Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Proving Intelligent Design Is A Retreat Back to the Dark Ages; Concluding Intelligent Design Is Good Science

Just so everyone is on the same page:  For those of you who believe that evolution is easily disproved by looking at the amazing order, synergistic form with function, and cooperating system apparent in the universe; I say, "nuh-uh"; or, less succinctly, "Very complex systems can come into being by random processes; given a typing pool of monkeys randomly banging on typewriters, they will eventually produce the entire works of William Shakespeare."  For those of you who believe that belief in a supernatural creator is entirely a matter of blind faith and outside the pale of logical investigation; I say, "nuh-uh"; or, less succinctly, "Given the available data (both historical and physical measurements) and current understanding, the most rational conclusion is that the universe is the beautiful production of an intelligent and wise Creator, tailor made to accomplish His purposes.  Now that everyone is mad at me and thinks I am on the "the other side", I can say what I want without consideration that I am just pandering to my fans.

Here's a couple of problems with disproving evolution because of the design we see in the universe.  First of all, seeing a design is hopelessly subjective.  That is, after all, what the Rorschach test is all about.  Asking someone to describe the design they see in even an amorphous blob of ink tells you more about them than any supposed design (which is, but construction, nonexistent).  In fact, the evolutionists will tell you precisely that: we can learn a lot about ancient cultures by studying the mythology they invented to cope with the complexity of their environment.

But there is a deeper problem.  Let's make a coin flipping experiment: we'll flip a single fair coin once.  Probability of heads: 0.5.  Now will flip it twice: probably of two heads in a row: 0.25.  Four times: probability of three heads: 0.0625, but probability of two heads and two tails: 0.375.  Therefore, you are more likely to flip two heads and two tails that four tails.  However, that is not because a mixture is more likely than all the same, but because we didn't care when the heads and tails showed up. The probability of getting heads-tails-heads-tails in that order, on the other hand, is also only 0.0625; the same as tossing all heads.  So if we repeat our experiment thousands of time, approximately 1/16 of those trials will be all heads.  Will it be the first time we do our experiment or the 10,000th time?  No way to predict; all equally likely.  If you have as many times to run the experiment as you like, then you'll generate all sorts of interesting patterns.  All randomly generated, despite the complexity.

Conclusion: evidence of design is highly subjective, and even complex designs can come about by a random process running for a long time.  No matter how complex, it is never proof of intelligent design.

What about the other way?  The scientific method is to collect data and then (and only then) propose a model to explain the data.  Without going into details, I assert (without proof for now) that you are left with two most likely explanations: random process (as above), or the Torah description of creation.  Moreover, the Torah description is clearly a better explanation.  Note that I am not saying, "Well, I can't explain this or that, so I guess there is a creator."  I am saying that explanation that best covers the data and that requires the fewest leaps of faith is to conclude that HaShem created the world.

That's if you are honest.  If you are not honest, but dogmatically and illogically declare that there can't be a creator, then you are stuck with evolution.  That leaves you a dogmatic/religious atheist with no future and no present.  Sad, really.


Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Using a Mitzvah Object for Non-Mitzvah Purposes

As I am -- Baruch HaShem -- getting older, I am more cognizant of the fact that I'd like to stay as healthy as possible right up the moment I leave this world.  Stuff hurting is not the problem (I am told there is an old Russian saying that once you are 40, if you wake up and nothing hurts -- you're dead), stuff not working, however, is a problem.  To that end, for several years now I commute to work by bicycle (weather permitting, 30 minutes on an elliptical machine when weather does not permit).  I recently took up some upper body weight training.  Not because I want to be governor of California, just simply to slow down loss of bone mass and extend my body's healthy span.  Simple hishtadlus.  I have an 18 month old grandson who is just the right weight for arm curls (yes... I am that weak), so I do about 10 reps when I greet him at night.  He laughs, I get my exercise; all good.  (Main problem is explaining to the older ones why zeidy can't give them the same "…

Thought for the Day: Thanking HaShem Each and Every Day for Solid Land Near Water

Each and every morning, a Jew is supposed to view himself as a new/renewed creation, ready for a new day of building his eternal self through Torah and mitzvos.  We begin the day with 16 brachos to praise/thank/acknowledge HaShem for giving us all the tools we need to succeed.  We have a body, soul, and intellect.  We have vision, mobility, and protection from the elements.  Among those brachos, we have one that perhaps seems a bit out of place: רוקע הארץ על המים/Who spreads out the land on/over the water.  After all, it's nice to have a dry place to walk, but does that compare to the gratitude I have for a working body and vision?  As it turns out, I should; as explained by the R' Rajchenbach, rosh kollel of Kollel Zichron Eliyahu (aka, Peterson Park Kollel).  Your best bet is to listen to the shiur; very distant second is to continue, which I hope will whet your appetite for the real thing.

First... since we have dry land, I don't have to slog to work through even a foot…

Thought for the Day: Hydroponically Grown Humans... I Feel Sick

I am quite openly not at all objective about abortion in particular and the treatment of human embryos and fetuses in general.  I am, after all, the survivor of a failed abortion attempt.  Not "thought about it, but couldn't go through with it"; not "made appointment, but then chickened out at the lost moment"; but, "tried a procedure, but was unsuccessful in attempt to abort".  Nonetheless, I try very hard to listen to the liberal arguments (which I also used to chant as part of the general liberal catechism), and am genuinely empathetic to the plight of women who find themselves in that difficult position.

What I heard on NPR this morning, however, has left me feeling physically ill.  You can read about it, if you like, but here's the bottom line:  Scientists in Cambridge have achieved a new record, they fertilized a human ova and then kept it alive in vitro (that is, in a test tube/petri dish in a laboratory) for 14 days.  The scientist involve…