Frustration

_{Gil Dodgen

May 15, 2008

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion, Science}

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

In this essay Richard Dawkins proposes the following:

In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things… We need a better explanation [than design by space aliens], such as evolution by natural selection or an equally workable account of the painstaking R&D that must underlie complex, statistically improbable things.

An equally workable account? An “ultimate explanation”? R&D? R&D is research and development. R&D is design. The logic and terminology of design is inescapable, even by those who deny that design exists.

Richard Dawkins is certainly not a stupid person, but I find it amazing that he cannot see the obvious problem here. Natural selection is not random, but it does not create anything; it only throws stuff out.

The F-35 fighter aircraft (for which our company is designing a new pilot ejection parachute), did not come about by throwing out the Wright Flyer biplane, and then throwing out the Piper Cub, and then throwing out the F-16. The impotence of natural selection as a creative force is transparently and logically evident.

Dawkins:

[It is proposed that] He [God] was always there and always complex. But if you are going to resort to that facile cop-out, you might as well say flagellar motors were always there.

But flagellar motors were demonstrably not always there.

The who-designed-the-designer question is nonsensical when one considers that time had a beginning. This is also transparently and logically evident.

The physical universe (matter, energy, space, and time) came into existence at a finite point. Dawkins must surely admit this. Whatever caused the physical universe did/does not exist in time, because time did not exist. Therefore, the cause of the universe has no past and has no history. That which does not have a past or a history has no point of origin, and thus no designer or originator. The infinite regress logically stops at the origin of the time domain, which is well established by modern science.

None of what I’ve written here is hard to understand. In fact, it’s logically trivial. How the “Professor of the Public Understanding of Science” could have missed these obvious points astounds me.

Is my frustration understandable?

See here for an insightful rebuttal of Dawkins’ logic and argumentation.

Comments

The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:
Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)
(HT to Paul Nelson)Joseph_{May 16, 2008
May
05
May
16
16
2008
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Lee Spetner Addresses a theory of environmentally driven mutations, in his book Not By Chance, http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244 I find his theory has much support in empirics.bornagain77_{May 16, 2008
May
05
May
16
16
2008
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

biliiad, no beancan5000 is probably not a troll. He's just confused. I've seen this mistake many times. Beancan5000, the whole point of natural selection from the perspective of many (probably most) scientists is that it is NOT an intelligent process. Remember, for any event there can three causes 1. law, 2. chance or 3. agency. Natural selection is "law." It works on random mutations ("chance") to produce new species. At least that's the claim. By definition, a product of pure chance and law cannot be the product of "purposeful, intelligent design." Indeed, the one excludes the other.BarryA_{May 16, 2008
May
05
May
16
16
2008
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

I would say it can be argued that Natural Selection is evidence for intelligent design, for it takes intelligence to compare the various genes then "select" for the best choice given the current environment. This selection was programmed into the organism to allow its descendants to adapt to changing conditions. This is purposeful, intelligent design.beancan5000_{May 16, 2008
May
05
May
16
16
2008
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

G'day crandaddy, It's interesting to see Dawkin's write of "He [God] was ... always complex" The God of the Bible, as I have come to see, is not one of specified complex information. God is not complex but simple. This may seem opposite to many of the bloggers' thoughts, and this in no way takes away from the complexity that has been and will be wrought in our universe, but as to the Designer's specified complexity I don't think God fills that bill ... and I hope He doesn't mind me saying that [thunderclouds start milling overhead ...] Dawkins has been here before and philospher Alvin Plantinga has written on this point: " ‘Not much. First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’) So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex. ‘More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins’ own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are ‘arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone.’ But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn’t have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex. ‘So first, it is far from obvious that God is complex. But second, suppose we concede, at least for purposes of argument, that God is complex. Perhaps we think the more a being knows, the more complex it is; God, being omniscient, would then be highly complex. Perhaps so; still, why does Dawkins think it follows that God would be improbable? Given materialism and the idea that the ultimate objects in our universe are the elementary particles of physics, perhaps a being that knew a great deal would be improbable—how could those particles get arranged in such a way as to constitute a being with all that knowledge? Of course we aren’t given materialism. Dawkins is arguing that theism is improbable; it would be dialectically deficient in excelsis to argue this by appealing to materialism as a premise. Of course it is unlikely that there is such a person as God if materialism is true; in fact materialism logically entails that there is no such person as God; but it would be obviously question-begging to argue that theism is improbable because materialism is true." Sorry for the long post, but I think Plantinga has some salient points. Since this is a blog about complexity I envision some complex replies!!!AussieID_{May 15, 2008
May
05
May
15
15
2008
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

Disregarding that the universe had a beginning, we still might reasonably ask why it exhibits the properties that it has, i.e. those conducive to the support of life. I understand the odds seem to be very much in favor of it not exhibiting such properties. The improbability of the specified conditions make it look very much like design. Furthermore, I see no good reason at all why we can't propose an undesigned and eternal creator even if he is complex. This argument of Dawkins' has never looked very good to me.crandaddy_{May 15, 2008
May
05
May
15
15
2008
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

I think, the actual "creative" force is mutation (including gene duplication). It provides the raw material on which natural selection can act.IrrDan_{May 15, 2008
May
05
May
15
15
2008
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

I think another point worth considering is, if natural selection really were capable of 'creating' so much of what we see in the natural world, it too would just be a collection of processes and systems within the natural world. In other words, one more tool far more plausibly developed by the mind of a creator than one which just happened to come into being by (there's that word again) chance. What allows Dawkins to feel he's an "intellectually fulfilled atheist", if it can accomplish all he hopes and claims, would more neatly fit into a design-centered view of the world than a non-design view.nullasalus_{May 15, 2008
May
05
May
15
15
2008
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply