not believe this theory. It is not intended as a serious scientific theory, only as an example to show that any science beyond the mathematics of science is on equal standing with less scientific theories that cannot be disproved. Last but not least, I really hope no idiot tries to make a religion out of this. Here it is.

Scientifically, what is the probability that some intelligent race will evolve in any given universe? Well, assuming the theory of evolution is true, we know that there must be some probability, however small. By increasing the chances, we can increase the probability the something will happen at least once. So, what is the probability that intelligent life will evolve in at least one out of one billion universes? It should be one billion times higher than the chance in only one universe. As we increase the number of universes the probability increases. As the number of universes approaches infinity, the probability approaches 100%. If there are an infinite number of universes, and an infinite amount of time is given, then the number of times this event occurs is necessarily infinite also.

So, since science says that there are infinite universes and infinite time, we can establish that infinite intelligent races have evolved. Now, what is the probability that at least one of these races has survived long enough to develop technology sufficiently powerful to control matter and energy on a large scale? Well, if there is any probability of this happening, and there are infinite chances, then it must happen an infinite number of times. So now we have established that if it is possible, then there exist an infinite number of civilizations with technology powerful enough to control matter on a large scale. So now, is it possible to create technology that can be used to travel between universes? If it is, what is the probability that one of these civilizations has discovered this technology? Even if the technology cannot be created, what is the probability that there are natural rifts between universes, which could be safely traversed with the proper technology?

So now we have intelligent civilizations that can travel between universes, and control matter. If they can control matter, they can probably extend their life spans indefinitely. Now, what if they have found a way of storing and transferring consciousness? Also, we must assume that this civilization is good and ethical, otherwise they would have destroyed themselves with their powerful technology, while fighting for power.

So now, would it not be reasonable to assume that this race would be very careful about who is allowed to use their technology? Probably even with their own children. Maybe they would want to find a way to test their children, to make sure each one who is given access to this powerful technology will use it ethically and morally, because the consequences could be the destruction of their civilization. Of course, the best way to do this might be to allow them to grow up with no knowledge of the civilization, on some remote, but habitable world. They would watch their children and those who were unethical or immoral would not be given access to the technology and those who were would be. They would let them live their entire lives, watching them, and when they died, they would quickly upload their consciousness into whatever is used to store it, then they would judge each of their children and give them access only to that technology which they would not abuse.

If you want to go one step further, what if they told their children that they were God, and that they would be given a great reward if they were obedient (access to the technology). Then they would judge them based on what they did with that knowledge. They would not show themselves to most of their children, because that would taint the test. Some of those who would use the technology for evil might pretend to be good, then abuse their power once they were given it.

Anyhow, you should get the idea by now. Basically, I can use science to show that it is very probable that there is some supreme being/beings watching us and judging us. As a matter of fact, the probability of this depends entirely upon the probability of life evolving on its own. If that probability is low, then it is more likely that we are the offspring of some civilization that is testing us. If the probability of life evolving on its own is high, then it is more probable that we got here without outside interference.

Science can tell us what it sees, but it cannot tell us definitively what the data means. Science may be able to call data evidence for something, but it cannot call it proof. Even seeing something with your own eyes, or hearing it with your ears does not make it real. Not only can we hallucinate, but we also know that light and sound can be manipulated. Anything we see, hear, feel, smell, or taste could be invented by our own minds, or could be the result of the tinkering of others. The validity of science goes only as far as we can trust our own senses. The validity of religion ignores the senses and focuses on what we believe. It should be understood that neither senses nor belief is infallible. Thus, when creationists say that they think intelligent design should be taught along side scientific theory, they have a point. That does not mean I agree with them, but they do have a point.

My solution is much better. I think religion should be taught in schools. I do not think it should be taught like math or science, but it should be taught. Religion should be taught in classes specifically for religion. It should not focus on any single religion, but should teach about all major religions and some more important minor ones. One point that should be taught is what each religion believes in relation to where the world and humans came from. It should be impressed that this is not fact that is based on math or science, but things that people choose to believe. The students and teacher should never be allowed to debate over religion in this class, it should be limited entirely to teaching and learning, not discussing religion or accuracy of religious beliefs. Not only will this help students have a better understanding of why some people act differently, it will also help them get along with others who have different beliefs. Lastly, parents should be involved in the decision for a student to take the class. This will allow those who are afraid of their children learning intelligent design or other religious things to opt out of the class.

This solution should satisfy both parties, although I am sure they will both find some reason to argue about it.