Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Still Hectoring Guillermo Gonzalez

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Letters to the Editor
By REGISTER READERS
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050927/OPINION04/509270355/1035/OPINION
September 27, 2005

Intelligent designer behind such a planet?
By Hector Avalos

Intelligent Design is a new variant of an old creationist argument. Here is a simple version:

1) Design implies a designer; 2) this designer is the god I worship. The book “The Privileged Planet,” co-authored by an astronomer and a theologian, is simply one of the latest attempts to argue that our planet was designed by some higher intelligence.

If our planet were much farther from, or much closer to, the sun, for example, then life might not exist, according to the book. Other planets don’t offer as good a platform for astronomical observation. Therefore, our planet is intentionally positioned for the emergence of intelligent life, which can then produce astronomers to discover the purposes of the designer.

One need only read theologies produced over the last 2,000 years to understand that this is not new.

The problem is that our planet has millions of features that we could identify as unique. These million other features also might not exist if our planet were any closer to, or farther from, the sun, etc.

If our planet were not located precisely where it is, then we might also not have AIDS viruses, congenital deformities or death itself. So why do ID proponents think that intelligent life and astronomical observation were the features selected for design? Why don’t ID proponents argue that our planet has been positioned where it is so that AIDS viruses, congenital deformities and death could exist?

“The Privileged Planet” tries to explain this selection: “When considering universes, everyone recognizes, unless they’re trying to avoid a conclusion they find distasteful, that a habitable universe containing intelligent observers has an intrinsic value that an uninhabitable one lacks.”

And just what is the definition of “intrinsic value”? The book says, “Such value is difficult to define, but we usually know it when we see it.” So how do we scientifically measure this “intrinsic value”? Who is the “we” judging “intrinsic value”?

In “The Privileged Planet” we discover a designer who did not create enough arable land to feed all of Earth’s hungry children and did not equip us with enough immunity to fight disease, but yet he wanted astronomers to have an ideal spot from which to observe solar eclipses. Astronomy is the privileged profession. Astronomers become the privileged inhabitants.

-Hector Avalos, associate professor, religious studies, Iowa State University, Ames.

Comments
Is it not possible that what are now destructive retroviruses and mutant cells, etc... could have once been something benign that mutated due to environmental conditions? And that maybe the root cause is a specific point in time when the creation "fell", if you will?Bombadill
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
[...] The good report of Guillermo Gonzalez is in sharp contrast with the venom of the main promoter of hate at the Iowa State University, Hector Avalos. [...]Teleological Blog » The Good Report of Guillermo Gonzalez, author of “The Privileged Planet”
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
OK, I’ll take the bait: "Why don’t ID proponents argue that our planet has been positioned where it is so that AIDS viruses, congenital deformities and death could exist?" Perhaps because there’s no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that there is any correlation whatsoever between the position of the planet and AIDS, viruses and congenital deformities. "The problem is that our planet has millions of features that we could identify as unique. These million other features also might not exist if our planet were any closer to, or farther from, the sun, etc." True, but irrelevant. The point, of course, is not that they are unique, but that without the unique features identified by Gonzalez, Avalos would not be able rant as he does because he would be either a fireball or an ice cube. Perhaps this is not the "intrinsic value" that Gonzalez intended, but it just might be a variety of value that even Avalos would recognize.SteveB
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Should the designer have completely eliminated the propensity for sickness, evil, etc...? If he had, would we have true free-will?Bombadill
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
how does a professor so bitter to god get a job in the religious studies dept?! the argument is absurd. the 3 largest religions all have the concept of "the fall" which totally explains death and disease. why does a religious studies prof not mention that little tidbit? he asks the question about AIDS, deformities, etc. yet never answers the question with what his own field states! these are the results of mans free will to turn away from god in the beginning. i have to wonder what topics in religious studies this guy teaches and in what manner he teaches the topics. a religious studies professor who argues that the planet cant be special because we have disease. too weird.jboze3131
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
I just read that Avalos is a former fundamentalist preacher. How discouraging. I wonder how one goes from preacher of the gospel to preacher of atheism. Can't help but speculate about some horrible tragedy which planted a seed of bitterness. Anyway.Bombadill
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Yes, Dave, letters like this lead one to question whether tenure was the worst invention ever.William Dembski
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
"If our planet were not located precisely where it is, then we might also not have AIDS viruses, congenital deformities or death itself." I find myself compelled to say that's among the most stupid things I've ever heard. For the comedic value I'd love to hear the professor's justification for it.DaveScot
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
My only objection to his point about AIDS and related diseases and such, is a theological one. So, I guess I'm disqualified on this one.Bombadill
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Hmm... that kind of crap annoys me. There is plenty of food and resources to go around -- we're just more interested in feeding ourselves then feeding the world.Plump-DJ
September 27, 2005
September
09
Sep
27
27
2005
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply