The God Problem (for atheists)
December 2, 2013 | James Kohl
After I detailed some of the absurdities incorporated into evolutionary theory via comparisons with the biophysical constraints of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation. Howard Bloom, “The Amazing Atheist,” began agreeing with me in a series of somewhat crass YouTube videos. Facebook discussion ensued, and my comment in the facebook thread (included below) is also linked here.
Excerpt (Howard): “…in a sense your potential combinations of moves are infinite.”
Excerpt (Anna): “…maybe its our job to create order in a random jungle that the universe is.”
Howard and Anna, thanks. “Infinity changes things. It means space never ends.” —Bob Berman
However, we know that an infinite number of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled epigenetic effects on increased organismal complexity result in “Mosaic Copy Number Variation in Human Neurons,” which affects our behavior. The differences in copy number and behaviors are due to interactions among ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction during a continuum of species-wide adaptations to their environments. These interactions fine-tuned Howard’s brain for an understanding of physics; my brain for an understanding of molecular biology, and Anna’s brain for an understanding that most people need to perceive that there is order in the universe.
If no conclusive evidence suggests the universe is finite and common sense supported by experimental evidence of conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man suggests that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled order exists in the brain that perceives our universe, how does Howard Bloom “The Amazing Atheist” support his explanation of “How A Godless Cosmos Creates?”
I think the God Problem for atheists is that there is too much biologically-based evidence of His Creation, which must be compared to their theories. For example, see: Mosaic Copy Number Variation in Human Neurons ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— See also: R-Rated video (language) What Makes YOU a Scientist? featuring Howard Bloom. “Hey, Bloom. You don’t look like a scientist. You don’t talk like a scientist. So what makes you think that you’re a scientist?”
Note also that Richard Dawkins is frequently portrayed as if he is a scientist. “In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder “be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field”…“
The problem with attempts to make important contributions to science is that the history of science changes. (There is much more of it today than there was in the past.)
Indeed, the president of the International Society for Physiological Sciences has tried to make it clear that “If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based.” I’m not sure if the same thing can be said about those who learnt about physics and cosmology a decade or more ago, but whatever theories resulted from whatever they learned must help us to make sense of what’s been learned about evolutionary biology.
If their theories do not make sense in the light of what is known about the biology of evolution, their theories should be ignored in accord with Dobzhansky’s dictate that: Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Clearly, that also means that nothing about evolutionary psychology, physics, or chemistry makes sense except in the light of biology. Dobzhansky was a Creationist.