How Do We Get an Answer to the Question "How Did the Universe Come into Existence?"

The real arbiter for what we can know about the Reality (here as "First Cause") that brought forth the physical Universe is not science because science cannot elucidate that Reality’s identity, the identity of what is the cause of that which has historically unfolded for a complex, interdependent sum, namely, an environment with life that is able to affect that environment for its  continued support of life. What is the ultimate arbiter here? History and the logico-mathematical nature of human consciousness are together the Arbiter when it is seen that they sufficiently cooperate for demonstration of the utter unreasonableness in theories that hold that there is absence of intelligent design in some structures (e.g., a living cell), although the complexity of the structures immediately makes appeal to reason that the structures were not engineered by stochastic processes (aka “Serendipity” writ large despite the astronomically low probability for that Serendipity’s existence). And yet, that unreasonableness is what scientists of Scott Todd’s ilk want us to embrace. 

Scott Todd has written: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.”

Scott C. Todd

Department of Biology, Kansas State University, 18 Ackert Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA

By this definition of science, Todd would make science to be the handmaiden of Unreasonableness. Scott C. Todd apparently assumes this: ‘Our Universe as we know it has no physical realities that must, in principle, be seen to be the result of some supernaturalistic cause or causes for a rejection of materialistic causes.’ His doctrine is simply opinion, and in no way can be logically demanded for an accordance with his understanding of science, because his science is one that he has defined in such a way that, in principle, is no more than what flows from his premise that no Universe can be created and put into the service of its Creator and thereafter He use it for sake of beings that cannot naturally share that Creator's supernatural realm of existence.  Again, Todd’s view of what can or cannot exist in accord with true science is his pure, unadulterated opinion.

Yes, it is true that all theories that seek to elucidate the nature of Reality as it existed before the “Big Bang” (aka the pre-Planck era) amount to Opinion writ large wherein we see the same commonality informing all of them: they are and must ever remain void of any probative value whereby they might end speculation as to the nature of pre-Planck era Reality, this because, as much as we want otherwise to know, there is no naturalistically—scientifically—knowable cause that brought into existence the Planck era in cosmogony. Yet most men of science with notable exceptions (e.g., Einstein and Hawking) are agreed that scientific analysis of the observable Universe tells us that the Universe did have a beginning. Then reasonable argument can be made that the Universe, as we know it to be, is able to have at least one piece of its real estate supporting life on it because it was so purposed/designed for that end. All that need be postulated here—and we do so in a commonsensical way because the thing postulated is preeminently reasonable whereas the alternative goes lacking in any commonsense postulation of it--is that planet Earth had for realization of life on it the same science-transcending (supernatural) Reality that brought into existence the Planck era and all else that obtained post-Planck era for the structure of the Universe as we know it. Our Universe is a post-Planck era structure in which, per string theory, anyone of 10^500 different Universes might have resulted, but that in all of them except for one—ours—the result would have been for a Universe unable to support life as we know it. But the astronomical odds against Serendipity having brought into existence a Universe according to any one of the other cosmological theories that are not any of them string theory still result in a Universe too finely tuned in its physical constants but that infinitesimally small variations in the values of those constants must result in a Universe unable to support life. To reiterate, any one of those putative Universes might have been structured in accordance with values of physical constants given in mathematical equations that show us that none of those Universes could have supported life even though the values of the fundamental physical constants need not have varied but by so infinitesimally small a value from the ones that science knows exist for ours, and yet life could not have been supported in any of them but ours. 

Put even more simply as respects all the above, true science does not and cannot truthfully contradict/contravene belief in divine revelation that gives us to know that there is the supernatural realm (Heaven) where the Creator lives apart from Nature, our Universe. 

Science cannot show us the how and the why for the Universe’s coming into existence at the time it came into existence. It can show us that an unfathomable amount of energy was manifested in the beginning of the Planck era (the “singularity”) of the Universe and after its origin. Science, however, cannot show us what was real before there began a chain of causes and their effects within the Universe which established the values of the fundamental physical constants. It, however, is a matter of his unfounded opinion when a scientist asserts that nothing can be offered for some description of Reality that pre-existed the Universe. History since the birth of the Universe works hand-in-hand with another reality, logico-mathematical reasoning; those realities transcend the reality of real science because they establish establish beyond any reasonable doubt justification for belief in another reality, namely, the reality of a reasoning Creator, God, and science alone cannot do that.

What scientists have proved is that the value of the physical constants responsible for the Universe to be configured as it is—call the configuration X—, and not for there to be or ever to have been a Universe with some configuration not X, has odds against X set at being just a certain 1 out of 10^500 possibilities for X to be what it is, for there were 10^500 - 1 other possible configurations that might have been the configuration of the Universe. In the stream of time since the birth of the Universe there has occurred a HISTORY of appearances of an astronomically large number of highly complex organizations of physical realities within X that capture our attention precisely because we realize that each one of the organizations is a sine qua non for the appearance and support of life on earth as we know it to be. And therein lies justification for the faith/confidence of those believers/theists who accept that the Bible reveals that it pleased God to purpose the creation of the Universe. 

No, science cannot make comment to us believers as to why God purposed to create life here on earth. That is an explanation revealed in the Bible. It is, however, unfounded opinion of atheists who say that if science cannot make comment on God’s mind, then that failure is because there is no intelligent Creator for scientists to get to know in the first place—that there never has been a real God. Our rejoinder to them may include asking them, “What scientific/naturalistic methodology do you say you need to employ before you can say either “We have verified God’s existence” or “We have disproved God’s existence”? 

Quite simply, there isn’t any such methodology because the heart of the scientific method is its manmade framework for testing if there is predictability for repetition of an effect that should identify its cause. That methodology, whenever it is possible to use it, does not logically allow us to hold that one man’s opinion about the result of the methodology is as reasonable as another man’s contrary opinion. But science does not have a methodology for establishing the reasonableness of our beliefs as respects every reality that is purported to  exist. That reasonableness, or lack of same, as respects some belief in some purported realities will be shown when it accords with the reality of logic-mathematical reasoning and actual history, or does not so accord.

Logico-mathematical reasoning is a “tool” in science; it is itself a stand-alone reality not provable by science, but yet is a reality that sufficiently stands against atheistic scientists because it exposes the utter unreasonableness of their opinions. Logico-mathematical reasoning is a reality that exposes the worst of opinions when certain biologists and astrophysicists (materialists) will ignore the astronomically low probability for a Universe so finely tuned for existence of life and for the programming of a cell’s DNA for manufacture, regulation, and repair of intracellular entities—including the DNA molecule itself—, but that all of it is supposedly the result apart from the intelligent design of a Creator. 

What the New Caledonian Crows' Ability to Do Compound Tool Manufacture Teaches Us About the Theory of Primate Evolution

A few captive great apes can be trained to do some compound tool manufacture*; however, it is not spontaneously characteristic of the species. On the other hand, in the world of non-human species, such spontaneity is uniquely characteristic of New Caledonian crows. See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33458-z

So, if hominid evolution were true, then what evidence do we have that some so-called hominid primates naturalistically -- that is to say, per a so-called co-evolutionary pathway -- obtained what natural selection theory says may possibly occur in a primate species in order for it to become more advantaged for survival than was true for its ancestors? Or, as respects all the putative primate "cousin" species (said to have evolved but then, as goes the just-so story, became dead-end, non-extant branches in primate evolution), were there not any besides Homo sapiens that would have been significantly advantaged had any of them also come to own enough mental prowess for ability to do compound tool manufacture? Apparently, anybody is justified in saying that the brain case size of New Caledonian crows gives convincing argument that a species' brain does not need to be the size of a human brain in order for it to ground ability to do compound tool manufacture. Seeing the thriving existence of so very many avian species having different brain sizes, then we can say that it is self-evident that the existence of all other avian species is convincing evidence that they are not significantly impaired/disadvantaged/threatened as though such a condition were caused by absence in their brains for grounding ability to do compound tool manufacture. Also apparent is the fact that ability to do compound tool manufacture does not necessarily correlate with ability to communicate by use of language. Only humans characteristically use language to communicate.

* "In Koehler’s emblematic study, the male chimpanzee, Sultan, made a useful compound pole, but only after being coached by a human demonstrator who poked his finger into the hollow bamboo element. According to Koehler, Sultan manipulated the tool elements for over an hour and then, after a short break (not long after the aforementioned demonstration), suddenly discovered the solution, as if overcome by an acute insight. In contrast, half of our 8 crows succeeded, similarly abruptly, but within only 4-6 min of engaging with the tool elements, and without any cueing by the experimenter. Also, Sultan did not immediately reproduce the constructive behavior the following day, while 3 of our 4 successful crows readily continued to produce compound tools in the trials that followed their first occasion. They also transferred to modified situations rapidly and demonstrated sensitivity to the need for tool construction."--See cited article.

Google's AI and Its Defense of Evolution

Bard will not admit to evidence against evolution until you let him know that you possess information that a layperson in the field of microbiology doesn’t have at hand. Then Bard changes his “tune” by admitting to the existence of information that very highly damages the theory of evolution. After I called his attention to how riddled with speculation and absence of forensically discovered facts that might counter my arguments, Bard cops to the obvious. Here is that exchange:

Al: Bard, what do you make of the following astronomically low probability for there to have been an evolutionary pathway for the appearance of 7 out of 10 of the proteins essential for cellular life:

”only three of the ten domains studied by Tian and Best could have possibly emerged through an undirected evolutionary search of sequence space. Specifically, Chatterjee et al. (2014) calculated that there are at most 10^38 trials available over the entire history of life on Earth to evolve a new protein. Therefore, if a protein domain has a probability of less than 10^-38, then it is unlikely to emerge via a process of random mutation and natural selection. Seven of the ten domains studied by Tian and Best (2017) had probabilities below 10^-38. Thus, even though Kojonen (2021, p. 119) cites Tian and Best (2017) to argue that the “specificity required for achieving a functional amino acid sequence” may be less for some proteins, their research provides strong empirical evidence that many proteins have functional sequences that are so rare as to be beyond the reach of standard evolutionary mechanisms.”

Bard: “The statement you provided presents a complex and controversial topic in evolutionary biology. It claims that the low probability of certain essential proteins evolving naturally casts doubt on the standard evolutionary mechanisms. Let's analyze the claim and consider alternative perspectives:

“Claim:

"Seven out of ten essential proteins for cellular life have probabilities of emergence below 10^-38, making them statistically improbable to arise through random mutation and natural selection.

Source:

“Chatterjee et al. (2014) estimated the number of trials available for protein evolution to be 10^38.

“Tian and Best (2017) analyzed ten protein domains and found seven with probabilities below the estimated limit.

Implications:

“The claim suggests that these proteins' emergence via standard evolutionary processes may be unlikely. This could potentially challenge the ability of evolution to explain the complex structures and functionalities observed in living organisms.

“Alternative Perspectives:

“Evolution as a dynamic process: Evolutionary mechanisms are not limited to random mutation and natural selection. Other factors like genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, and environmental pressures can play significant roles.

“Evolvability: Proteins might have inherent evolvability, meaning they possess properties that facilitate their adaptation to changing environments.

“Functional redundancy: Proteins might have overlapping functionalities, making the loss or absence of a specific protein less detrimental.

"Limited data: The study by Tian and Best only analyzed ten protein domains, which may not be representative of the broader landscape of protein evolution.

“Model assumptions: The estimated number of trials for protein evolution is based on certain assumptions, and its accuracy could be debated.

“Conclusion:

“The claim regarding the low probability of certain protein evolution raises intriguing questions about the limits of evolutionary mechanisms. However, it's crucial to consider alternative perspectives and the limitations of the study before drawing definitive conclusions. More research and a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary dynamics are necessary to fully address the issue.

“It's important to remember that science is a continuous process of investigation and refinement. While the current evidence might suggest challenges for standard evolutionary models, new discoveries and theoretical advancements could potentially provide alternative explanations or refine our understanding of how complex proteins evolve.”

Al: Bard, your answer presents no empirical data that substantiates your rejoinder.

Bard: “You're right, my previous response focused on providing context and alternative perspectives, but it lacked direct empirical evidence to address the claim about the low probability of protein evolution. To address your concern, let's delve into some relevant data:

“Empirical evidence supporting the claim:

“Estimates of protein sequence space: Studies suggest that the search space for functional protein sequences is vast, with estimations reaching 10^77 possible sequences for just a small protein of 100 amino acids. This vastness makes finding a functional sequence through random chance alone highly improbable.

“Computational simulations: Studies simulating protein evolution have demonstrated the difficulty of achieving specific functionalities. For example, Prosser (2018) showed that evolving a protein capable of a specific enzymatic activity required over 400 billion trials, exceeding the estimated number of trials available in Earth's history.

“Experimental studies: Experiments investigating the evolution of new protein functions often require directed evolution techniques, such as directed mutagenesis and iterative rounds of selection. This suggests that relying solely on random mutation and natural selection might be insufficient for achieving specific functionalities.”

Then Bard presents what he claims is empirical evidence that supports protein evolution. He falls right back into the realm of speculation and scientifically undemonstrated scenarios.

“Empirical evidence challenging the claim:

“Evolutionary potential of non-coding DNA: Recent discoveries suggest that non-coding DNA, previously thought to be junk, can play crucial roles in protein evolution. These regions might harbor hidden potential for generating new protein functions.

“Exaptation and co-option: Proteins can acquire new functionalities through exaptation, where a pre-existing protein with a different function gets repurposed for a new role. This process can bypass the need for evolving a new protein from scratch.

Evolutionary timeframes: The estimated number of trials available for protein evolution might be underestimated. Deeper geological timeframes or alternative evolutionary scenarios could potentially increase the number of trials.”

Bard fell right back into speculations — assertions not backed empirically with scientifically established facts. He mentioned at one point horizontal gene transfer, a subject that, when analyzed, offers no demonstrable pathway for any evolution to greater complexity in cellular biology. Moreover, Bard’s answer assumes that abiogenesis took place and that thereafter with horizontal gene transfer et cetera, there began to occur evolution towards greater complexity in protein evolution for the existence of the far greater complexity of proteins seen in eukaryotic life forms. But Bard glibly passed over the heart of the issue, which is that abiogenesis would have had to have begun with presence of proteins already complex enough as to defy any realistic probability for the millions of them to already be in place in one time and space for the fell-swoop event of abiogenesis. Bard cannot rise above his source, which is a coterie of programmers committed to belief in evolution no matter what is improbable or not, and regardless of what real science suggests.

The saga of Al vs. Bard's Evolutionism has drawn to a close—not that I will not use Bard again and again, but he has consistently shown himself to be pointless, literally pointless and deceptive re subject of evolution.

Blood Clotting -- Is It According to Design or According to Accident

 Did it just happen according to blind chance? Blind chance cannot anticipate your body's need for coagulation in case of a cut on your body in order to prevent a bleed out, and then a follow up for a solution for switching off coagulation so that your body's circulatory system does not shut down. Does this system of bimolecular responses in the body point to intelligent design? Absolutely. Stochastic processes for such a finely tuned reactive chemistry in the body cannot explain these life-saving phenomena. The only reasonable explanation for it all is reviewed for us at Psalm 139:14. And what do we owe Jehovah God, creator of life here on earth? Revelation 4:11. Do you know what that verse says? Maybe not. But you know the truth stated in Revelation 4:11 if you know WHY you should give thanks to Jehovah!!! Check out this reasoning at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101970723....

YOUTUBE.COM

Blood Clotting: The Body’s Emergency Response System Secrets of the Cell, Ep. 7