"There Is No Why"

                        Image via Wikipedia

The Beatles had it all wrong when they twanged "Tell me why".

Why?

There is no why.

You're asking for a "why" when there is no "why", there is only an "is", but that leaves you as nothng particularlarly special in the universe, and that's why your ego clings to these myths. -- SDC

A really, really big bang starts everything off. Don't ask why. There is no why.

This big bang has embedded in it all the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics, the laws of logic, the laws of chemistry. Don't ask why. There is no why.

These physical laws are all exquisitely tuned, as it turns out, to support the emergence of biological life on earth, itself governed by yet more laws. Don't ask why. There is no why.

No mind behind the universe, but minds spring up out of dust. Don't ask why. There is no why.

No consciousness behind the universe, but self-consciousness emerges from dirt and water, stirred. Don't ask why. There is no why.

A dumb, purposeless process produces the exquisite emotion of love. From dirt. Don't ask why. There is no why.

A creature emerges with embedded moral sense, with strong convictions that there is good and evil, right and wrong in the midst of this senseless, mindless, purposeless swirling dirt of a universe. Don't ask why. There is no why.

A man arrives in Palestine circa 4 BC and claims to be God. His grave is empty. Don't ask why.

Evolution has given our inquiring minds the insatiable impulse to ask "why".

Why?

Don't ask.

This is the state of scientism, circa 2011.

As SDC likes to put it, there is NO EVIDENCE for a Creator.

Apart from, you know, everything that exists.

Related articles

• How could the big bang be big if there was nothing around it (wiki.answers.com)
• What is the actual defination of Big Bang (wiki.answers.com)
• [VIDEO] Power Rookies - Big Bang's Debut! (ibigbang.wordpress.com)
• CERN's 'Big Bang' recreation yields spectacular images (news.bioscholar.com)
• Animated Explained: Something from Nothing [Video] (geeksaresexy.net)
• Stephen Hawking explains the universe (scienceblogs.com)
• Existence: Why is there a universe? (newscientist.com)

Darwinism: Do You Believe In Magic?

         

Stephen Pinker endorses Alan Rogers' "The Evidence For Evolution" with this glowing commendation: “Alan Rogers addresses the political controversy over the theory of evolution (there’s no longer any scientific controversy) in the best scientific spirit: with evidence and logic. For anyone with an open mind, a curiosity about the natural world, and a desire to see controversies settled with evidence rather than rhetoric, this is an invaluable contribution and a fascinating read.”—Steven Pinker, Harvard University.

A political controversy? Uncommon Descent picks up on sword:

It’s not a political controversy. It is: 

1) An evidential controversy (for example, the fossil record, especially the Cambrian explosion). 

2) A logical and computational controversy (the insufficiency of random errors producing highly complex, functionally integrated, self-correcting computer code). 

3) A mathematical controversy (clearly insufficient probabilistic resources for anything but the most trivial changes based on Darwinian mechanisms).

Well said. Two comments.

1. If by evolution we mean that species change over time and share DNA, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution.

2. However, there is equally overwhelming evidence that the mechanism posited by darwinists -- undesigned, undirected, unintelligent chance variation -- is by incapable of producing elegant new designs.

The naturalist scientist sticks to darwinian explanations regardless of the improbabilities or inconsistencies -- because it's the only conceivable tool in his naturalistic tool-box. A person not wedded to the materialistic philosophy of naturalism is free to examine the evidence and follow it wherever it leads.

I believe in the principle of sufficient reason -- that everything that exists or happens has a sufficient reason (or cause) for its existence. Not just a cause. A sufficient cause. That's why I reject darwinism -- the mechanism posited is feeble and insufficient.

The gap between what exists and the darwinian mechanism's ability to produce the goods is not just a minor problem, it is huge. This gap includes the obvious physical design complexities of human beings and other species, but also includes things like human aspirations and moral sense. To the extent that there is a gap between what exists and the sufficiency of the darwinian mechanism to adequately account for it, darwinists believe in magic (hello, SDC -- I'm toyin' with ya).

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Related articles

• See the IDiots Gloat over Jonathan Wells (sandwalk.blogspot.com)
• Another Darwinian tautology (4simpsons.wordpress.com)
• Junk & Jonathan: Part 4 - Chapter 1 (sandwalk.blogspot.com)
• Creationism and Cybervitalism [Mike the Mad Biologist] (scienceblogs.com)
• An Atheistic Evolutionary Metaphysics (camelswithhammers.com)
• Intelligent Design and Predictions (borne.wordpress.com)
• Carnival of Evolution #38 (sandwalk.blogspot.com)

Quote of the Day: "People who don’t believe the Bible..."

"I find that people who don’t believe the Bible are more impressed with the Bible when I start by arguing with the scientific evidence." -- Wintery Knight.

An interesting take on apologetical method by the Wintery One discussing J. P. Moreland article on the scientifically-validated deleterious effects of promiscuity.

From a preaching point of view, the approach would be the opposite, i.e., preach the word, and illustrate by scientific confirmation.

And the beat goes on...

h/t Dan Hannon for pointing out the mis-attribution of the quote in the original post.