The process of evolution has
to use what is naturally available. DNA, the replicating material that
started life (well, they say it was RNA first, right?, but going on…), is going
to be used in all future replications throughout the evolutionary tree of life.
Thus, we find that DNA is the common denominator in all life-forms. It would
seem that a God would not be constrained to one particular replicating
molecule—DNA. A God could use any particular molecule and any particular
combination. That is, every life-form on planet earth wouldn’t necessarily have
to be carbon based if an all-powerful, all-creative agent designed life.
Wouldn’t we expect an all-powerful, all-creative mind to utilize creativity in
the genome of living creatures? Wouldn’t we expect evolution to be restricted
to the materials and replicators that are available?
What we will next hear from the theistic perspective is “God
designed the laws of chemistry in such a way that of course we would naturally
live on an earth with certain physical parameters which would necessarily be
followed by a specific chemical make-up of life-forms.” Okay, there you have
it. The reason why things flow the way they do is because Zeus ordered them to.
Just because life appears to be designed doesn’t mean it was
the product or result of some higher, governing intelligence. If we look
closely, life appears to have an intrinsic design for survival and
reproduction. This perceived “design” is entirely natural. This design is
formulated by physical forces that are part of this world we observe.
When you observe the complexity and design of a kangaroo or
a leopard or of a human you realize that the complexity and design of these
organisms does not have its purpose in some supernatural concept but instead,
in natural concepts such as survival and propagation of genes.
Just because a zebra or any other mammal is complex and
appears to be designed doesn’t mean these creatures come from an intelligent
being who has a supernatural plan for their temporary existence on earth. What
we actually see is that physical properties that are part of these creatures
are explained in natural, material ways. Why wouldn’t we extend this to humans
as well?
The main flaw with intelligent design/creationism lies right in it's premise, "We are so perfectly created..." The fact is that we're not. There are so many superfluous parts to the human body that no longer serve any function, and so many things the human body was capable of doing that would be so convenient if it still performed these functions. To wit, how cool would it be if we still produced Vitamin C without the use of citrus fruits and/or supplements? There are way too many flaws in our design for the creationist thesis to be true.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with you here.
DeleteWhen I have this kind of conversation with a creationist, they still seem to think that the "imperfections" I point out are paltry compared to how much complexity and "order" there appears to be in organisms---even in the inanimate universe. This is why I sometimes like to point out "how would a god do things differently?" compared to "how would evolution do things?" But yes, they can just say "God can do things any way he wants". They also like to bring up "THe Fall of Man" to account for flaws inherent in the design.
I always liked Mark twain's discussion of man as "the creator's pet" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIXzG0kg15c&feature=relmfu
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnly systems that are capable of replication, adaptation and some level of symbiosis within their environment can be expected to subsist for any lengthly period. These attributes have the effect of making them appear designed. It's important to understand that systems that can't meet these criteria will eventually become "non-existent". The only thing left are systems that appear to arise from some "Great Design". This is a type of Cognitive distortion involving "Should statements" is fallacious, theists use this quite often to justify their statements and behavior. It's sad how some of us doggedly hold on to these archaic belief systems in order to feel that all is "right" in the world. Thereby preventing change and improvement. Self perpetuating systems do not require a creator.
ReplyDeleteLuv Ya Renee Glad Your Back
Yes. Very good points to remember. Thanks for your take.
DeleteVery sweet of you. I'm trying...little by little.
Why wouldn't we extend this reasoning to humans as well? Well, first you have to accept the idea that man is not separate from nature and perhaps even semi-divine, and that all the laws of nature don't need to apply to man. You first have to accept that man is an animal.
ReplyDeleteThe main flaw I would argue with intelligent design/creationism is that it's being promoted by the intellectually unqualified, who've mastered relying on fear and good media practices to spread doubt in the name of a religion. Then as the lone voice of reason for these people, it is left to the atheists, who are seen as no better than satanists, to point out the irrational flaws in their arguments.
However, I have a question; To bring up the omnipotence of God then to question his motives by limiting his abilities by saying he limited himself to just using DNA opens up to the counter argument. "You don't know the mind of God, and it's not our place to understand the will of God." or the all popular yet poetic, "God works in mysterious ways." How does one deal with this sort of cognitive disconnect and retreat?
Thanks for stopping by and offering your take on this issue.
DeleteI think creationists really have a hard time with testability and falsifiability in their "scientific" approach.
The argument often presented by IDers, goes something like this:
ReplyDelete"X is complex, so it is more logical to assume X is the result of design than the result of a random process."
where X is the eye, the heart, the Krebs cycle, Krispy Kreme doughnuts etc., etc. (Ok, maybe the last one is by a non-divine intelligent designer).
So, I wonder why is this kind of argument is so enduring? My personal feeling is that because a simple explanation is easier to present, and easier to use to contradict a more complex argument (which is often laborious to explain and requires specialist knowledge), it is easier to persuade the non-expert. This is probably why, as Imagicka notes, there is a reliance on 'good media practises'.
Some of that specialist knowledge may even be beyond the understanding of the layperson, so the supporter has to resort to 'trust me on this' statements, which is hardly helpful, especially in heated arguments!
Yes indeed!
DeleteWanted to tell you that I did finally get a copy of the book and am reading it now.
Great! I just *consume* books like that; if you have any similar recommendations, it would be great to hear them.
DeleteI agree with you Ben. As someone who watched two lectures from the Discovery Institute they try to make it sound like science and less religous. I would of fell for it myself if it i I did not know better. But in the end it's the same argument. We have something that we can't figure out by evolution. Therefor an intelligence must have been involved. They even try to the audiance a quote from Charles Darwin to make us beleive that he was racist. It made me sick. These lectures were presented by the Idea Club. Ironically they have not a clue.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I don't understand with Creationists, is why fight science? And, fundamentalists and evangelicals, why fight the argument about scriptural inerrancy? (Which is where, ultimately, the conflict between science and these Churches begins; the belief that everything written in the Bible must be fact, so the contortions of pseudo-science to make biblical explanations accurate.)
DeleteIf Genesis is a metaphor, or a work of literature, does that make the good work you church-goers do for the poor at your soup kitchens less good? Would you be less generous of spirit, less compassionate for those worse off?
I think not. Celebrate the Christian tradition, and don't fall foul of the literalists who use obscure biblical passages to persecute and justify their own narrow interpretations of 'goodness'.
Did not Jesus cast out the Pharisees from the temple? Pharisees, of course, being a kind of Jewish fundamentalist. Time to cast out the modern Pharisees...
Here is a perspective regarding "Intelligent Design" by Astrophysicist Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson. The last few minutes of the presentation is a bit humorous. Enjoy.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTFwDpr14Bo&feature=gv&hl=en
Great post! It's so obvious that religion was our first attempt at understanding life, the universe, and our place in it. It was our first attempt at morals, ethics, and justice. As our first attempt it should be expected to have beneath it's thin and fractured surface of guidance and inspiration to have deep and undeniable flaws, which it does. Luckily the bronze age way of thinking, which is religion, has now been superseded by science. But unfortunately some still cling to the ancient way of thinking and the consequence of this is that scientific understanding to the masses is delayed. Unfortunately even though both domains of thought set out to answer the same things, they both have fundamentally different ways of approaching the problems. The scientific method of thinking,"Here are the facts, what conclusion can we draw from these?" The theistic method of thinking,"Here is the conclusion, what facts are there to support it?"
ReplyDeleteIt is amusing that people consider life to be so complex that it necessitates the existence of an intelligent designer. When you actually study life on Earth you see that nothing is perfectly designed. take the Recurrent laryngeal nerve, which runs all the way down and under the aorta before looping up to the larynx. It is present in most mammals and is over 15ft long in giraffes. No intelligent designer would design such a poor and risky connection.
ReplyDeleteAs we see day in and day out, there is no perfect design carried out by a creator. Structures and phenomena in life are not perfect, they are 'good enough.' It doesn't have to be perfect, so long as it's good enough to work - that's all evolution and natural selection factor in