Science is the study of probabilities; religion, the study of absolutes.
The relative progress of mankind, as a function of technology, looks similar at almost any time scale. We, of course, are inclined to think our era has demonstrated far greater advances than those from past eras, but it will probably look like just another renaissance to those in the future. There are, however, certain metrics such as mass communication, which show signs of an accelerating rate of progress. If these increases are broad in nature and indicate an acceleration of progress in general, not advancement but acceleration of advancement, then what could it possibly look like when we get to the vertical part of the curve?
Is it even possible to advance exponentially? No one can say for certain but ideas have been put forth such as that we will move from advancing mainly the breadth of knowledge by accumulation of research to a more active mode where, for instance, we manipulate the genes that control the folding of the cerebral cortex (the wrinkles in our brain) and double or triple the brain's surface area. That could signal a whole new ballgame. Just as the concept of algebra is probably beyond the perception of a dog, we cannot discount the possibility that there are concepts which are out of reach for present day humans but may open up to perception once we alter our abilities to perceive.
An extremely interesting thing, if interesting is the word, is that a major pursuit common to a large percentage of mankind is religion. Individuals who are devout to some religion will maintain that their faith has greatly enriched their lives, and no doubt it has at the subjective level. On the other hand, religion can only be viewed objectively as a counter-productive endeavor. As a pursuit it does not provide for any physical needs such as food or shelter nor does it provide opportunity or skills that can be used to acquire such. Religion is an extremely conservative philosophy, with the ideal religion being completely static and absolute. Being static, it does not contribute to advances in knowledge that can be predictably used for gain such as technology and civil structure since stasis would have already been met. Indeed, it is resistance to change that makes religion the most common cause of ignorance, warfare, and long-term suffering among the human race.
It has been the evolution of science and government that is wholly responsible for the advances that have eased the burden and suffering for people on a mass scale. That is not to say that scientific knowledge, as a tool used to predict the behavior or things in the future, has not been misused or carelessly applied. The atomic bomb is one example, the kerosene lantern is another.
Religion is a powerful meme that easily propagates in spite of the fact that it flies in the face of observation and many applications of logic. This is because religion has rigged the system in such a way that its statements of truth are absolute and form the bedrock of faith. Faith, by definition, requires no proof for truth.
Recently, the evangelical Christian religion has done something fairly incredible in that it turned the tables on science by using scientific knowledge itself to demonstrate the probabilistic certainty of the divine creation of man. Or that is the conclusion they came to. Certainly the probabilities in question come as close to certain as one could ask, but the conclusion is yet again a giant leap of faith. Religion has essentially taken an observable fact which has defied scientific explanation to date and somehow
concludes that it is proof of the existence of Christian God.
The problem is they have a point.
To understand how unlikely the event is of occurring at random, we have to come up with a huge number that can serve as a starting point to grasp the magnitude or unlikelihood of the event. We will use something simple, like the number of atoms in the universe.
Chemists use a system of measurement called molecular weight whose unit is the mole. One mole is a trillion, trillion atoms. One trillion is a 1, followed by 12 zeros. So a trillion, trillion is a 1 followed by 24 zeros - also written as 1024 . This number is not arbitrary. It is the approximate number of hydrogen atoms in exactly one gram of hydrogen. Since it is assumed that stars make up the bulk of the matter in the universe and stars are made of hydrogen we can extrapolate from there.
We know that one gram has 1024 atoms so that means ten grams have 1025 atoms. One kilogram is 1000 grams, so we just add the three zeros to one gram and get 1027 atoms in a kilogram of hydrogen. A metric ton is 1000 kilos, or 1030 atoms. Again, one trillion is 12 zeros so a trillion tons is 1042 atoms. A trillion, trillion tons is 1054 atoms. The sun is 10,000 times bigger than that. It is ten thousand, trillion, trillion tons, or 1058 atoms.
Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains an estimated one hundred, billion stars or 1011 stars. Assuming the sun represents the average star, and that the Milky Way represents the average galaxy, then there are 1069 atoms in a galaxy (1058 x 1011 = 1069). It is also estimated that there are one hundred, billion galaxies in the universe. That means there are an estimated 1080 atoms in the universe. That is, a 1 followed by 80 zeros, a pretty big number.
But puny compared to the odds of a strand of DNA coding for a human being. A great simplification of the problem goes something like this:
In all living things, cellular activity is regulated by proteins and enzymes. Each type of protein or enzyme is expressed by a gene. The protein is made of amino acids and there are 23 different kinds of amino acids available to build with. These amino acids are linked together in long chains but unlike a normal chain the protein is actually folded into a specific 3-D shape. Certain amino acids bend certain ways when they chain together and the resulting shape is critical in regulating life processes. A protein may be shaped to `fit' a receptacle which might start or stop the manufacturing of, say, a hormone or the release of a chemical. The bending follows a set of rules and is not arbitrary.
The amino acids are assembled by a small factory known as a ribosome. The ribosome has no advanced knowledge of what it is assembling but rather it reads a `tape' with instructions on it that tell the ribosome what to make. This `tape' is actually RNA (specifically messenger RNA, mRNA) and it tells the ribosome when to start making a new protein, which amino acid to add next, and when to snip off the chain when done. The RNA, or ribonucleic acid, is composed of a mostly flat, ribbon-like sequence of instructions called codons. A codon codes for a specific amino acid. Each codon is composed of three nucleotides with each nucleotide able to assume one of four chemical `values'. In DNA, nucleotide values are abbreviated ACGT but in RNA the T is replaced by a U, so a genetic sequence in RNA is a long string of the letters ACGU. The genetic code is a very long sequence of these letters.
Since there are four nucleotide `values' and there are three nucleotides in a codon, that means there are 43, or 64 possible codon states. Not all states of a codon code for an amino acid. Some of the states are control codes for starting and snipping the protein and in some cases two or more codon values will code for the same amino acid. Basically, the RNA strand contains the complete set of instructions for a ribosome to assemble a protein.
Even though a codon can be one of 64 values, and even though these values ultimately code for one of 23 different amino acids, we will greatly simplify things and pretend a codon encodes for one of ten amino acids. In this way, a single codon can be viewed as a single decimal digit. Now a gene can be viewed as a long sequence of decimal digits.
So where does the RNA come from? From DNA. A strand of RNA is basically a mirror image from a section of a DNA strand. How big is the DNA? Well, big enough to code for a low estimate of 20,000 different genes. DNA is approximately 300 million codons long or 300 million digits long.
There are 10300 digits in DNA versus 1080 digits in the number of atoms in the universe. DNA combinations are trillions of trillions of trillions etc. bigger than there are atoms in the universe.
Now things get really eye popping. All the digits have to be in a very particular order. Any deviation (mutation) would result in the wrong chaining and folding of the amino acid sequence which may result in the wrong protein or even no protein being made. If you factor in that many of the proteins work together in cooperation and may need to be expressed in a specific sequence then the math begins to get fuzzy, at least for my head.
If it were possible to apply a Darwinian process to DNA creation, then how long would it take to arrange or `mutate' into the genetic code we see today? Well, let's once again greatly simplify things and pretend one atom in the universe was actually the stuff in one strand of DNA. Now lets set all the matter in the universe to work mutating until the right 300 digit number is found.
If we were to try one trillion combinations per second using all the matter in the universe, then after one second we will have tried 1080 x 1012 attempts, or 1092 combinations. There are about 30 million seconds in a year so 1092 x 3x107 = 3x1099 attempts in one year using all the matter in the universe.
The latest estimate for the age of the universe is about 15 billion years, or 1.5 x 1010 years but we will round again, this time up 100 billion, or 1011 years. If we tried 3x1099 combinations per year for 1011 years then we still would only have
tried about 10110 combinations. We would either have to multiply the size or the age of the universe by 10190 to cover all 10300 combinations! The universe comes up short by untold trillions!
I just can't see how evangelical Christians can claim intelligent design as the work of God. God in the bible gives every indication of extreme vanity given the demands of worship and sacrifice. God also seems to have an affinity toward the very accurate recording of history since the bible is to be interpreted literally. It just doesn't make any sense that He would go into great detail about family lineages in the bible but gloss over the whole
DNA sequencing thing as "and on the sixth day He created man," since the design of the sequence is 10190 times greater than the creation of the universe. If I knew how to... program in amino acids, and created man (especially woman) I'd have the whole thing well documented and copyrighted, especially the `Free Will' gene.
There is also the little problem of God creating man in His own image. If God is made of the same stuff then...
This is just one line of reasoning for a sketch of the problem. All errors are mine and I draw no conclusions. Feel free to draw your own.