Intelligent Design – the wrong argument
I may return to this topic again and again. I find it to be fascinating. Well, let me say that I think the controversy between an intelligent creator and a naturally occurring universe to be fascinating. I think the intelligent designer’s are less than fascinating. I think they are unimaginative and have chosen as their central argument something that, in my opinion, is insulting to to a a being that would be capable of creating the universe.
Their central argument, one of two actually, and i’ve posted about this before, is the concept of “irreduciable complexity”. Now, this idea isn’t without merit. Darwin himself talked about this concept and if ever found would refute his theory. The problem is, you’re not going to find it. Not ever. Stop looking. Lets look at why.
What is irreducible complexity? It is, simply put, the idea that some part of an organism didn’t come from anything else. A fish has fins, leaves the ocean, evolves into a land creature and grows arms. The idea is that every appendage, organ, you name it, evolved from some other organ or appendage. For the IR arguer, it’s like finding the bar on a mouse trap somewhere in nature. It could only ever be to kill mice, it had no previous purpose and was therefore designed to do this task. One big example are fish in the deep sea that have grown appendages, some are luminescent, and can attract other fish close. Some have argued that this appendage could never have been anything but what it is. But this is really shallow thinking and there are many examples of how these types of appendages can develop.
Ok, so, now we know what it means, why is it so foolish? For starters, if you believe in evolution, the theory is right now. It’s in direct contrast and assumes a creator is, at varying times in history, interfering with an organism and adding bits and pieces as he, or she, sees fit. Just doesn’t work at all with evolution in any way shape or form.
Of course, that’s expected. No self respecting evolutionist or scientists would add to a theory the disclaimer “this theory subject to change by unknown entity at any given time”. And lets look at those that believe in God. Surely it makes sense for them? Not really. Lets accept as fact that God created the universe. It’s a pretty well known fact that God isn’t about walking around town waving a flag and giving autographs. This deity keeps a low profile. He wants to be believed in, not chosen because you’re afraid of his authority.
So what is IR really saying? It’s saying, lets find those places where God messed up. Lets find those examples in life where God had to create some part directly out of scratch. Where he couldn’t wait for evolution, which even the catholic church agress is real, to run it’s course. Excuse me? God makes mistake? Rather insulting I think. God creates this magnificent universe, builds into the capacity for self explanation, and some would be smart guy says he messed up somewhere.
There has never been one example of IR every found. Not one. It is a poor argument. And what baffles my mind is, there’s a really good one out there that no one even knows about.
Ever wonder why atoms are the way they are? Why the sun burns hydrogen the way it does? Why gravity is the strength it is? Why all the physical laws that exist are set to such exact levels? And what else is even more peculiar, if even one of all those rules and laws were off by even a fraction of a percent, life wouldn’t be possible.
Yes, I typed that correctly. Our universe is perfectly setup to support life. If gravity was a bit stronger, even just a bit, life wouldn’t be possible as objects would attract each other more. If the sun burned hydrogen more, only a fraction of a percent more, it would burn all the fuel faster, in a few million years, and life wouldn’t have time to evolve. There are countless examples of this, if protons were slightly heavier, life wouldn’t be possible. Our universe is just oddly setup to favor life. So much so that scientists can’t ignore it. And honestly, this is the big hurdle. If there is no reasonable, logical explanation for why there are so many little things that are required for life in our universe, then what is the only conclusion? No one dares say, not even me. The most logical scientific reason? There are an infinite number of universes and we happen to be the one that supports life. Yes, that is the most accepted reason.
So, why when you have such a reasonable, logical point, would you bother with something like irreducible complexity? I can’t answer that. No idea honestly. The point I make is there are oddities to our universe that one could argue suggest some intelligence went into the design. But the theory known as Intelligent Design, is not at all smart. Spend your time looking at what we do really know and make your conclusions based on that, not so fairy tale of irreducible complexity. You’d have more luck finding fairies.
Article on our universe’s favorability to life: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
