Something that has bothering me and has been bothering me ever since I have thought about it is a certain argument used by some to argue against the Big Bang Theory and evolution of complex adaptations. I wish to point out this fault from a purely logical point of view and not from my own personal beliefs.
The Big Bang Theory holds that everything originated from a single point in space-time and that the universe is expanding from that original point even as we speak. Many who criticize this theory and support others, such as Creationism, typically base their argument on largely the sheer improbability of intelligent, intricate human beings coming from primordial sludge. Yes, this is true, but first, let us take a look at the implications of the universe.
I have heard it said that it is nearly impossible for something like our world to develop out of pure chance and random processes, that the anthropic principle must necessitate intelligent design. However, by the very definition of space and the universe, infinity is a possibility. Take, for example, a combination lock with, let us say, an immensely large number of digits. Sure, it would take an exponentially greater amount of time for a brute force attack to crack the code, and sure, that would be near impossible by our standards, but what if time was infinite? Surely, the correct combination would eventually be found.
We can apply the same logic to our existence. Sure, it would take an infinite amount of tries to get it right, and sure, it could take an infinite amount of time to get it right, but if space-time is continuously expanding in the universe, you can see why it might be possible for nature to finally succeed. Our existence may be highly improbable, but it is definitely possible. Perhaps it is the one successful attempt out of many preceding it. If we look at it in the manner, you can see why that argument against the Big Bang fails. The boundlessness of space, the continuity of time, and the eternity of the very essence of God contradicts with the basis on which it is founded.
On the other hand, I have also learned about the way evolution facilitates the acquirement of complex traits. Some characteristics are obviously quite advanced, and to explain this, scientists have adopted a step theory. They postulate that through gradual, incremental adaptations, in which they retained the beneficial ones and selected out the maladaptive ones (natural selection), organisms developed the complex traits which were based upon each other. However, some complex attributes are interdependent and cannot exist without each other. How does the theory account for this?
Please understand that this is not meant to be an argument for either side of the origins debate. I am merely pointing out faulty reasoning. It just bothers me when people say there is only one in however many chances that the universe as we know it can occur, when, by the very definition of the Almighty Lord, this small number hypothetically does not matter. I am not against Creationism. I am against this manner of supporting it.
I think what these people are missing is the premise that there isn’t an infinite amount of time for nature to try this.
I think this is where entropy comes in. Sure nature can eventually succeed if it had an infinite amount of time, but it didn’t. Since the entropy of the universe is always increasing, there can’t be an infinite universe. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here.
Which is why I believe that it couldn’t have happened like that.
I think even though the universe started at a certain point, hypothetically there could have been attempts before it. I think it it also has something to do with how we perceive time and the dimensions and whether they existed before the universe began. I am not too sure about what the Big Bang entails about what existed previously, and I think that is one of its weaknesses. The question about how the things that were existed at the Big Bang began always persists.
I think the biggest thing that bothers me is what you’ve already pointed out. People constantly give reasons that do not make sense logically whatsoever in order to support this “Theory.” Well, if we are all still evolving, the intelligence level sure isn’t getting anywhere, now is it?