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.
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.
Comments