The SETI Proof for the Existence of G-d
Article by Shlomo Moshe Scheinman
Science actually supports the existence of G-d. As evidence, I will quote from Rabbi Moshe Averick:
A major scientific project – the SETI Project – was recently downsized due to its lack of success. SETI stands for Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.
Scientists would scan the sky with radio-telescopes hoping to detect patterns of radio waves that would indicate an intelligent source. Imagine these SETI scientists detected the following Morse code radio transmission and could prove it came from a galaxy a million light years away: We inhabit a planet a million light years away from your Earth. We have been observing your civilization for centuries, from the time of what you call the Roman Empire. We have analyzed the chemical/molecular formula of your DNA and as a show of good faith we will transmit to you the chemical formula of a cure for cancer.” Would that not be undeniable evidence of an intelligent alien civilization?
Imagine further that the following exchange then takes place between two SETI scientists:
“Hold on, stop the party! How do you know the source is an intelligent alien life form, maybe there is some naturalistic unguided process that is the source of these transmissions? ”
(Incredulously) “What unguided, naturalistic process do you know of that can produce intelligible Morse code messages?!”
“Aha! The Argument from Ignorance! Just because you don’t know, does that mean there must be an intelligent creative force behind these messages? After all, did you meet these aliens? Do you know who, where, or what they are?
Is the conclusion that these transmissions originated from an intelligent source an Argument from Ignorance or is it simply as obvious as 2+2=4? The simple truth is that we are not ignorant of how specified information – like Morse code messages – arises. The only known source of such information is creative, conscious, and intelligent activity. This has been confirmed by all human experience. The reason we conclude that these messages came from intelligent aliens is not just because we don’t know of any naturalistic process that could produce such specified information. It is because we know exactly how these types of messages are formed. That knowledge is so clear in our minds that we don’t even consider any other possibility. It is axiomatic that we have the ability to recognize intelligent causation. If not, what was the point of spending millions of dollars on the project in the first place? Similarly, when we conclude that the functional complexity and specified information (contained in the DNA) of the simplest living organisms is the result of intelligent causation, it is not out of ignorance; but from the clear knowledge that there is no other known source for such phenomena. Again, this knowledge is so clear that – absent compelling evidence to the contrary – it precludes the consideration of any other possibility. The failure of science in its attempts to discover a plausible naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is exactly the result we would expect from such an investigation!”
Rabbi Averick stresses that this point is not dependent on lack of belief or belief in Darwinian Evolution. This is due to the fact that “Darwinian Evolution cannot take place without a living, DNA-based self-replicating organism already in place. Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection are only operative from that point forward. Evolutionary theory does not even pretend to explain how the first living, DNA-based organisms originated”.
In case I haven’t made myself clear enough, I will quote from the non-religious, billionaire, Bill Gates, who is also a famous computer programmer and founder and former Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft (from his book, The Road Ahead), “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
As far as the odds of random chance producing a minimally complex cell, non-Jewish scientist, Stephen Meyer in his book, Signature in the Cell, page 216 writes:
“Since elementary particles can interact with each other only so many times per second (at most 1043), since there are a limited number (1080) of elementary particles and since there has been a limited amount of time since the big bang (1017) there are a limited number of opportunities for any given event to occur in the history of the universe”…
By simply multiplying the 3 relevant factors 1043 X 1080 X 1017 we arrive at 10140 as the maximum total number of events that could have taken place in the entire observable universe.
On page, 219 we learn that the probability of producing a minimally complex cell by chance alone is 1 chance in 1040,861. That is to say that 10140 maximum total number of events in the universe could in no realistic way account for our extremely, “lucky” result of the production of the first complex cell.
The truth of the matter you can make the odds for random luck producing a minimally complex cell much worse by considering the following issues raised by
Ide Trotter, Ph.D. in a brief comment to one of Rabbi Moshe Averick’s articles at http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/
This minimally complex cell needs a solution for the following problems:
1. Creation of the molecules of life
2. Chirality – Left handed proteins and right handed carbohydrates
3. Concentration- Impurities poison reactions
4. Connection – Polymerization to biologically required size
5. Code – Proteins, DNA, all biologically active molecules are coded
6. Catalysis – Specific enzymes required in living systems
7. Cyclicality – It takes the protein to make the protein
8. Complex Coordination- Cells are highly integrated machines-networks
of nested feedback systems
For a more elaborate and detailed presentation of some of the points I have raised so far, I suggest my readers, visit the following web sites:
If G-d’s Intervention in
Nature is so Clear, Why Do Many Fail to See It?
When there are no moral consequences for deciding one way or another, the average person will readily admit, that a highly sophisticated piece of computer software was ultimately the product of someone who created the components and designed it. It did not come to be, by random accidental forces. However, when it comes to belief in G-d, because this has an impact on one’s moral behavior, many of these same individuals will latch on to very unlikely scientific explanations of certain things that we find in this world rather than admit to the existence of G-d.
For example, when faced with the data, which suggests that this world had a definite beginning, and is finely tuned to allow for the development of vital elements that we need for survival, they will come up with wild theories of multiple universes, that have never been observed and contend our universe is the lucky universe that allows for development of vital elements. When confronted with the fact that even given all the known matter in the universe and tremendous amounts of time, the odds are way too low to realistically believe that complex life could have emerged out of non-living chemicals by natural or random forces, they will point to some minor successes in solving a small fraction of the problems involved in various lab experiments. In this sense, they are like the ancient Pharaoh of Egypt, who used the fact that his magicians were able to reproduce the first 2 Biblical plagues on a small scale to “prove” that the plagues were just magician tricks (Shmot/Exodus 7:22,23).
Is It Acceptable For Bible Believers to Use the Estimated Time from the “Big Bang As Part of An Argument for the Existence of A Supernatural Creator?
Scientist Stephen Meyer used the estimated time from the “Big Bang” to calculate the odds of producing a minimally complex cell by chance. The “Big Bang Theory” currently assumes the universe was created more than 13.8 billion years ago. The question arises is it acceptable that a Bible believing Jew makes use of data from the “Big Bang Theory”, since when we count from the years of Adam, until our day, we arrive a number that is less than 6000? I deal with this issue in several articles that can be found on the home page of http://www.vilnagaon.org
I would start with
This Article was written in Jewish
Year5774 (Secular Year 2014).