Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

Given the time frames involved, life being the result of an accident is not an unreasonable possibility. The universe is estimated to be fourteen and a half billion years old. This estimate is based on current rates of expansion or travel from a point of origin known as a ‘singularity.’1

This reasoning process is known as deductive logic, or reasoning from the general to a particular. 2

Most of western science is modeled on: Form a hypothesis, develop a test or experiment to confirm the validity, perform the test, and record the results of the test and validate/invalidate the hypothesis.3

Is it possible there are other forms of life? My belief is that there may be other forms of life, but at present no life forms have presented themselves in any way our five senses and/or technology can detect. 4

For the purpose of this examination, life is defined as “sentient” or 1. Responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2. Aware.
This definition is to include all genera of plant and animal life on this planet. 5

The problems of identifying the cause of life are: No human was there to tell us how it occurred and we can’t travel back in time fourteen and a half billion years ago to witness the origin of the universe and follow it to the origin of sentient life.6

The facts available to us have been assembled to support various theories. One of these theories is evolution or natural adaptation in the survival of the species. Underlying and supporting this theory is a fossil record. The age of Earth is estimated at four and a half billion years. The oldest fossilized bacteria are recognized as being about three and a half billion years old.7

I am familiar with a theory, ‘The Seven Rounds of Genesis’, that postulates the formation of proteins and amino acids from readily available chemical compounds subjected to atmospheric electrical discharges and radiation. Proteins and amino acids are necessary for the production of DNA. 8

DNA is the element common to all forms of sentient life on this planet. So it is theoretically possible that life originated from an accidental or serendipitous combination of chemical components, electrical and radiological discharges.9

It cannot be discounted that life originated elsewhere in the universe and was introduced to Earth rather than originating here. Asteroids outside of our Solar System containing water in the form of ice are a possibility. Mars, also known to have water in the form of ice, is also a possibility.10

This expands my definition of life in the respect that DNA and water are now identified as requirements for the sentient life under consideration. It should also be noted that, if life did originate elsewhere, it does not entirely disprove an ‘accidental’ hypothesis. 11

We have now covered two of the most popular science fiction causes of life. The ‘Frankenstein’ model of electricity providing the 'spark' of life and the ‘Eric Von Daniken’ theory of extraterrestrial implantation or manipulation. 12

Extraterrestrial implantation must be given a higher probability as the cause in the ‘accidental’ model because of the greater timeline. The universe is approximately fourteen and a half billion years or better than three times older than Earth. NASA estimates 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe alone. This provides a myriad of possible life launching platforms.13

Intelligent Design argues for a conscious causal effect for life. In the “accidental’ universe model, there were originally only three forms of existence; space, matter and energy. Time is only relevant to a mortal, conscious life form. At some point, matter and energy were combined in sentient life.14

Certain elements of the ‘accidental’ model lend themselves to the argument. Specifically, DNA is the element common to all sentient life. While water is an environmental prerequisite, DNA defines the ability of a sentient being to replicate and multiply cells.15

There are differing forms of sentient life recognized as ‘aware’. As in the Platonic discussion of ‘participation’, it does not appear to our senses or technology that all forms of life are aware in the context of self-awareness or consciousness. Sunflowers may face toward the sun, and while that may imply ‘consciousness’ i.e. to know (scio) with (con), it does not necessarily imply or confirm self-awareness as much as it implies the ability to respond to sensory stimuli.16

This may also be an argument for evolution as species naturally adapt and compete for survival. It is almost certain that mutation and/or evolutionary complexity can enable certain species to occupy successively higher rungs on the ladder of life. Whether this ultimately determines survival is yet undetermined. 17

Dinosaurs were highly developed and occupied the top rung of Earth's evolutionary scale. Yet in two different geologic era's the Earth experienced massive extinctions. One extinction erased ninety percent of all life forms, the other sixty five percent. Mammals, now at the top of the evolutionary scale, have replaced lizards. And homo sapiens, or Man, is atop the mammalian population.18

Mammals and lizards both possess a limbic system that responds to sensory stimuli. Man has developed an ability to manufacture and manipulate tools and an extra-genetic ability to access information,as opposed to purely acting on hardwired instincts. These abilities, for the moment, allow Man to occupy the top of the scale.19

It is Man’s self-awareness that enables him/her to ask the question, "Intelligent Design or Accident?" 20

In the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, there is the concept of the Unmoved Mover, the force or Big Bang that sent the singularity into motion. That force may have been more than just an energy form. Again the 'force' may participate or be incorporated in some forms of matter or energy more than others.21

Newtonian physics describes the behavior of matter and energy down to the atomic level. Quantum Mechanics describes the subatomic behavior of matter and energy. If Quantum Mechanics does not directly contradict Newtonian physics, it does not totally support it. Similarly, I see no reason to believe Intelligent Design as described in “Darwin’s Black Box” is directly contradicted by Evolution.22

Proponents of Big Bang Theory speak of gravity eventually arresting and retracting the expansion of the universe, ultimately resulting in the recreation of the singularity.23

Moral philosophies or religions speak of; End of Days, reincarnation, Yin and Yang and resurrection. While these may be allegorical rather than mathematical/scientific explanations, I submit they maybe the same. 24

Both the moral philosophies and religion speak of everything as being one until an act of separation occured.25

Science and religion/philosophy walk down the same dark hall in a quest for enlightenment. Both seek the ‘truth’ and utilize different languages to describe it. For now, it may seem they are on, at best, parallel tracks.But it may be there is an intersection and/or merge at some point in time.26

Both 'The Big Bang' and moral philosophies/religions are predicated on a single point and moment in time and an eventual return to that moment. One infers an intelligence caused the universe to be set in motion and has led to this question being asked. The other seeks to answer the question solely through the exercise of logic and reason regardless of the origin of intelligence. Both seek to upgrade our understanding of the universe we inhabit.27

I am recently acquainted with the argument "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because no one can point to a specific location in the universe, or define an area in the brain or heart wherein the Creator resides does not preclude the existence of a Creator. 28

As has previously been discussed science has many conflicting "truths" about physical science, but Newtonian physics is not dismissed because the 'evidence' of it's truth can be measured by our technology and senses even as it is partially contradicted by Quantum Mechanics.29

There are recognized sites, Lourdes, Fatima, and others where healings that can not be fully explained by medical science have and are occuring. Most of these healing are pre-conditioned by faith based belief and are dismissed out of hand by doubters. The fact remains that something occurs that science is not able to fully comprehend or understand.30

Recently astrophysicists speak of "dark matter" and "dark energy." They have no definition for these "forces" or the definitions are so amorphous as to be meaningless. And they offer no explanation other than "it has to be" or other theories come apart. Plug in "work(s) of God" in place of "dark energy/matter" and you have the same effect. Is "Dark energy/matter" simply scientific velcro? 31

How is it that the absence of evidence of a God, evidence of absence? But the absence of evidence of 'dark matter/energy' is acceptable?32

Phenomena exist in our universe that we can not comprehend. It would seem any rational being could not simply dismiss the existence of a Creator for the simple reason that it is a possibility. It may be that we develop technologies that will allow us explain "dark energy/matter". Why could we not also do the same for "the Creator."33

My opinion is that Intelligence proceeds from an act of creation just as matter and energy do. It is manifest in sentient life, but may also exist in other forms as yet undetected by our senses or technology.34