I don’t get why Christian preachers need to shout out against intelligent design.

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 6, 2010

Christian Darwinism, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Can someone explain?

A friend directs me to this example, but you needn’t doubt I’d find more.

Who would want this individual managing their stock portfolio?:

If you crunch the numbers in relation to your own birth (i.e. the probability that a particular sperm united with a particular egg multiplied by the probability that your parents met and repeated the calculation back until the beginning of time), you will get a fantastically low probability.

And so? Look – I cannot bring my parents into this (O’Leary, b 1950), because they are still alive.

But let me bring my grandparents, now happily at rest, into it instead: They kept trying and they got what they wanted.

The stats are 9 children on one side and 10 on the other, all born alive, no early deaths. That shows what intelligent design can do.

And if you have a problem with that, call on me only if you want a door slammed in your face for free. No need to go to the local Madam. That would happen here whether you enjoy it or not.

While we are here: Lewis Wolpert? He debated Dembski here. Holy kazoo! This wouldn’t be the same Wolpert who was
dumbfounded when his son became a Christian?

Naw. Couldn’t be. Ain’t possible that guy’s son knew something his paw didn’t.

Like, Darwinism guarantees that that can’t happen, right?

Comments

Zachriel: There is a strong trend in hominid evolution towards larger brains, so there is obviously some selection involved. ScottAndrews: You have absolutely no idea whether selection produces larger brain sizes.
Of course we have some idea. We can durectly observe natural selection, measure its rate, compare it to rates of neutral mutation. We can then compare this to the historical record, which is replete with the type of incremental change expected by an evolutionary process.
ScottAndrews: Rather, you observe them appearing to get larger and filter it through your assumption that selection is responsible for everything.
A hypothesis is a tentative scientific assumption made for the purposes of devising empirical tests of the entailed consequences of that assumption. For instance, the observed rates of evolution due to natural selection must be at least as great as the rates observed in the historical record.Zachriel_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

That is precisely contrary to the correct assumption. Humans or other music-composing organisms are far from certain An understatement, but acknowledging it is a start. There is a strong trend in hominid evolution towards larger brains, so there is obviously some selection involved. You have absolutely no idea whether selection produces larger brain sizes. Rather, you observe them appearing to get larger and filter it through your assumption that selection is responsible for everything.ScottAndrews_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews: Your reasoning is fallacious. You assume that starting with apes and adding millions of years, the possible outcomes are heavily laden with big-brained creatures that compose music and sequence their own DNA, whether or not they are specifically human.
That is precisely contrary to the correct assumption. Humans or other music-composing organisms are far from certain, as can be easily seen from the pattern of evolutionary descent, which is typically a branching process with most lines going extinct. There is a strong trend in hominid evolution towards larger brains, so there is obviously some selection involved. But this affects comparatively few genes, and the assumption was that most changes were neutral.
ScottAndrews: Unless you can demonstrate that selection of random changes can effect such changes as turning a dumb ape into a creature so advanced that it literally doesn’t know what to do with its own brain, then the odds are all you have, and they don’t make a credible argument.
That wasn't the argument being raised. The argument was the typical Big Exponent Argument, that the odds so calculated: 10^-70,000, which are consistent with the assumption that a singular result must occur. Even if we assume humans are inevitable, many of those changes have no phenotypic effect. Human evolution: Ardipithecus, humans, and chimpsZachriel_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, Your reasoning is fallacious. You assume that starting with apes and adding millions of years, the possible outcomes are heavily laden with big-brained creatures that compose music and sequence their own DNA, whether or not they are specifically human. Going back to the example of the cards, we don't need to assume that the only meaningful outcome is one specific order. You could spend a lifetime designating additional "meaningful" arrangements without significantly increasing the odds of matching one. Unless you can demonstrate that selection of random changes can effect such changes as turning a dumb ape into a creature so advanced that it literally doesn't know what to do with its own brain, then the odds are all you have, and they don't make a credible argument.ScottAndrews_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

O'Leary @ 7
Seversky at 5, a person who would believe Wikipedia will believe anything.
Wikipedia is unreliable but it is useful as a pointer towards more authoritative sources.
I remember many years ago, sitting with another young married woman, hearing such figures re miscarriage quoted. We looked at each other and knew from experience that the figures were probably inflated, and effectually false.
Poassibly, but the more interesting figure was the estimate of how many conceptuses abort spontaneously before the women are even aware they are pregnant. Not surprisingly, it is a very difficult area from which to get reliable data, but if the mortality rate is as high as that study suggests, then this is a very wasteful process.
Sometimes, a design just does not work as we’d all hoped.
That is certainly true - of human design. The problem is that, as far as we know, we did not design these biological structures which ID proposes were designed, someone or something else did. We can certainly speculate about extraterrestrial intelligences visiting the Earth in the distant past and 'seeding' it with life or its precursors. Perhaps they simply went away after having set things in motion and left evolution to take its course. That would certainly account for the waste and suffering. However, as an explanation, it unlikely to satisfy many people for two reasons. First, although it explains how life started on Earth, it still tells us nothing about how life itself originated. Second, it will not appeal to those who believe that humanity is the pinnacle of God's creative efforts. Perhaps this is why Christian preachers cry out against Intelligent Design?Seversky_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews: In other words, if we start from the assumption that primitive apes ...
We have knowledge that primitive apes diverged into different lineages. But in this case, the calculation (not ours!) assumed evolutionary descent. (Of course, not all changes are random. Selection is essential to adaptation, but we can leave that aside for now.)
ScottAndrews: ... can or will evolve via random change into something entirely different, then humans are just one of the things into which they might evolve, just as one hand of cards is just as likely as next.
But the calculation (not ours!) assumed evolutionary descent, that most of the changes were neutral, and that humans were the only possible result. In fact, not only is there a great spread in human genomes, but there is a great spread in known lineages.
ScottAndrews: Your argument cleverly disguises the assumption that such random evolution is possible.
The argument was to show by contradiction that the assumption was false, but the argument was specious. Indeed, there's the argument again! Pierre-Paul Grassé, Daydreaming, and Darwinian DepressionZachriel_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

In other words, if we start from the assumption that primitive apes can or will evolve via random change into something entirely different, then humans are just one of the things into which they might evolve, just as one hand of cards is just as likely as next. Your argument cleverly disguises the assumption that such random evolution is possible. If that assumption were true, it would be difficult to disagree with you. Further, you have framed it by limiting it to ape-to-human evolution, which is much easier to swallow for someone who's seen a few caveman-to-human depictions. But in reality we're talking about single cell to human evolution, and, by extension, dead chemicals to human evolution. If we start from the assumption that such unguided evolution is inevitable or even possible, then yes, any outcome, including humans, is generally just as likely as the next. That's quite a big assumption, without which the rest is even more conjecture. It hardly seems worth giving serious thought to other than to highlight its absurdity.ScottAndrews_{January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews: I’ve never heard ID applied to show that an event with a probability of 1 was intentional.
Again, that's not the argument. Humans exist with probability of one, but the neutral differences between humans and primitive apes, which are most of the differences, are just like a random deal of cards. The fallacy is multiplying a bunch of numbers and saying it's too improbable to have just happened by chance, it must be design.Zachriel_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Mung: That egg and that sperm must have met, so the probability is 1. Your parents must have met, so the probability is 1. You’re here, so the probability of your being here is 1.
Of course, in retrospect. But not before the fact. If we assume each mating is predestined, there are still several million sperm per coupling. After several generations, the chance of any *particular* line of descent is negligible. This is a common confusion when attempting to calculate, for instance, the probability of a particular line of descent leading from the genomes of primitive apes to humans.
ScottAndrews: Now I know that you haven’t really read about this.
The shuffled deck fallacy was recently presented on this forum (Human evolution: Ardipithecus, humans, and chimps) concerning the differences due to *neutral* mutations leading from primitive apes to humans. Only by considering humans to be predestined in precisely in their current configuration is this an appropriate calculation. Even individual humans vary considerably, and evolution could have followed many paths.Zachriel_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

I like Mung's answer even better. The probability of dealing 104 cards and getting an arrangement isn't 10^-166. It's 1. I've never heard ID applied to show that an event with a probability of 1 was intentional.ScottAndrews_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

If you shuffle two decks and deal out the cards, the chance of that particular arrangement (10^-166) is beyond the so-called Universal Probability Bound. The fallacy is to argue that this means the arrangement couldn’t be due to chance, and therefore must be due to design. Now I know that you haven't really read about this. I've never heard anyone make that argument regarding unspecified complexity. Try showing that trick to your friends. Deal 104 cards ordered by suit and face, and then ask your friends whether the cards were previously ordered or shuffled. Only a Darwinist would conclude without a doubt that the cards were shuffled. After all, every combination is unlikely. Poof! Astronomical odds, gone! But no rational thinker would accept that explanation, ever. They would accept not knowing how the cards got ordered rather than embrace what they know to be nonsense.ScottAndrews_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

What price intelligent design given that mortality rate?
But this is exactly what we would expect from natural selection, right?Mung_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

If you crunch the numbers in relation to your own birth (i.e. the probability that a particular sperm united with a particular egg multiplied by the probability that your parents met and repeated the calculation back until the beginning of time), you will get a fantastically low probability.
I don't get this. That egg and that sperm must have met, so the probability is 1. Your parents must have met, so the probability is 1. You're here, so the probability of your being here is 1.Mung_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Well, I always say, if probability means nothing, why did our provincial premier (province of Ontario, Canada - not one of the world's breeding grounds for excessively rash people - fire the prez and the entire board of directors of our local lottery corporation, because of inability to control non-probable statistical results? Look, I make no accusations. I have none to make. I don't buy tickets, do not recommend that anyone buy tickets, do not care whether anyone does, and do not know what happened. I do say this: If THAT guy fired all those people, you can be sure that there is such a thing as statistical improbability, and it surely applies to origin of life. And a lot of other issues related to life as well.O'Leary_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews: In other words, if human parents can produce a genetically improbable human child (as all of use were) then surely they could also produce a unicorn or a cold fusion reactor.
It's not an assertion that unicorns could be due to chance. It is simply an illustration of a common fallacy. If you shuffle two decks and deal out the cards, the chance of that particular arrangement (10^-166) is beyond the so-called Universal Probability Bound. The fallacy is to argue that this means the arrangement couldn't be due to chance, and therefore must be due to design.Zachriel_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Denyse, At the Joe Clarke site, you are cited by one of the commenters on her blog. Her name is Kay Carlson and her comment is the current last comment there. Her blog which mentions you is http://womanatwell.blogspot.com/jerry_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

The logical fallacy cited in the OP is often used in some form as an argument in this forum, and is mind-numbing each time. The old "Someone still wins the lottery..." It takes one variation of an event which was, in general, likely, probable, or inevitable due to known behavior or natural law, and observes that specific outcomes occur although individually unlikely. It then leaps to the conclusion that events exponentially less likely, without any basis in natural laws, usually never having been observed in all of history, are reasonable explanations. In other words, if human parents can produce a genetically improbable human child (as all of use were) then surely they could also produce a unicorn or a cold fusion reactor. Presto! Improbability (and therefore probability) no longer mean anything. The implications for others sciences (which don't usually assume the astronomically unlikely without ruling out everything else) are astonishing.ScottAndrews_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

I do not know how Dawkins could ever become a self fulfilled atheist because he has to lie to himself to do so. Dawkins is smart enough to know that there is no evidence for naturalistic evolution especially Darwinian evolution. The interesting question is why he makes his claims.jerry_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Denyse, Did you see my comment to you last night about what is transpiring on Joe Carter's blog relevant to Catholic theology and evolution? If not, when you have some time, peruse it especially the comments fy someone named R. Hampton. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/05/a-walk-to-the-moon/comment-page-1/#comment-6819 It is nice to have a debate that is polite.jerry_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 5, a person who would believe Wikipedia will believe anything. Am I still "Diane" O'Leary? I'd be curious to know. I remember many years ago, sitting with another young married woman, hearing such figures re miscarriage quoted. We looked at each other and knew from experience that the figures were probably inflated, and effectually false. Too many unmarried women of our acquaintance ... and what about "Plan B" and all that? But today, one must listen to all this stuff respectfully because it is "science." I do not care if Dawkins is an intellectually fulfilled atheist or not. Given his screeds, I must hope not. But it isn't my business. I do not know why some children are not born alive in this world. In fact, that same friend later had one child who was not born alive. In a green city far away, there is a little room off the nursing station - on the other side of a huge maternity ward - for mothers who have experienced fates worse than bawling babies presented to them when they are three quarters asleep from exhaustion. I visited her there. It was too bad, but it doesn't mean there is no design. Sometimes, a design just does not work as we'd all hoped.O'Leary_{January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

The stats are 9 children on one side and 10 on the other, all born alive, no early deaths. That shows what intelligent design can do.
Good for them but it is still the fallacy of selective reporting. From the Wikipedia entry on spontaneous abortion:
Between 10% and 50% of pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[4] Most miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy, in most cases, they occur so early in the pregnancy that the woman is not even aware that she was pregnant. One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the once pregnant woman.
What price intelligent design given that mortality rate?
Like, Darwinism guarantees that that can’t happen, right?
Wrong. Richard Dawkins wrote, in The Blind Watchmaker:
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Note that he wrote it was "possible" to become an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" not guaranteed.Seversky_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

In the article linked through "dumbfounded", Wolpert says: I was not upset by his beliefs, as long as they helped him, but the following incident reflects our relationship. Matthew came to visit me at work. He was studying Hebrew at the time, the better to understand the Bible. He said he was envious of me, as I was so fortunate. Totally unused to receiving positive remarks from my children, I beamed, and asked what he envied. The reply was: "You are going to die soon, certainly before me." I was shocked. Why was this so desirable? It was because he was still unhappy and wanted to die so that he could go, as he strongly believed, to heaven. We discussed this and it was clear that his position was totally rational, but he could not, according to the religious rules, take his own life. I had to accept his position, albeit reluctantly, but related the incident to his sister Jessica. A week later I found a note from Matthew on my chair: "Jessica says you think you are going to heaven when you die. We need to talk!" Of course Jessica was mistaken, but Matthew needed to check. It seems that Wolpert was more upset that his son's beliefs were not helping him, than that the son had the beliefs at all. On a personal level, I had a friend (brilliant and non-religious, though raised Catholic) whose son also became an evangelical Christian, and it did perplex and hurt him very much, more than Wolpert seems to have experienced.Nakashima_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Honestly Mrs. O'leary, I see little at that site I would define as "Christian".IRQ Conflict_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

waterbear is an obvious troll and is no longer with us.waterbear_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Mrs O'Leary, I think your friend is misinformed about the point of view of 'manicstreetpreacher'. His "About" page makes clear he is a follower of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens.Nakashima_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

“So what if it’s all enormously complex and improbable? I have heard it said that the probability of the first self-replicating carbon based cell arising on Earth is greater than the number of atoms in the known universe. Fine.” Wait, what? That makes life a mathematical and logical impossibility! “What the hell, let’s say that it’s TWICE the number of atoms in the known universe. It’s no use ruling out natural events on the arbitrary notion of low probability. You have to compare it with the probability of the alternative you contend is more likely.” Again, a mathematical impossibility. Or, he could compare it with the common sense notion that complex things that are known to have been designed have a designer. The universe is a complex thing (moreso than, say, a computer network system) and, logically, requires a designer. “See, they show the inner workings of the cell and clearly show its complexity. Scientists in Darwin’s time, in fact, had quite a good understanding of what cells were, and they were not simply “blobs of protoplasm”. This is yet another creationist hoax which is easily debunked.” The drawings in question show tadpole-like things in test tubes. Scientists in Darwin’s day had no clue the cell and its components were complex to any degree. Where are the peer-reviewed scientific papers from this time showing how the scientists knew of the cell’s complexity? Where are the scientific books detailing the cell’s complexity from Darwin’s day? This is yet another blogger who is easily debunked. His last bit refers to where Dr. Dembski teaches. To that, I say non sequitur. If evolution isn’t atheistic philosophy even though Darwin was an agnostic, then intelligent design isn’t religious despite Dr. Dembski being a Christian. One has nothing to do with the other; the theories stand and fall on the evidence at hand. Why is Darwinism linked with atheism? Because the most ardent scientist who writes about evolution, Richard Dawkins, is a raging atheist. Scientists such as Dawkins and Steven Weinberg expressly link atheism and evolution. If that is not the case, then please explain it to them. Oh, and the questions on the final exam have taken different forms as questions on bulletin boards the Internet over where atheists debate other religious people. “Why won’t God heal amputees” is even a website. If it’s wrong for Dembski to use this on a final exam, then it’s wrong for the atheists to use it as well. “Even if Darwin’s theory is completely wrong, even if the evolution of Homo sapiens we observe today is more improbable than the number of atoms in a billion universes that is still not evidence for either design or a designer.” No, but then it’s not right to teach evolution in schools if the theory is completely wrong. What the blogger is saying is that even if everything he believes in is wrong, he’ll continue to believe in it because God is simply unacceptable. This is not a matter of intelligence. This is a matter of will.Barb_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply