How is evolution possible without Creator?

[Streetlgnd]

I have a question abou evolution that I have thought about for years, maybe someone can help me out with an answer...

 

How is evolution possible with out some kind of creator or prior knowledge??

I get the natural selection proccess,  but lets go back to after the big bang, but before animals and such...

 

If we came from nothing and there was nothing before the big bang, where did the knowledge come from for evolution to start. It doesnt make sense to me that we all came from nothing. 

From the very first organisms that came to life, there had to have been some kind of knowledge that is the backbone of evolution for that organism to come to be. It doesnt make sense to me that these first organisms came from absolutely nothing. 

 

Even "Light"... i dont understand how photons ever came to be without a ultimate knowledge or creator. Atoms, electrons, photons... I dont understand how evolution explains how these this were created from nothing. 

 

The best analogy I can use is: You can put all the pieces to a computer together... but that computer is never going to do anything unless it get some kind of programming. It will just sit there for eternity, not being able to do anything or know what to do. 

 

Even with the big bang..if there was originally nothing, how did the big bang happen with no prior knowledge of laws or physics. You cant just have a big bang, then all of a sudden there is a forever expanding universe with planets made from all types elements. Everything that is on the periodic table... couldnt have just come from nothing.. at least in my mind..

 

 

I'm not a religious person, but I do believe there has to be some kind of creator. I think alot, and this is something that has been on my mind for many years. I just thought I would post here and hear other peoples thoughts.

 

Cheers

 

 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Streetlgnd said:

I have a question abou evolution that I have thought about for years, maybe someone can help me out with an answer...

 

How is evolution possible with out some kind of creator or prior knowledge??

I get the natural selection proccess,  but lets go back to after the big bang, but before animals and such...

 

If we came from nothing and there was nothing before the big bang, where did the knowledge come from for evolution to start. It doesnt make sense to me that we all came from nothing. 

The outcome of the universe wasn't pre-ordained. The only 'instructions' were in the form of the properties of the primordial elements/phenomena, and how they were expressed in the  form of structures just occurred randomly. If the Big Bang started again, the universe may well have looked totally different. Some structures gained an advantage over others because they were in the right place at the right time and were able to proliferate.... this is the essence of evolution.

[Phi for All]

Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a population over time. The theory is not about creation at all. If you feel the need for a creator, you can claim it created the process, but science has explanations that don't involve anything supernatural.

[Carrock]

30 minutes ago, Streetlgnd said:

How is evolution possible with out some kind of creator or prior knowledge??......

I'm not a religious person, but I do believe there has to be some kind of creator.

A problem is that if you assume the necessity of a creator with knowledge, then that creator had to be created by a creator with knowledge and so on - infinite regression.

Religion often uses the creator concept since logic or rational thought is irrelevant.

[Moontanman]

26 minutes ago, Streetlgnd said:

I have a question abou evolution that I have thought about for years, maybe someone can help me out with an answer...

 

How is evolution possible with out some kind of creator or prior knowledge??

It can and has been demonstrated that order can arise from chaos from crystals to complex organic molecules. In an environment with surplus energy this can be shown to happen. 

26 minutes ago, Streetlgnd said:

I get the natural selection process,  but lets go back to after the big bang, but before animals and such...

That is an unknown, it may very well be unknowable but there are fascinating hypothesis concerning the concept of "before" the universe as we know it all of them are naturalistic mainly because a creator being  requires a creator and so on and as such is not an answer to anything. 

26 minutes ago, Streetlgnd said:

 

If we came from nothing and there was nothing before the big bang, where did the knowledge come from for evolution to start. It doesnt make sense to me that we all came from nothing.

As far as I know nothing cannot exist, the people who really study these things do not claim something came from nothing. Some scientists say the universe is simply a phase change in an existing state, some say thing like worm holes spawn new universes, some seem to suggest that there is an infinite multiverse of which we are just a tiny portion. There is the ekpyrotic camp (my personal fav) and others but nothing is not really what the big bang theory states. 

26 minutes ago, Streetlgnd said:

From the very first organisms that came to life, there had to have been some kind of knowledge that is the backbone of evolution for that organism to come to be. It doesnt make sense to me that these first organisms came from absolutely nothing. 

 

Even "Light"... i dont understand how photons ever came to be without a ultimate knowledge or creator. Atoms, electrons, photons... I dont understand how evolution explains how these this were created from nothing.

The universe is under no obligation to be understandable... 

 

 

[zapatos]

At the beginning of the Big Bang, laws of physics existed. While not all of the details are understood, these laws are sufficient for the formation of all you see, including the change from inanimate to animate matter. If you have enough time and interest you can research what we know about the entire process.

What isn't known is why the laws of physics exist, or why they exist as they do. Some people like to believe they must have had a creator. There seems to be no way to prove a creator, so science typically stays away from that question.

The first organisms did not come from 'nothing', they came from, and resort back to, the chemicals you see around you. It is just that if joined in a certain manner, they exhibit properties we categorize as 'life'.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Streetlgnd said:

How is evolution possible with out some kind of creator or prior knowledge??

Applying the same logic, how is a creator possible and who gave him or her this knowledge...and who gave this him or her the knowledge that gave the creator the knowledge. You see where this is heading? I believe probably one of the greatest educators of our time put it better then most....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU

Quote

Even with the big bang..if there was originally nothing, how did the big bang happen with no prior knowledge of laws or physics. You cant just have a big bang, then all of a sudden there is a forever expanding universe with planets made from all types elements. Everything that is on the periodic table... couldnt have just come from nothing.. at least in my mind..

Simply put, we do not know with any certainty. Isn't this the beauty of science? In that it can, does, and will admit that we do not know, rather then make an even more astonishing claim that some magical supernatural being did it. 

The BB isn't actually a theory on how the universe was created. It is a theory/model on the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds. Before that point, we have no knowledge. After that point, the model aligns with our current knowledge. It goes roughly like this....[1] space started to expand [why we do not know] [2] In that first micro period of time the four forces were all combined into one superforce. [3] As expansion took hold and pressures and temperatures dropped, this superforce started to decouple into the four forces we are familiar with today...[4] This created phase transitions and false vacuums, and the excesses of energy went into creating our very first fundamental particles, probably quarks and electrons...[5] As temperatures and pressures continued to drop, protons and neutrons formed..[6] At around t+3 minutes the first atomic nuclei were formed...[7] Temperatures and pressures continued to drop for another 380,000 years until temperatures were such that electrons were able to couple with atomic nuclei and our first elements of hydrogen and other lighter stuff were formed. [8] Under the auspices of gravity huge conglomerations of gas clouds started to collapse until nuclear fusion began at their cores....our first stars were born. [9] These first stars were very large and had short life spans until going supernova, and creating heavier elements. [10] Supernova remnants formed more stars as gravitational collapses continued, as well as planets and such from gaseous nebula that did not undergo fusion. [11] Many  billions of years later conditions were such on some of these planets, that a process called abiogenisis started. [12] On one such planet this process evolved and beings such as you  and I were able then to contemplate such events. 

While we have no evidence of anything before the 10-43 seconds, we are able to reasonably speculate about how the universe and space and time evolved from what we are able to determine as nothing....This article speculates on that scenario https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

[mistermack]

I'm with Carrock as to the "final answer". You may well keep going back until you find a gap in science. It's well acknowledged by all that we don't have all of the answers, and it's probable that some things ARE going to turn out unknowable. But to imagine that "there must be a creator" is an answer is just wishful thinking. It's no answer at all. You've just moved the mystery along a bit, to an imaginary being. If a gigantic god appeared in the sky tomorrow, and said in an almighty voice " I did it all !! " you still wouldn't be any the wiser, unless you found out what caused HIM, and what caused THAT. etc etc. 

Religious "philosophers" claim that there must be an "uncaused" cause to start it all off. But that's a nonsense. If you can have an uncaused cause, then you can have an uncaused Universe. It's no answer at all. Just the good old God-of-the-gaps, shoved in to put something in place of a mystery. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Just shove it in there. People have been doing it for thousands or even millions of years.

[Argania]

You know, I think we just underestimate the power of Nature 

[Prometheus]

On 11/12/2018 at 2:54 PM, Streetlgnd said:

I'm not a religious person, but I do believe there has to be some kind of creator. I think alot, and this is something that has been on my mind for many years. I just thought I would post here and hear other peoples thoughts.

 

Here's another way to think about it. Can you imagine how this 'creator' came to exist? The creator's beginning is as problematic as the universe's beginning, you've just added a layer a complication for nothing. Maybe he didn't pop into existence from nothing, but has simply always existed. Then just take out the middleman and apply it directly to the universe.

I really don't understand why people are happy with the idea of some being having always existed, but not the universe itself. Seems to me the other way round makes more sense.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Since this is in a science section, the question needs to be treated as asking "what shortcomings does the science have that requires that a creator be postulated?"

It's not appropriate to go down the rabbit-hole of discussing a creator. (I will observe that the OP has not returned to chime in on anything)

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Religion and Science are never really going to meet. If any religion ever comes up with anything proven, Science will say "we'll take that!" leaving the poor religion without anything Supernatural with any verified substance to point at...

So let's not begrudge them their faith based arguments, and stop trying to trick them into using scientific ones...

[Phi for All]

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So let's not begrudge them their faith based arguments, and stop trying to trick them into using scientific ones...

The religious can choose leeches over aspirin, but they don't get to make specious claims about aspirin's efficacy without being corrected. And shown why their argument about aspirin isn't scientific. But we can choose to say nothing about the leeches (until they make a scientific claim about them, that is). 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Religion and Science are never really going to meet.

They actually already do. It's called psychology and sociology.

[J.C.MacSwell]

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

They actually already do. It's called psychology and sociology.

Aren't they attempting to be sciences?

Don't forget when debating religion the laws of science and scientific method never fully apply.

For example the second law of thermodynamics:

1. You can't win

2. You can't break even

But 3. You can, and often should, get out of the game 

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Aren't they attempting to be sciences?

doesn't that mean they are?

[Itoero]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 3:54 PM, Streetlgnd said:

How is evolution possible with out some kind of creator or prior knowledge??

You do understand that 'knowledge' is an evolved property? A while back, when we were still african apes, there was no 'knowledge'.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

You do understand that 'knowledge' is an evolved property? A while back, when we were still african apes, there was no 'knowledge'.

1

1

Just less.

Edited December 10, 2018 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

doesn't that mean they are?

Arguably yes. To what degree are they trying to use or accept religious faith based arguments?

Examining religion doesn't really meet it, in the context of the two coming together.

Edited December 10, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Arguably yes. To what degree are they trying to use religious faith based arguments?

I don't know, does it matter?

Edited December 10, 2018 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't know, does it matter?

Doesn't to me. They were given as examples of where science and religion meet. In the context of the discussion I don't see it.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't see it.

Keep looking...,

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Doesn't to me. They were given as examples of where science and religion meet. In the context of the discussion I don't see it.

Religious claims CAN be evaluated with physics and chemistry, and this is true if the claim becomes anything more tangible than mere poetry.

Religious practice CAN be evaluated with psychology and sociology, and this is true regardless of how ludicrous the claims they make.

Religious claims of the supernatural, however, cannot be met with science since science deals with the natural, observable, and measurable.

I'm probably missing some obvious gap in the logic, but those cover the basics on immediate glance.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Religion and Science are never really going to meet. If any religion ever comes up with anything proven, Science will say "we'll take that!" leaving the poor religion without anything Supernatural with any verified substance to point at...

It's more like they're saying "We'll take that from here" after meeting at a relay race. When the supernatural can be explained naturally, science finally has a runner on the track.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Religious claims CAN be evaluated with physics and chemistry, and this is true if the claim becomes anything more tangible than mere poetry.

Religious practice CAN be evaluated with psychology and sociology, and this is true regardless of how ludicrous the claims they make.

Religious claims of the supernatural, however, cannot be met with science since science deals with the natural, observable, and measurable.

I'm probably missing some obvious gap in the logic, but those cover the basics on immediate glance.

No. Probably more my narrower definition of "never really going to meet".You can evaluate someone, or something, in a one sided manner, without any meeting of the minds.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's more like they're saying "We'll take that from here" after meeting at a relay race. When the supernatural can be explained naturally, science finally has a runner on the track.

Does that assume religion to be the forerunner of science? Perhaps in some respects it is.