The question: “do you think our evolution without a designer is like so many pennies landing on their edges because you know anything about the chemistry and physical constants at work or do you think that because somebody else said so and you were happy to adopt the idea?”
the short answer is both…
My understanding is growing along with a belief in evolution and how it does not conflict with a Creator and designer of the universe.
Science can be a way to grasp a better understanding of God. Yet science is by definition opposed to anything supernatural and can not grasp the supernatural.
For instance if I say there is a multiverse and an innumerable number of universes yet I can not go outside this universe to observe this, would you take this on faith? I could only possibly hope for some indirect evidence. I can’t really substantiate a multiverse with a certainty unless I can access other universes. The idea that this cosmologicaly fine tuned universe is just one of the infinite permutations is a proposition that takes an astounding amount of blind faith. Not to mention the infinate regress problem.
So why must there be objection to the cosmological proof of a Designer who had to manage the construction of this universe so as to support life? We can know a great deal about what had to happen in the early seconds of the big bang in order for there to be the universe we so clearly observe directly. We even find new constraints in the form of dark energy and dark matter to add to the complexity of this universe and how fine tuned the mixture MUST be in order for me to type this response.
In other words the long shot odds of getting the fine tuning just right may exceed the number of atoms in this uniquely fine tuned existence we all can observe directly.
So the numbers and probability can certainly point to a Creator Higher Power that is outside of any limitations in this universe.
But we don’t only have the cosmological argument as a point of evidence for a Creator. Yet if this is all a natural occurrence and has no intelligence behind the fine tuning means we are all lottery winners already.
Then you add biology…
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=d5082c909684c57107e7
If you watch the video you should at the minimum come away as a deist. We have not only a fined tuned universe but also a process of evolution that requires simplicity be ever more complex by genetic drift and natural selection. A presuppositional affinity for emergence and ever greater complexity despite the greater entropy of thermodynamics. You have to take on faith the idea that from the very FIRST mitosis life was ready to replicate in a way that got all the bits just right and then continued to get it right time and time again (with only about 3.5 billion years to try hitting all the needed bulls-eyes) when it comes to the current complexity. An affinity to emergence in the face of the entropic pull.
Our current complexity is a good indication that we are in a garden that was tended by a Gardener. It would be a strong faith in deed to think that all this complex interdependency is an act of pure natural processes with no directed intelligence behind them. Meaning that I get those five pennies to land on edge without any Intelligent directive influences. And have to have subsequent casts of the pennies replicate the same result or near statistical inprobablity.
Yes what I am saying is noting new or uniquely my own. There is a multitude of indirect and direct evidences for God. Understanding molecular and chemical affinities only adds to the points of evidence.
The analogical use of the five pennies example was my idea on expressing what would need to happen on several fronts to bring us to our current complexity. Naturalism would say that a godless force is fine tuning the processes and affinities without any intelligence to direct the proses.
An atheist might argue that there is a natural affinity to having those pennies land on edge. Even in the first picoseconds of the big bang. It was blind random chance in other words. A continued natural affinity for life to happen from non-life. And another natural affinity for chordates making it as far up the evolutionary lader as they have today. For all the affinity there had to be a limit to how many tries you get before hitting the sweet spot. There may be times that fewer pennies landed on edge. But to say this is ALL a godless process is to in some way deny reality in the face of indications that something supernatural is at work. Science by its nature blind to the supernatural. Science is in a box of limitations. But we (humanity) are an interesting gestalt that would indicate more than just blind random luck with natural selection mixed in.
Again the wealth of evidence for even an Aristotelian God is out there for any self aware conscientiousnesses to grasp. The greater faith is to say all happened in a godless way. Just like the idea of a multiverse takes blind faith that has no access to anything outside this universe. Just like the blind faith required for Darwinian evolution being the correct and exact model of how all life has evolved to this point. Look at the chances that had to take place regardless of affinity for certain outcomes. We don’t have a time machine to go back and get all the proofs needed to fill all the gaps that do exist. Blind faith that the phylogenetic tree has all the relationships right without any genetic sequencing to really test accuracy. Blind faith that pakicetus is the ancestor to whales when we can’t sequence the genetic code sufficiently for irrefutable proof. Bind faith that science has ALL the answers given sufficient time and the right questions. There is a greater amount of blind faith required of the atheist then is required for even an Aristotelian First Cause to all things view or deistic watchmaker.
Even my Biblical view of God requires that there be doubt and free will. One can doubt the existence of God and even God honors our free will to reject God. God may even be cruel and playing a malicious joke yet less faith is needed in even that unlikely proposition.
But the atheist often insists that there is no evidence for God. Or no sufficient evidence. This is the blind faith I am talking of. The idea that all is a consequence of natural forces. That all can be explained inside the limiting box of science. No God and no gaps that God can hide in. Or one can go on a personal journey and KNOW God and see the abundant evidence for a caring loving God. Both the atheist and theist proposition require a measure of faith. But the atheist one needs the greater exercise of trust that defines what faith is. Because the atheist has only the solipsist view to rely upon and that reason is why the atheist faith is the bigger and more blind faith. One could even say that the atheist is willfully blind and thus only trusts in themselves and what ever they can derive from that selfish internalized and inward facing view.
For me I have to look outside myself and put trust in things that are outside of myself. This small trust is the faith that grows with more evidence. The faith that is tested, questioned, and thirsty for more evidence that will grow that faith like a mustard seed. A faith that has to deal with a measure of doubt built into the process so that one does not go it alone or only focus inwardly. A Christian faith that grows in the nutrient of Gods love for us all.
