Chapter 4: Design argument for God

[Emery]

Alright guys, call it the design argument, fine tuning argument, or anthropic argument: make your case here. Was the universe designed for us, or did we adapt to fit the universe? Discuss show 54 here.

[scomsjw]

I think the "puddle" analogy was very appropriate. Tony and Scott didn't seem to know much about evolution which is a problem for a discussion like this. You really need some understanding of the alternative to the "god did it" hypothesis before you can dismiss it. Tony in particular kept referring to the alternative to god as "chance" this is a dreadful misrepresentation of what evolutionists believe. Life that has evolved over millions of years will fit exquisitely into the environment within which it has evolved. I cannot see how the book's authors can argue that belief in evolution, and the evidence that supports it, requires more faith than belief in god. The author's seem to be arguing that faith is a bad thing and that the explanation that requires least faith is to be favoured. That's an interesting theological position.

[StillSearching]

You spent a lot of time on the probability argument, and I have a bone to pick with this discussion. The authors make an assumption that life, as we define, see and know it is a) the only instance of such life in the whole universe, and b) the only form of "life" that exists (homeostatic, organized, metabolic, growing, adaptive, stimuli responsive, reproductive, etc.). Using this probability argument is only valid if we have explored every nook and cranny of the universe and found no trace of what we call life, nor any other forms that we could include in the category of "life" through an acceptable modification of our definition of the term. Only then can you even begin to claim that our planet is an unique phenomenon that has practically zero probability of occurring on its own, and therefore must have been created.

Furthermore, even if the authors can prove beyond doubt that we were created by an intelligent entity, we are still left with the question of the cause, nature, intent, disposition, relationship to us, etc. of this entity. WE'RE STILL LEFT WITH "I DON'T KNOW" AND THE CONTINUING QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH!!!

[ScottBarger]

The central question of this chapter was "Design or no design?" The authors propose that design is the only reasonable answer because of their "anthropic constants" or qualities of our planet that make it unique in its ability to sustain life (or life as we know it). They assert that it is statistically impossible for a planet to have these qualities by chance.

Emery's answer to this was a good one, I think. I would imagine that if you made a list of 122 unique qualities of ANY planet in the cosmos, the same statistical improbability would exist. The statistical side of the anthropic argument thus becomes a kind circumstantial evidence at best.

So that leaves for us the original question, "design or no design?" I believe this question should be answered in light of the first question from chapter 3, "Cause or no cause?"

If we answer the first question affirmatively (yes, there was an ultimate cause), then it is reasonable to me that we would be able to observe the universe and determine, to an extent at least, what kind of "Ultimate Cause" caused all of this effect we call the universe.

I think the question of design vs. no design is an attempt to describe the Ultimate Cause. I think both answers are logical and reasonable, but for me the universe seems to have too much structure and complexity for it to be the product of random chance, so I choose to believe it is the product of design.

Evolutionary theory is an interesting part of this discussion because of Douglas Adams' "puddle" argument. But I think I would counter that evolution itself may also be the product of design, or at least a process that could use a little "outside help" from time to time.

[scomsjw]

Scott said:

"I think both answers are logical and reasonable, but for me the universe seems to have too much structure and complexity for it to be the product of random chance, so I choose to believe it is the product of design".

The phrase "random chance" is being used very inappropriately. The idea that this is the alternative to design is naive. Theories of the origin of the universe are much more sophisticated than that. Scott seems to be trusting his intuitive sense of how "structured and complex" the universe is. That intuition is no good here. Intuition tells us that Scott's tangled fishing line is highly complex. We tend to think of things as complex if they are hard to understand with a human brain - it's a very subjective thing. I can't understand why Scott and Tony don't see god as complex and structured. The argument that he is in a "different category" from everything else just doesn't make sense to me.

[darkumbra]

This distinction between a 'thing' and a 'someone' is the biggest, most nonsensical piece of crap that I've heard of.

It is a phony, contrived, distinction created solely for the purpose of claiming that there is something outside of 'things'

I could as equally well claim that there is a 3rd 'object'... a Graflieaxamtumure and since it is neither a 'thing' nor a 'person' it defies all discussion... but by gum! I claim it exists... and therefore it does.

What utter bullshit.

[Azor]

but for me the universe seems to have too much structure and complexity for it to be the product of random chance, so I choose to believe it is the product of design.

One of the 'leaps' in reasoning for me about the whole notion of design was the realization that evolution makes complete sense (after about a year of reading up on evolution) and then what that implies. I am a professional engineer, and designing things is my job - it feels natural that things should be designed, but it was realizing that simple chemicals can replicate, and then going on up through the understanding of the process of replication/inheritance/mutation/selection through to DNA (the replicator for life as we know it). It wasn't easy - but once I got my head around all of that - then you start to realize that complexity does indeed arise out of simplicity when certain rules are in place - and I assure you, it is NOT random chance.

Furthermore, free market economies themselves boast amazingly elaborate production, distribution, and communication systems that allow your fav candy bar in almost any drugstore, your brand of spag sauce in every supermarket, and your size and style of jeans in every neighborhood. Who designed this marvel of complexity? Which commissar decreed the number of packets of dental floss for each retail outlet? The answer, of course, is that no economic god designed this system. It emerged and grew by itself over time. No one argues that all the components of the candy bar distribution system must have been put into place at once or by random chance or else there would be no Snickers at the corner store.

NOW HERE IS THE BIG POINT - upon accepting the above, I realized that the whole need for the concept of the ultimate designer or the arguments of who designed the designer all go away. As amazing as it is - systems can increase in complexity with the appearance of design 'without' a designer!

As for the whole idea of "intelligent" design - I found that the more I looked the less intelligence there was in design of nature. If God 'designed' the Earth as his home for the creation of life, and he design life, then why did he allow for the extinction of more than 99% of all species that have ever lived. However, this species extinction process makes perfect sense in the light of evolution. Also, when we look at the natural world, we see extraordinary complexity, but we do not see optimal design. Our own bodies testify to the inefficiencies. As embryos, we produce tails, gill sacs, and a full coat of apelike hair. Happily, most of us lose these charming accessories before birth. This bizarre sequence of morphology is readily interpreted in evolutionary and genetic terms; it is an utter mystery if we are the products of intelligent design. Men have a urinary tract that runs directly through the prostate gland. The prostate tends to swell throughout life. Consequently, most men over the age of sixty can testify that at least one intelligent design leaves much to be desired. A woman's pelvis has not been as intelligently designed as it could have been to assist in the miracle of birth. Consequently, each year hundreds of thousands of women suffer prolonged and obstructed labor that results in a rupture known as an obstetric fistula. Women in the developing world who suffer this condition become incontinent and are often abandoned by their husbands and exiled from their communities. The United Nations Population Fund estimates that more than two million women live with fistula today (http://www.unfpa.org/mothers/fistula.htm). The cure for obstetric fistula is, as it turns out, a simple surgical procedure - not prayer. Additionally, the human respiratory and digestive tracts share a little plumbing at the pharynx. In the United States alone, this intelligent design feature lands tens of thousands of children in the emergency room each year. Some hundreds choke to death. Many others suffer irreparable brain injury.

That's all I can type tonight. Perhaps I'll try to address the argument from the anthropic principle next time.
If you have time, may I recommend this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

Cheers

[Azor]

Wow - I didn't catch this before!

Atheist now accepts Intelligent Design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irVqVKdiohE

[Atheist37]

Azor,

Outstanding post, you've captured and summarized a lot of excellent arguments for life's natural origins. I've always found it ironic that some of the most conservative free market capitalists can't accept the same kind of biological free market that produces such an efficient ecosystem.

[Pseudonym]

I've always found it ironic that some of the most conservative free market capitalists can't accept the same kind of biological free market that produces such an efficient ecosystem.

The Argument from Poor Design is, surely, a good argument against a pure free market.

Things that arise by evolutionary processes tend to be extremely well-optimised for what they are optimised for. Far more so than a human designer ever could achieve. But they tend to be extremely poorly-optimised for what they are not optimised for. Far worse, in fact, than any competent human designer would do.

That's what causes the problem with invasive species, for example. A species is introduced to somewhere that it didn't evolve to be, and takes over, destroying the local ecosystem unless we step in to try to stop it.

[Wheelman]

This distinction between a 'thing' and a 'someone' is the biggest, most nonsensical piece of crap that I've heard of.

I wouldn't quite put it that way, but I do think this idea of "person-hood" which has made it's appearance in the last two chapter discussions with Tony is incoherent. Perhaps he could make an effort to define it better if it makes an appearance in the Chapter 5 discussion.

[militant02]

is it me or does tony try to shift the burden of proof whenever he's backed into a corner? i guess this goes back to his assertion that "i don't know" is not a good answer.

[Wheelman]

is it me or does tony try to shift the burden of proof whenever he's backed into a corner? i guess this goes back to his assertion that "i don't know" is not a good answer.

I think there is some of that going on. Once, I believe Emery said he felt that "person-hood" was contradictory, and that was when Tony turned the tables on him and said that Emery was making a positive claim and now had to prove the concept contradictory. Very hard to do since the "person-hood" concept is poorly defined up to this point but presented by Tony as if it is a logical fully formed idea that is well understood.

That's why I'd like Tony to go into more detail on this "person-hood" concept if it is going to keep popping up because its really just causing me some confusion.

[Pseudonym]

is it me or does tony try to shift the burden of proof whenever he's backed into a corner?

I seem to recall that he only shifted the burden of proof with qualifiers. His argument went along the lines of "If you accept X, then it's up to you to justify your claim Y", or "either X is true or Y is true, then it's up to you to justify why you claim Z".

At least, that was my impression. I'd need to re-listen with more care.

[tonyenglish7]

This distinction between a 'thing' and a 'someone' is the biggest, most nonsensical piece of crap that I've heard of.

It is a phony, contrived, distinction created solely for the purpose of claiming that there is something outside of 'things'

I could as equally well claim that there is a 3rd 'object'... a Graflieaxamtumure and since it is neither a 'thing' nor a 'person' it defies all discussion... but by gum! I claim it exists... and therefore it does.

What utter bullshit.

Does your idea exist? Is it a thing? No, it is an idea, yet it exists. There are many "things" that are not material yet exist, they are non-material yet actual. Propositions, logic, morals, communication, thought, love, truth etc... And personhood. And by the way, the scientific method/rationality are non-physical.

Just claiming that these things are contrived doesn't make any point. You are making an assertion without any supporting evidence. "Graflieaxamtumure" is nothing at all, sort of like what you think caused the Universe. The nothing you claim started the universe is the kind of thing rocks dream of. (:-)

But seriously, you are such a hard core materialist that you cannot even consider the very concept of anything existing other then material things. You view seems pretty contrived to me?