tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/intelligent-design-231/articlesIntelligent design – The Conversation2022-10-28T22:44:56Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1933332022-10-28T22:44:56Z2022-10-28T22:44:56ZAbuja terror alert: Nigerian government should not downplay the threat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492292/original/file-20221028-36977-xcxwfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Members of security forces during an anti-terrorism simulation exercise in Abuja, Nigeria.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by Peter Oba/Xinhua via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Terrorism is one of the world’s greatest security challenges. Trying to predict it is an important part of the effort to <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjF-8WN7fv6AhWHyIUKHWuiBqsQFnoECCEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coe.int%2Fen%2Fweb%2Fcounter-terrorism&usg=AOvVaw3H6JbYQuVT9UMGtNFmwFek">counter terrorism</a>. </p>
<p>Intelligence and security agencies around the world occasionally issue warnings about the likelihood of terrorist attacks in certain places.</p>
<p>On 23 October 2022, the US Embassy in Nigeria <a href="https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/10/24/us-embassy-alerts-on-imminent-terror-attacks-in-abuja-reduces-services/">released an advisory</a> to alert US nationals in the country of possible terrorist attacks in Abuja, Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory. The alert led to widespread <a href="https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/nigerians-panic-over-us-uk-terror-attack-alerts-in-capital/2720831">public anxiety</a>. </p>
<p>The level of concern is not surprising. Terrorist violence has worsened in Nigeria in recent years. The latest <a href="https://www.thecable.ng/shekaus-death-fgs-efforts-nigeria-makes-progress-on-global-terrorism-index">Global Terrorist Index</a> ranks Nigeria as the sixth most terrorised country in the world. Abuja has been targeted for terrorist attacks in the past, including the tragic 2011 Police Headquarters and United Nations Building <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14677957">incidents</a>.</p>
<p>I’m a political science lecturer who has researched terrorism defence strategies, and I’m uneasy about the Nigerian government’s handling of the latest terror alert. </p>
<p>The government appears to have downplayed the latest threat. It <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20221024-nigeria-calls-for-calm-after-us-uk-warn-of-terror-threat">called for calm</a>. But this is likely because it feels it needs to assert itself politically. No country likes to let a foreign entity define its national security situation.</p>
<p>However, terror alerts should be taken seriously – and there are several measures that can be taken to protect citizens.</p>
<h2>What are terror alerts?</h2>
<p>Predicting terrorism entails forecasts based on intelligence gathering and risk assessment. </p>
<p>The process involves issuing and publicising classified threat alerts to notify the public of the possibility of a terror attack on a certain target in a particular location.</p>
<p>Such alerts enable government and its security agencies to be poised for the eventuality of an attack. They also enable the public to be vigilant so as to avoid being a victim. </p>
<p>More importantly, alerts enable the security agencies to put measures in place to avert incidents.</p>
<p>Some threats won’t be noticed by the intelligence and security communities. The <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/089533005775196723">9/11 attacks</a> in the US evaded the forecasting prowess of the country’s sophisticated military and intelligence sectors.</p>
<p>Terror alerts are as reliable as the validity and objectivity of their sources and procedures. But no matter how controversial or disputable a terror alert may seem to be, the best thing to do is to take proper precautions. After all precaution is not cowardice.</p>
<h2>Nigeria’s latest alert</h2>
<p>The Abuja threat alert was <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/us-uk-warn-possible-attack-nigerias-capital-2022-10-23/">corroborated</a> by the authorities of the UK’s High Commission in Nigeria.</p>
<p>The Nigerian principal intelligence agency, the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.ng/">Department of State Service</a>, reacted to the terror alert by asking the public to <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20221024-nigeria-calls-for-calm-after-us-uk-warn-of-terror-threat">exercise calm</a>. It said there was no serious cause for alarm. </p>
<p>The agency’s stance seemed to be that the threat alert was not worth the public tension and anxiety it provoked. Apparently, the agency had superior intelligence about the threat.</p>
<p>Although it did not dismiss the threat entirely, this reaction seems like an effort to save face. The Department of State Service would not want to be seen as lacking control of the situation. It would look like professional ineptitude to allow a foreign entity to lead in a critical matter of national security. </p>
<p>Also, it is unnecessary to create panic where there is probably no basis for it. In November 2017, police and emergency responders in London mobilised to a commercial area after a <a href="https://punchng.com/false-terror-alert-sparks-fear-in-london-shopping-district/">terror alarm that turned out to be false</a>. But it would be a great risk to simply dismiss or downplay the threat alert. </p>
<p>The Nigerian government and citizens should take the alert seriously. It is strategic intelligence that must be carefully processed and acted on to avert danger. </p>
<p>In intelligence science and practice, even a rumour matters. So, whether the basis of the terror alert is real or not, and regardless of the legitimacy or otherwise of its sources, the ultimate concern of the Nigerian government should be to put pragmatic measures in place to prevent any threat happening.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/kenya-terror-alerts-political-scientist-unpacks-the-intelligence-behind-them-176072">Kenya terror alerts: political scientist unpacks the intelligence behind them</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How to handle threats</h2>
<p>Nigeria’s intelligence systems and institutions are struggling amid operational challenges and complex national security threats. The intelligence community should work closely with relevant foreign and local stakeholders to set up a collaborative intelligence regime that can address terrorist threats more robustly and proactively.</p>
<p>There is a need for a contingency intelligence framework that can preempt and predict threats more precisely and comprehensively.</p>
<p>Citizens should take personal precautions to reduce their exposure to terrorist attacks. They should avoid crowded public places as much as possible. Being with the whole household in a big public gathering may not be advisable.</p>
<p>Social, religious and political gatherings should be planned and hosted in a way that guarantees maximum event security. Relevant security agencies should be involved and safety measures must be taken. </p>
<p>Providing a first aid point in an event arena is one simple measure to take.</p>
<p>Leaders in churches and mosques should provide for security and crowd management concerns in their places of worship.</p>
<p>Similarly, managers of markets, parks, event centres, shopping malls, schools, and recreational facilities should put measures in place to detect and prevent threats. Public spaces should have CCTV cameras, scanning devices, and so on. </p>
<p>The best way to respond to a terror alert is to take measures to avert it, or mitigate its impact. These measures need to be taken with all seriousness regardless of whether the source or substance of the alert is credible or not.</p>
<p>Apart from harming people and property, terrorism destabilises systems and makes it harder for societies to develop and sustain progress.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193333/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Al Chukwuma Okoli is a Senior Lecturer in Political Science at Federal University of Lafia. He consults for the Center for Democracy and Development in Nigeria. He is a Member of Conflict Research Network in West Africa (CORN West Africa). </span></em></p>Terror alerts, such as the one recently issued by the US and UK embassies in Abuja, should be taken seriously by the Nigerian government as well as citizens.Al Chukwuma Okoli, Reader (Associate Professor), Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science, Federal University of Lafia, Nigeria, Federal University LafiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/529322016-01-28T10:55:03Z2016-01-28T10:55:03ZIntelligent design without a creator? Why evolution may be smarter than we thought<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108153/original/image-20160114-2365-1l25c11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">According to creationists, the eyes of the great horned owl cannot be expained by Darwinian evolution.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.public-domain-image.com/free-images/fauna-animals/birds/owl-birds-pictures/great-horned-owl/great-horned-owl-eyes-close-up-bubo-virginianus/attachment/great-horned-owl-eyes-close-up-bubo-virginianus">Rachlin Susan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Charles Darwin’s theory of <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-theory-of-evolution-2276">evolution</a> offers an explanation for why biological organisms seem so well designed to live on our planet. This process is typically described as “unintelligent” – based on random variations with no direction. But despite its success, <a href="https://theconversation.com/categories-of-creationists-and-their-views-on-science-27123">some oppose</a> this theory because they don’t believe living things can evolve in increments. Something as complex as the eye of an animal, they argue, must be the product of an intelligent creator.</p>
<p>I don’t think invoking a supernatural creator can ever be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Dangerous_Idea#Skyhooks_and_cranes">a scientifically useful explanation</a>. But what about intelligence that isn’t supernatural? <a href="http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347%2815%2900293-1">Our new results</a>, based on computer modelling, link evolutionary processes to the principles of learning and intelligent problem solving – without involving any higher powers. This suggests that, although evolution may have started off blind, with a couple of billion years of experience it has got smarter.</p>
<h2>What is intelligence?</h2>
<p>Intelligence can be many things, but sometimes it’s nothing more than looking at a problem from the right angle. Finding an intelligent solution can be just about recognising that something you assumed to be a constant might be variable (like the orientation of the paper in the image below). It can also be about approaching a problem with the right building blocks. </p>
<p>With good building blocks (for example triangles) it’s easy to find a combination of steps (folds) that solves the problem by incremental improvement (each fold covers more picture). But with bad building blocks (folds that create long thin rectangles) a complete solution is impossible.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108910/original/image-20160121-9746-3t4o52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108910/original/image-20160121-9746-3t4o52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108910/original/image-20160121-9746-3t4o52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108910/original/image-20160121-9746-3t4o52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108910/original/image-20160121-9746-3t4o52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108910/original/image-20160121-9746-3t4o52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108910/original/image-20160121-9746-3t4o52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108910/original/image-20160121-9746-3t4o52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Looking at a problem from the right angle makes it easy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">author</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In humans, the ability to approach a problem with an appropriate set of building blocks comes from experience – because we <em>learn</em>. But until now we have believed that evolution by natural selection can’t learn; it simply plods on, banging away relentlessly with the same random-variation “hammer”, incrementally accumulating changes when they happen to be beneficial. </p>
<h2>The evolution of evolvability</h2>
<p>In computer science we use algorithms, such as those modelling neural networks in the brain, to understand how <a href="http://www.toptal.com/machine-learning/an-introduction-to-deep-learning-from-perceptrons-to-deep-networks">learning</a> works. Learning isn’t intrinsically mysterious; we can get machines to do it with step by step algorithms. Such machine learning algorithms are a well-understood part of artificial intelligence. In a neural network, learning involves adjusting the connections between neurons (stronger or weaker) in the direction that maximises rewards. With simple methods like this it is possible to get neural networks to not just solve problems, but to <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/271051/1/Watson_Buckley_Mills_Complexity_in-press.pdf">get better at solving problems over time</a>.</p>
<p>But what about evolution, can it get better at evolving over time? The idea is known as <a href="https://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/bblonder/phys120/docs/wagner.pdf">the evolution of evolvability</a>. Evolvability, simply the ability to evolve, depends on appropriate variation, selection and heredity – Darwin’s cornerstones. Interestingly, all of these components can be altered by past evolution, meaning <a href="http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347%2815%2900293-1">past evolution can change the way that future evolution operates</a>. </p>
<p>For example, random genetic variation can make a limb of an animal longer or shorter, but it can also change whether forelimbs and hindlimbs <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/23/rspb.2010.2113.short">change independently or in a correlated manner</a>. Such changes alter the building blocks available to future evolution. If past selection has shaped these building blocks well, it can make solving new problems look easy – easy enough to solve with incremental improvement. For example, if limb lengths have evolved to change independently, evolving increased height will require multiple changes (affecting each limb) and intermediate stages may be worse off. But if changes are correlated, individual changes might be beneficial. </p>
<p>The idea of the evolution of evolvability has been around for some time, but the detailed application of learning theory is beginning to give this area a much needed theoretical foundation.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108911/original/image-20160121-9773-el1rd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108911/original/image-20160121-9773-el1rd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108911/original/image-20160121-9773-el1rd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108911/original/image-20160121-9773-el1rd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108911/original/image-20160121-9773-el1rd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108911/original/image-20160121-9773-el1rd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108911/original/image-20160121-9773-el1rd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/108911/original/image-20160121-9773-el1rd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gene networks evolve like neural networks learn.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">author</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our work shows that the evolution of regulatory connections between genes, which govern how genes are expressed in our cells, has the same learning capabilities as neural networks. In other words, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.12337/full">gene networks evolve like neural networks learn</a>. While connections in neural networks change in the direction that maximises rewards, natural selection changes genetic connections in the direction that increases fitness. The ability to learn is not itself something that needs to be designed – it is an inevitable product of random variation and selection when acting on connections. </p>
<p>The exciting implication of this is that evolution can evolve to get better at evolving in exactly the same way that a neural network can learn to be a better problem solver with experience. The intelligent bit is not explicit “thinking ahead” (or anything else un-Darwinian); it is the evolution of connections that allow it to solve new problems <em>without</em> looking ahead.</p>
<p>So, when an evolutionary task we guessed would be difficult (such as producing the eye) turns out to be possible with incremental improvement, instead of concluding that dumb evolution was sufficient after all, we might recognise that evolution was very smart to have found building blocks that make the problem look so easy.</p>
<p>Interestingly, <a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_14">Alfred Russel Wallace</a> (who suggested a theory of natural selection at the same time as Darwin) later used the term “intelligent evolution” to argue for divine intervention in the trajectory of evolutionary processes. If the formal link between learning and evolution continues to expand, the same term could become used to imply the opposite.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52932/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard A. Watson receives funding from DSTL and EPSRC. </span></em></p>A new alternative for those questioning Darwinian evolution? Research suggests evolution itself is intelligent.Richard A. Watson, Associate Professor, Institute for Life Sciences/Electronics and Computer Science, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/9092011-04-21T04:48:13Z2011-04-21T04:48:13ZA complex God: why science and religion can co-exist<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/647/original/Fotolia_2995508_S.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is there room for "intelligible" design in the science versus religion debate?</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Science and religion are often cast as opponents in a battle for human hearts and minds. </p>
<p>But far from the silo of strict creationism and the fundamentalist view that evolution simply didn’t happen lies the truth: science and religion are complementary. </p>
<p>God cast us in his own image. We have free will and intelligence. Without science we could only ever operate at the whim of God.</p>
<p>Discussion of the idea that our universe is fundamentally intelligible is even more profound. Through science and the use of mathematical rules, we can and do understand how nature works. </p>
<p>The fact our universe is intelligible has profound implications for humankind and perhaps for the existence of God. </p>
<h2>Does science work?</h2>
<p>It’s very clear that science “works”. We can explain and predict how nature will behave over an extraordinary range of scales. </p>
<p>There are various limits to scientific understanding but, within these limits, science makes a complete and compelling picture. </p>
<p>We know that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. The <a href="http://big-bang-theory.com/">“Big Bang”</a> model of universal creation makes a number of very specific and numerical predictions which are observed and measured with high accuracy. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www-sldnt.slac.stanford.edu/alr/standard_model.htm">Standard Model of Particle Physics</a> employs something known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking">“Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking”</a> to explain the strength of the laws of nature. </p>
<p>Within the Standard Model the strength of these laws are not predicted. At present our current best theory is that they arose “by chance”.</p>
<p>But these strengths have to be exquisitely fine-tuned in order for life to exist. How so?</p>
<p>The strength of the gravitational attraction must be tuned to ensure that the expansion of the universe is not too fast and not too slow. </p>
<p>It must be strong enough to enable stars and planets to form but not too strong, otherwise stars would burn through their nuclear fuel too quickly. </p>
<p>The imbalance between matter and anti-matter in the early Universe must be fine tuned to 12 orders of magnitude to create enough mass to form stars and galaxies.</p>
<p>The strength of the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions must be finely-tuned to create stable protons and neutrons.</p>
<p>They must also be fine-tuned to enable complex nuclei to be synthesized in supernovae. </p>
<p>Finally the mass of the electron and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction must be tuned to provide the chemical reaction rates that enables life to evolve over the timescale of the Universe.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/91">fine tuning of gravitational attraction and electromagnetic interactions</a> which allow the laws of nature to enable life to form are too clever to be simply a coincidence. </p>
<h2>Is intelligent life special?</h2>
<p>It has taken 4.5 billion years for humans to evolve on earth. This is more than 25% of the age of the universe itself. </p>
<p>We are the only intelligent life that has existed on the planet and we have only been here for 0.005% of the time the planet has been here. </p>
<p>This is a mere blink in the age of the galaxy. If some other intelligent life had emerged elsewhere in the galaxy before us, why haven’t we seen it here? </p>
<p>To me this is a strong argument that we are the first intelligent life in the galaxy.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/645/original/Jake_Wasdin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/645/original/Jake_Wasdin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/645/original/Jake_Wasdin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/645/original/Jake_Wasdin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/645/original/Jake_Wasdin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/645/original/Jake_Wasdin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/645/original/Jake_Wasdin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jake Wasdin</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Designed for life</h2>
<p>One interpretation of the collection of unlikely coincidences that lead to our existence is that a designer made the universe this way in order for it to create us; in other words, this designer created a dynamic evolving whole whose output is our creation. </p>
<p>Many take exception to this idea and argue instead that our universe is but one of an uncountable multitude that has happened to create us. </p>
<p>Other ideas are that there are as-yet unobserved principles of nature that will explain why the strengths of the forces are as they are. </p>
<p>To me, neither argument is in principle against an intelligent design. </p>
<p>The designer is simply clever enough to have devised either an evolving multitude of universes or to have devised a way to make our present universe create us.</p>
<h2>Intelligible Design</h2>
<p>We do know a lot about the design of the universe, so clearly the design is in good measure intelligible. </p>
<p>But why is it that we can understand nature so well?</p>
<p>One answer is that evolution favours organisms that can exploit their environment. Most organisms have a set of “wired” instructions passed from earlier generations. </p>
<p>Over the evolutionary history of Earth, organisms that can learn how to manipulate their surroundings have prospered. </p>
<p>Humans are not unique in this trait but we’re definitely the best at learning. So in other words nature has built us to understand the rules of nature.</p>
<h2>Mathematics and science</h2>
<p>All of this rests on the predictability which results from nature obeying rules. As we’ve learned about these rules we’ve discovered that they can be expressed in purely mathematical form. </p>
<p>Mathematics has a validity that is independent of its ability to describe nature and the universe. </p>
<p>One could imagine mathematics with its complex relationships being true outside of our universe and having the ability to exist outside it. </p>
<p>The outcome of humankind’s investigations into nature is science. And the fundamental tenet of science is that there is an objective reality which can be understood by anybody who is willing to learn.</p>
<h2>A universe without laws?</h2>
<p>The only way I can imagine a universe without rules is for every action to be the result of an off-screen director who controls all. </p>
<p>Such a thing is almost beyond comprehension as everything would need to be the result of premeditation. </p>
<p>Events would appear to occur by pure random chance. Furthermore the level of detail required for godly oversight is absolutely beyond human comprehension. </p>
<p>Each of the hundreds of billions of cells in our bodies operates within a complex set of biochemical reactions, all of which have to work individually and as well as collectively for just one human body to function. </p>
<p>So for a start our offscreen director would have to ensure that all these processes happen correctly for every one of the trillions of living organisms on earth.</p>
<h2>Free will</h2>
<p>We are all the stuff of the universe, absolutely embedded within, and subject to, the rules which govern nature. Because we’re self-aware, one can argue that the universe is self-aware. </p>
<p>Without an intelligible design it would be impossible for humans to have free will as all actions would be as a consequence of the will of the director. Free will is a fundamental element of Christian doctrine.</p>
<p>The Christian statement “God made man in His own image” implies both free will and intelligence for humans. Intelligible design is thus a necessary condition for the existence of a Christian God.</p>
<p>Given we are intelligent, we can imagine sharing this aspect with a God who made us in “His own image”.</p>
<p>Free will is only possible in a universe with rules and hence predictability. </p>
<p>Intelligence has application beyond our physical universe – which is indicative, but not proof of, God to me. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the existence of a God providing free will to humans requires the existence of science. </p>
<p>Otherwise we could only ever operate at the whim of God.</p>
<p>Science and religion go hand in hand. </p>
<p>We all know the subjective reality of experience. I personally feel the power of the redemption which is at the core of Christianity. </p>
<p>Each of us has access to that through our own free will to exercise choice.</p>
<p><em>This article is dedicated to the memory of Reverend Jim Martin.</em></p>
<p><strong>Are science and religion compatible? Leave your views below.</strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/909/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Associate Professor Martin Sevior receives ARC funding to conduct experiments in fundamental particle physics at the KEK National accelerator Laboratory in Japan and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Switzerland.
He is also an Elder and the congregation chair of St. Columbas Uniting Church in Balwyn, Victoria. This essay grew out of a series of lectures on the topic of "Intelligent and Intelligible Design" delivered at St. Columbas in 2008 with Professor Emeritus Reverend Harry Wardlaw, also of St. Columbas. Martin gratefully acknowledges many fruitful conversations with Harry.</span></em></p>Science and religion are often cast as opponents in a battle for human hearts and minds. But far from the silo of strict creationism and the fundamentalist view that evolution simply didn’t happen lies…Martin Sevior, Associate Professor of Physics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.