|
Refuting Chance and Evolution Doesn't Prove Design
Behe uses the example of the mousetrap to illustrate his idea of "irreducible complexity". He says that if any part of a mousetrap is removed, it ceases to function as a mousetrap. But his error is in the idea that the "purpose" of the changing organ must remain the same. For instance, if we remove the spring in a mousetrap, it no longer functions to catch mice, but it could still be used as a paper weight or a paper clip of some sort. So, you see, Behe thinks that things like cells are irreducibly complex because if you remove any part of it, it ceases to function in the way it functions now. He neglects to realize that it may have functioned in an entirely different way. Behe has pretty much conceded this point. For more in-depth reading on this subject, visit www.talkorigins.com. I assure you that evolution is not a theory in jeopardy and that Behe's and Dembski's arguments are not taken seriously by any biologist. They are taken seriously mostly by lay-people or people who are not in the field of biology. Notice that their books are not peer-reviewed and are found on bookshelves in places like Borders, not in Scientific journals.
Not only that, but the design argument is inherently flawed, and I noticed you ignored this point I made. If something complex must have been "designed" by something with intelligence, then it stands to reason that the intelligent thing was also designed. This means that there is an infinite regress of designers. Dembski, for instance, claims that aliens could have designed life. But who designed the aliens? And who designed the designers of the aliens? In short, if we agree that the progression has to stop somewhere and doesn't stretch into infinity, it stands to reason that ONE life form developed from something that ISN'T complex!
Also, please note that Behe's arguments AGAINST evolution are not arguments FOR design. He is committing a logical fallacy if he thinks the choices are either between evolution or design, for their could be some other naturalistic force that explains things. Not only that, but Behe and Dembski and all the other folks at the Discovery institute have not produced ONE scientific paper or any predictions that would be entailed by the theory. Their "theory" isn't even a theory in the scientific sense. It is a hypothesis that hasn't been validated at all. For an example, let's say I noticed a problem in the theory of gravity (there are many problems, actually, if you wish to look them up on Google you may find some). Now, I then say, because this is a devastating problem for the theory of gravity, magical fairies MUST cause things to fall! Notice how the magical fairies aren't validated by refuting the previous theory. The magical fairies theory needs to be established for itself.
You also said that the probability of a life-sustaining universe arising by pure chance is zero. This is simply not true. It is possible for life to arise by chance, so therefore the probability is obviously not ZERO.
Now, it is important to recognize that this is assuming that the universe arose PURELY from chance. However, very few things can be said to be purely a matter of chance. For instance, in my example of birth, I said it would be nearly impossible for someone to have existed by chance. However, when sperm are swimming towards an egg, obviously the best swimmer is more likely to reach the egg, and the best burrower is likely to get into the egg, so it isn't a matter of PURE chance. Likewise with the universe forming. There may be certain characteristics of certain things that made a life sustaining universe more likely.
However, all this talk of the origin of the universe is speculation, and wholly unfounded. We do not know enough about the origin of the universe to make any "odds" for something occuring, because we don't know if things were caused purely by chance, by some force, or by God, or by some other process. The odds are based on the assumption that things formed by pure chance...but even still they are a bit off...because we don't have a full understanding of all the variables in order to create an adequate probability measurement. Frankly, we have no reason to suppose either God exists or doesn't exist from this.
For instance, if someone got a seven or an eleven in twenty dice tosses in a row, we could assume that this was not a result of pure chance. However, we do not have access to the dice he was using, nor the table he was throwing the dice on, nor do we have any access to a theory of one person that "God made the dice do it". Now, it is POSSIBLE that God made the dice fall that way by his intention, or that the dice or the table were made in such a way to make the result of seven or eleven more common. Perhaps the dice only had threes and fours on each side. Or fives and sixes. Perhaps they were weighted. We don't know, so it could either be God or the natural explanation of the dice. It could also have been chance! We wouldn't think so, but it is possible. For instance, what if the dice tossing were a competition, where there are rounds of dice tossing. Whoever wins the first round of the dice toss plays the winner of another bracket. Obviously, if their are twenty rounds, the winner who progessed will have won TWENTY times, purely by chance...and a twenty-time winner would be GUARANTEED by the game set up.
Obviously, my dice example shows why it is wrong to make an assumption about the dice without any reason. At any rate, most people would be inclined to assume the tournament explanation or the loaded dice explanation, not the God explanation. I wonder why? Probably because we can validate and test whether dice are loaded, or the outcomes of a tournament, but can't predict or test anything about the God hypothesis.
I notice you often criticize me for believing in certain things like the universe arising from chance. I must state here that I don't believe this. I don't believe anything about how the universe formed, because there is not enough information. By supposing God created the universe, you are creating what is called a "God of gaps". You fill the gaps in our knowledge with God and stop there. However, you never know what further things we may discover about the universe, so your judgment is much too soon, just as it would be much too soon for me to assume some force created the universe in its present state without any reason to suppose what sort of force it was.
To sum up, we are not in a position to make any claims about what caused the universe to form in this way, be it from a God, from chance, or from a force.
Next, refuting evolution does not establish the idea of design. Even if evolution were wrong, there could be some OTHER naturalistic force to account for the origin of life. In fact, because the design argument implies an infinite regress, it stands to reason that, if there is to be a "first designer" that this designer was caused by something less complex. Simply pointing out complexity is not good enough, obviously.
Not only that, but the theory of evolution can and does adequately explain away the design hypothesis. It is the unifying theory of biology, constantly validated by observations in embryology, genetics, fossil records, and virually every other field of biology. The design argument is not ever validated by these fields. In fact, it cannot be validated, because it makes no specific predictions. The design hypothesis would account for ANY anomaly, so it absolutely could not be falsified through an observation of life. Evolution, however, could potentially be falsified by observing an organism with a trait not possessed by its ancestors, or by the existence of a true chimera of some sort. There are all sorts of other potential falsifications, too.
Again, you have not made a case that advocates design, but which criticizes evolution and the idea that the universe arose from pure, random chance. This does not automatically establish design. To say "It's either evolution or design" or "It's either random chance or design" is much too limiting and intellectually dishonest, for you would be needlessly eliminating countless other possibilities, and your conclusion would be based only on this neglectfulness.
Please note that my position is merely that we have no good reason to believe in God. I am not asserting that the universe formed by chance, or that I believe in some natural force without reason. I don't know how the universe formed. All I know is there is no reason to suppose God must have been the force to create the universe. With evolution, however, I am pretty certain that life did evolve only because it is supported by immense amounts of evolution. Behe's, Dembski's, and all the other "intelligent design" critiques of evolution are based on misunderstandings of the process for the most part, and are politically motivated rather than motivated by a search for unbiased truth.
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Miscellaneous category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Spirituality?
You wrote: Behe uses the example of the mousetrap to illustrate his idea of "irreducible complexity". He says that if any part of a mousetrap is removed, it ceases to function as a mousetrap. But his error is in the idea that the "purpose" of the changing organ must remain the same. For instance, if we remove the spring in a mousetrap, it no longer functions to catch mice, but it could still be used as a paper weight or a paper clip of some sort. So, you see, Behe thinks that things like cells are irreducibly complex because if you remove any part of it, it ceases to function in the way it functions now. He neglects to realize that it may have functioned in an entirely different way. Behe has pretty much conceded this point. For more in-depth reading on this subject, visit www.talkorigins.com. I assure you that evolution is not a theory in jeopardy and that Behe's and Dembski's arguments are not taken seriously by any biologist. They are taken seriously mostly by lay-people or people who are not in the field of biology. Notice that their books are not peer-reviewed and are found on bookshelves in places like Borders, not in Scientific journals.
Response: You are misinformed. Recently over 400 scientist (not lay people) signed a dissent to Darwinian evolution. You seem to be several years behind on this discussion. Several States are considering changing their science standards to include the obvious flaws of the theory of evolution, as Kansas has already done. The books written by various intelligent design people are for general consumption. Scientific research and papers have also been written by these same scientist and in some case have been peer reviewed and published. Take note of the Smithsonian controversy. You are also flawed in your thinking about irreducible complexity. One of the principles is that there are too many functional parts of complex organism to allow for use in other purposes and there is no scientic means for the re-organization to take place. These questions have never been addressed by the evolutionists. There is an excellent DVD called "Unlocking The Mistery Of Life" that you would do well to view so as to understand the science behind ID. It may also give you some insight into your false notion that there are no other scientist that believe this way.
You wrote: Not only that, but the design argument is inherently flawed, and I noticed you ignored this point I made. If something complex must have been "designed" by something with intelligence, then it stands to reason that the intelligent thing was also designed. This means that there is an infinite regress of designers. Dembski, for instance, claims that aliens could have designed life. But who designed the aliens? And who designed the designers of the aliens? In short, if we agree that the progression has to stop somewhere and doesn't stretch into infinity, it stands to reason that ONE life form developed from something that ISN'T complex!
Response: I did address this in the previous correspondence but you must have missed it. First, evolution cannot answer this dilema in any fashion. Evolution cannot even answer the question of how non-life became life. The idea of aliens does not answer the question and Dembski does not try to answer the question. The answer is simply and clearing answered in understanding that the God of the Bible is an uncreated being who is the creator and first cause. This in not necessarily a point in ID theory but it is the only logical conclusion one can come to when a thorough study of the Bible, the evidence and creation are taken into account. I would refer to Josh McDowell's book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" or Lee Strobel's book "The Case For The Creator".
You Wrote: Also, please note that Behe's arguments AGAINST evolution are not arguments FOR design. He is committing a logical fallacy if he thinks the choices are either between evolution or design, for their could be some other naturalistic force that explains things. Not only that, but Behe and Dembski and all the other folks at the Discovery institute have not produced ONE scientific paper or any predictions that would be entailed by the theory. Their "theory" isn't even a theory in the scientific sense. It is a hypothesis that hasn't been validated at all. For an example, let's say I noticed a problem in the theory of gravity (there are many problems, actually, if you wish to look them up on Google you may find some). Now, I then say, because this is a devastating problem for the theory of gravity, magical fairies MUST cause things to fall! Notice how the magical fairies aren't validated by refuting the previous theory. The magical fairies theory needs to be established for itself.
Response: You are only correct in assumming that their writing are limited to these two books mentioned. In fact, there are numerous affirmative arguments in favor or ID and the theory is more advanced than the hypoothesis of evolution. Perhaps a little more reading on your part would be in order. Magic fairies are not part of the theory by the way.
You Wrote: You also said that the probability of a life-sustaining universe arising by pure chance is zero. This is simply not true. It is possible for life to arise by chance, so therefore the probability is obviously not ZERO.
Response: And where is the evidence for your statement? It certainly does not exist in scientific literature.
You wrote: Now, it is important to recognize that this is assuming that the universe arose PURELY from chance. However, very few things can be said to be purely a matter of chance. For instance, in my example of birth, I said it would be nearly impossible for someone to have existed by chance. However, when sperm are swimming towards an egg, obviously the best swimmer is more likely to reach the egg, and the best burrower is likely to get into the egg, so it isn't a matter of PURE chance. Likewise with the universe forming. There may be certain characteristics of certain things that made a life sustaining universe more likely.
Response: And those things are? Evolutionary theory offers no solution to these questions other than "magical fairies" or just as foolish "random chance". Design demands a designer.
You wrote: However, all this talk of the origin of the universe is speculation, and wholly unfounded. We do not know enough about the origin of the universe to make any "odds" for something occuring, because we don't know if things were caused purely by chance, by some force, or by God, or by some other process. The odds are based on the assumption that things formed by pure chance...but even still they are a bit off...because we don't have a full understanding of all the variables in order to create an adequate probability measurement. Frankly, we have no reason to suppose either God exists or doesn't exist from this.
Response: This is not true. The existence of the God of the Bible is evidence in creation's complexity and in the supportability of the Bible through verification.
You wrote: For instance, if someone got a seven or an eleven in twenty dice tosses in a row, we could assume that this was not a result of pure chance. However, we do not have access to the dice he was using, nor the table he was throwing the dice on, nor do we have any access to a theory of one person that "God made the dice do it". Now, it is POSSIBLE that God made the dice fall that way by his intention, or that the dice or the table were made in such a way to make the result of seven or eleven more common. Perhaps the dice only had threes and fours on each side. Or fives and sixes. Perhaps they were weighted. We don't know, so it could either be God or the natural explanation of the dice. It could also have been chance! We wouldn't think so, but it is possible. For instance, what if the dice tossing were a competition, where there are rounds of dice tossing. Whoever wins the first round of the dice toss plays the winner of another bracket. Obviously, if their are twenty rounds, the winner who progessed will have won TWENTY times, purely by chance...and a twenty-time winner would be GUARANTEED by the game set up.
Obviously, my dice example shows why it is wrong to make an assumption about the dice without any reason. At any rate, most people would be inclined to assume the tournament explanation or the loaded dice explanation, not the God explanation. I wonder why? Probably because we can validate and test whether dice are loaded, or the outcomes of a tournament, but can't predict or test anything about the God hypothesis.
Response: This is a good case against evolution since none of the theory of macro-evolution can be tested or reproduced in the laboratory. It is not such a good argument against God existence since proof has been left. I would again refer you to the earlier mentioned books.
You wrote: I notice you often criticize me for believing in certain things like the universe arising from chance. I must state here that I don't believe this. I don't believe anything about how the universe formed, because there is not enough information. By supposing God created the universe, you are creating what is called a "God of gaps". You fill the gaps in our knowledge with God and stop there. However, you never know what further things we may discover about the universe, so your judgment is much too soon, just as it would be much too soon for me to assume some force created the universe in its present state without any reason to suppose what sort of force it was.
Response: Good point for your conclusions or lack thereof. Not a good point in regard to God since we have the evidence before us with high probabilities of likelihood. Just because you haven't studied them does not mean the proofs do not exist.
You wrote: To sum up, we are not in a position to make any claims about what caused the universe to form in this way, be it from a God, from chance, or from a force.
Next, refuting evolution does not establish the idea of design. Even if evolution were wrong, there could be some OTHER naturalistic force to account for the origin of life. In fact, because the design argument implies an infinite regress, it stands to reason that, if there is to be a "first designer" that this designer was caused by something less complex. Simply pointing out complexity is not good enough, obviously.
Response: The first cause must be more complex in order to create complexity, not less complex. Your reasoning is not logical here.
You wrote: Not only that, but the theory of evolution can and does adequately explain away the design hypothesis. It is the unifying theory of biology, constantly validated by observations in embryology, genetics, fossil records, and virually every other field of biology. The design argument is not ever validated by these fields. In fact, it cannot be validated, because it makes no specific predictions. The design hypothesis would account for ANY anomaly, so it absolutely could not be falsified through an observation of life. Evolution, however, could potentially be falsified by observing an organism with a trait not possessed by its ancestors, or by the existence of a true chimera of some sort. There are all sorts of other potential falsifications, too.
Response: These are not falsifications of evolutionary theory. The theory demand new species come from existing species. This cannot be falsified. Part of the need for evolution to be replaced is that it does not coincide with any of the fields you mention, especially the fossil records which have no transitional forms. Darwin made this a cornerstone of his argument for evolution.
You wrote: Again, you have not made a case that advocates design, but which criticizes evolution and the idea that the universe arose from pure, random chance. This does not automatically establish design. To say "It's either evolution or design" or "It's either random chance or design" is much too limiting and intellectually dishonest, for you would be needlessly eliminating countless other possibilities, and your conclusion would be based only on this neglectfulness.
Response: I didn't make that case. I simply showed you that ID answers many of the questions better than evolution and is supported by the evidence.
You wrote: Please note that my position is merely that we have no good reason to believe in God. I am not asserting that the universe formed by chance, or that I believe in some natural force without reason. I don't know how the universe formed. All I know is there is no reason to suppose God must have been the force to create the universe. With evolution, however, I am pretty certain that life did evolve only because it is supported by immense amounts of evolution. Behe's, Dembski's, and all the other "intelligent design" critiques of evolution are based on misunderstandings of the process for the most part, and are politically motivated rather than motivated by a search for unbiased truth.
Response: What could possibly be there political motivation. They are tenured professors at universities. They are heavily criticized and ostracized by their colleagues. Who would want this. The evolution insiders have the motivation of maintaining their position in the hierarchy as well and not having to believe in a god. Your statements about evolution are badly misinformed. Please present one scientific fact that supports macro-evolution.
]
More Questions: |