Saturday, September 30, 2006

The gods must be crazy if they call this intelligence #9

The gods must be crazy if they call this intelligence, Sydney Morning Herald, August 5, 2006, Deborah Smith. [Review of "Unintelligent Design: Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is," by Robyn Williams, Allen & Unwin: Sydney, 2006] Continued from part #8.

[Graphic: IDists, as metaphysically panicked Darwinists like Williams perceives them to be!]

An atheist, Williams fondly remembers when scientists and people of faith often discussed their viewpoints at length on the radio, reaching a friendly agreement that "science could look after most of the 'how' questions, while religion would handle the 'why' ". For starters, ID is not "religion". ID is "science" and is therefore concerned with the "how" questions. As Dan Peterson points out, "The capture of science ... by materialist philosophy was aided by the hasty retreat of many theists. ... who duck any conflict by declaring that science and religion occupy non-overlapping domains ... `Science asks how; religion asks why":

"With the mighty technology spawned by science in his hands, man could exalt himself, it seemed, and dispense with God. Although Darwin was by no means the sole cause of the apotheosis of materialist science, his theories gave it crucial support. It is perhaps not altogether a coincidence that the year 1882, in which Darwin died, found Nietzsche proclaiming that `God is dead...and we have killed him.' The capture of science (in considerable measure) by materialist philosophy was aided by the hasty retreat of many theists. There are those who duck any conflict by declaring that science and religion occupy non-overlapping domains or, to use a current catchphrase, separate `magisteria.' One hears this dichotomy expressed in apothegms such as, `Science asks how; religion asks why.' In this view, science is the domain of hard facts and objective truth. Religion is the realm of subjective belief and faith. Science is publicly verifiable, and is the only kind of truth that can be allowed in the public square. Religion is private, unverifiable, and cannot be permitted to intrude into public affairs, including education. The two magisteria do not conflict, because they never come into contact with each other. To achieve this peace, all the theists have to do is interpret away many of the central beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This retreat makes some theists happy, because they can avoid a fight that they feel ill-equipped to win, and can retire to a cozy warren of warm, fuzzy irrelevancy. It also makes materialists happy, because the field has been ceded to them. As ID advocate Phillip Johnson remarks acerbically:
Politically astute scientific naturalists feel no hostility toward those religious leaders who implicitly accept the key naturalistic doctrine that supernatural powers do not actually affect the course of nature. In fact, many scientific leaders disapprove of aggressive atheists like Richard Dawkins, who seem to be asking for trouble by picking fights with religious people who only want to surrender with dignity.' [Johnson, P.E., "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1997, p.101]"
(Peterson, D., "What's the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?," The American Spectator, December 22, 2005. Emphasis original)

But as Peterson continues, "That's what's different about intelligent design. ... It is making scientific claims about the real world. ... Rather than retreating to the gaseous realm of the subjective, it challenges the materialist conception of science on its own turf. ... the materialist worldview is at stake, and the materialists know it. And that's why intelligent design is such a big deal" (my emphasis):

"But the ID theorists do not go gentle into that good night. That's what's different about intelligent design. ID says that the best evidence we have shows that life is the product of a real intelligent agent, actually working in space and time, and that the designer's hand can be detected, scientifically and mathematically, by what we know about the kinds of things that are produced only by intelligence. It is making scientific claims about the real world. Because it relies on objective fact and scientific reasoning, ID seeks admission to the public square. Rather than retreating to the gaseous realm of the subjective, it challenges the materialist conception of science on its own turf. It thus threatens materialism generally, with all that that entails for morality, law, culture -- and even for what it means to be human.' ... If so, the materialist worldview is at stake, and the materialists know it. And that's why intelligent design is such a big deal." (Peterson, Ibid.)

The tactics of the intelligent design movement, however, remind him of the deviousness of Stalinist bullies he observed as a young man. For "tactics" and "deviousness" see previous part #4 on "psychological projection," i.e.:

" a defence mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them." (Wikipedia)

And a `minor' point is that these "Stalinist bullies" were presumably atheists like Williams, not advocates of "intelligent design"! Their leader, the atheist Joseph Stalin, killed ~20 million people, but all that ID is killing is Materialism and its creation-myth, Darwinism!

It really is astonishing the effect that ID has on materialists, when they feel "the shaking of a worldview he had always assumed to be unchallengeable." Johnson calls "this sad condition," "metaphysical panic." He observes that "Persons suffering from metaphysical panic tend to lash out in impotent rage while making wildly illogical arguments":

"I think we should feel sorry for Jerry Coyne. His own work has contributed to the destruction of Darwinism, and he seems to be suffering from a condition I call metaphysical panic, resulting from the shaking of a worldview he had always assumed to be unchallengeable. Persons suffering from metaphysical panic tend to lash out in impotent rage while making wildly illogical arguments. I encounter regularly." (Johnson, P.E., "Wedge Weekly Update," April 23, 2001. Access Research Network)

In the US its power has been used to erase evolution from science textbooks, to undermine museums and to misrepresent science. Williams needs to take a reality check (to put it mildly). Apart from the fact that "evolution" has not been erased "from evolution from science textbooks" for decades (if it ever was) and today is in every major biology textbook, ID has certainly not erased "evolution from science textbooks." In fact ID's policy is that "Schools Should Teach More About Evolution Not Less"! Nor does ID "undermine museums." However, if "to misrepresent science" in Williams-speak means to expose the many problems and philosophical assumptions of Darwinian "science," then ID enthusiastically pleads guilty!

And the public is falling for it. If the public is falling for ID, they will fall for it even more when they read the fallacious and hysterical arguments against ID in William's book!

In an age "dominated by powerful men causing misery in the name of God while insisting that theirs is the only way", Williams should first consider the beam in his own atheistic eye (Matthew 7:3-5), namely the "powerful men causing misery in the name of" there being no "God while insisting that theirs is the only way", i.e. "between 85 million and 100 million" victims of atheist regimes in the 20th century alone:

"Everyone would agree that some religious people do some very disturbing things. But the introduction of that little word `some' to Dawkins' argument immediately dilutes its impact. For it forces a series of critical questions. How many? Under what circumstances? How often? It also forces a comparative question: how many people with anti-religious views also do some very disturbing things? And once we start to ask that question, we move away from cheap and easy sniping at our intellectual opponents, and have to confront some dark and troubling aspects of human nature. .... But when atheism ceased to be a private matter and became a state ideology, things suddenly became rather different. The liberator turned oppressor. ... Unsurprisingly, these developments tend to be airbrushed out of Dawkins' rather selective reading of history. But they need to be taken with immense seriousness if the full story is to be told. The final opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s led to revelations that ended any notion that atheism was quite as gracious, gentle, and generous a worldview as some of its more idealistic supporters believed. The Black Book of Communism, based on those archives, [Courtois S., "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1999] created a sensation when first published in France in 1997 ... Communism was a 'tragedy of planetary dimensions' with a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume at between 85 million and 100 million ... One of the greatest ironies of the twentieth century is that many of the most deplorable acts of murder, intolerance, and repression were carried out by those who thought that religion was murderous, intolerant, and repressive - and thus sought to remove it from the face of the planet as a humanitarian act. Even his most uncritical readers should be left wondering why Dawkins has curiously failed to mention, let alone engage with, the blood-spattered trail of atheism in the twentieth century - one of the reasons, incidentally, that I eventually concluded that I could -no longer be an atheist". (McGrath, A.E., "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life," Blackwell: Malden MA, 2005, pp.112-114. Emphasis original)

scientists and believers need to work hand-in-hand, says Williams. While they may disagree about how the Earth was made, they can still agree that it, and all its wonders, need to be protected. Agreed, but it is not easy for "believers" to "work hand-in-hand" with "scientists" who declare falsely that the "believers" in ID of are part of "a politically sinister movement, a form of terrorism," whose "means are devious, the arguments deceitful" and whose "tactics ... remind him of the deviousness of Stalinist bullies"! But atheists like Dawkins and Williams, with their extremist attacks on ID, are "gifts to the intelligent-design movement":

Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins, The Guardian Madeleine Bunting, March 27, 2006 ...The curious thing is that among those celebrating the prominence of these two Darwinians on both sides of the Atlantic is an unexpected constituency - the American creationist/intelligent-design lobby. Huh? Dawkins, in particular, has become their top pin-up. How so? William Dembski (one of the leading lights of the US intelligent-design lobby) put it like this in an email to Dawkins: "I know that you personally don't believe in God, but I want to thank you for being such a wonderful foil for theism and for intelligent design more generally. In fact, I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God's greatest gifts to the intelligent-design movement. So please, keep at it!" ...

because the public (including the next generation of scientists) is going to consider which side is offering solid scientific evidence and arguments to support their position, and which side is reacting with "the dishonorable methods of power politics," employing "propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked," relying "on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story," choosing not "to confront the best critical arguments" but "caricature them as straw men," which only "makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory":

"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson, P.E., "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2000, p.141).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
Genesis 3:20. Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

The gods must be crazy if they call this intelligence #8

The gods must be crazy if they call this intelligence , Sydney Morning Herald,
[Graphic: Red Herring, The Fallacy Files]

August 5, 2006, Deborah Smith. [Review of "Unintelligent Design: Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is," by Robyn Williams, Allen & Unwin: Sydney, 2006] Continued from part #7.

And the technique appears to have been slapdash or confused: "Halitosis, farting, vaginal discharge, reflux, snoring, rheumatism, warts, smelly armpits, varicose veins, menopause, brewer's droop ... these are not the marks of a designer at the top of his game." I could waste time responding point-by-point to Williams' `village atheist' argument from imperfection, but I don't need to. The fact is that, as I pointed out in part #6, "ID makes no claim that there are ... perfectly designed anything" (even assuming for the sake of argument that all of the above are imperfections). So if this is Williams' main argument against ID in his book (and I have yet to buy and read it to find out) then it would also be an example of the Red Herring fallacy, i.e. "argument ... which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy":

Red Herring Alias:... Irrelevant Thesis ... The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. ...

Koalas, Williams also notes, have a pouch that opens downwards. "Was God intending the babies to fall out and crash to the forest floor?" See above on the irrelevance to ID of this argument from imperfection. And once again, ID does not claim the designer was "God" (see parts #3, and #6) . Which makes the sub-title of Williams' book, "Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is" also irrelevant in respect to ID.

To be sure, Williams' arguments from imperfection and evil can be directed towards Christian theology (which does claim that the designer was "God") but then there are resources available to Christianity with which to adequately answer that argument, e.g. the present world has evils because of sin (Genesis 3), but there will be for all those who accept Jesus' atoning sacrifice for their sin (John 1:12; 29; 3:16; 1 John 2:2, etc), a "new heavens and a new earth" (Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1-4) where "There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (my emphasis):

Revelation 21:1-4: 1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Also atheists' (like Williams') argument from imperfection against the human body is self-refuting, because as I pointed out in a debate with an atheist years ago on the Calvin Reflector, who claimed that he was "designed by an idiot" (because of alleged imperfections in his body), that would mean his human brain was also "designed by an idiot," which would then render his argument that he was "designed by an idiot" idiotic! This is an example of Darwin's "horrid doubt" problem, "whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals" (i.e. by a `blind watchmaker' process of the natural selection of random mutations) "are of any value or at all trustworthy":

"Charles Darwin himself once said, `The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. I., 1959, reprint, p.285] In other words, if my brain is no more than that of a superior monkey, I cannot even be sure that my own theory of my origin is to be trusted. Here is a curious case: If Darwin's naturalism is true, there is no way of even establishing its credibility let alone proving it. Confidence in logic is ruled out. Darwin's own theory of human origins must therefore be accepted by an act of faith. One must hold that a brain, a device that came to be through natural selection and chance-sponsored mutations, can actually know a proposition or set of propositions to be true. C.S. Lewis puts the case this way: `If all that exists is Nature, the great mindless interlocking event, if our own deepest convictions are merely the by-products of an irrational process, then clearly there is not the slightest ground for supposing that our sense of fitness and our consequent faith in uniformity tell us anything about a reality external to ourselves.Our convictions are simply a fact about us-like the colour of our hair. If Naturalism is true we have no reason to trust our conviction that Nature is uniform. [Lewis C.S., "Miracles: A Preliminary Study," [1947], Fontana: London, 1960, Revised Edition, 1963, reprint, p.109] What we need for such certainty is the existence of some `Rational Spirit' outside both ourselves and nature from which our own rationality could derive. Theism assumes such a ground; naturalism does not." (Sire, J.W., "The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog," [1976], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1988, pp.94-95. Emphasis original)

As with many other examples of unintelligent design, there is a scientific explanation: koalas evolved from wombat-like marsupials that had a pouch turned backwards so that, when they dug, their baby's eyes did not get sand-blasted with dirt. First, it is an instance of the begging the question fallacy to say that because "koalas" descended "from wombat-like marsupials" (which I accept) therefore "koalas evolved from wombat-like marsupials" (my emphasis). The fact is that common ancestry is not necessarily evolution, because: 1. A fully naturalistic mechanism is also needed; 2. Common ancestry is not uniquely evolution; 3. God could create through common ancestry; 4. Creationists can believe in common ancestry (as I do); 5. Common ancestry does not preclude supernatural intervention; 6. If there has been supernatural intervention at any stage of descent then it was not evolution but creation; 7. Evolutionists don't regard as evolution that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"; and 8. Evolutionists regard as creationists some who accept common ancestry.

Second, if Williams had done his homework and read the ID primary literature first-hand, he would realise that ID itself makes no claim either for, or against, common descent. For example, leading ID theorist Bill Dembski has stated that "intelligent design is compatible with ... seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life":

"Where does intelligent design fit within the creation-evolution debate? Logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything from utterly discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every conceivable point to create new species) to the most far-ranging evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life). For intelligent design the primary question is not how organisms came to be (though, as we've just seen, this is a vital question for intelligent design) but whether organisms demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being intelligently caused. In principle an evolutionary process can exhibit such `marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation." (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.109-110)

and another leading IDist, Michael Behe, has stated that he accepts "common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor)" (as I do):

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism-natural selection working on variation-might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.5-6)

Third, ID makes no claim about the koala's pouch. This is another example of ID critics, instead of actually critiquing something that ID has actually claimed, setting up a straw man of something that ID has never claimed, refuting that, and then claiming that ID is falsified!

Fourth, Williams contradicts himself. While ID itself makes no claim about the koala's pouch, if there is a good functional reason for a feature, e.g. "so that, when they dug, their baby's eyes did not get sand-blasted with dirt" then from a broader design perspective (the argument from design in nature did not begin with, nor is it confined to, the ID movement) that would be an example of good design!

Concluded in part #9.

Stephen E. Jones , BSc (Biol)
Genesis 3:16-19. 16To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." 17To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

The gods must be crazy if they call this intelligence #7

The gods must be crazy if they call this intelligence , Sydney Morning Herald, August 5, 2006, Deborah Smith. [Review of "Unintelligent Design: Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is," by Robyn Williams, Allen & Unwin: Sydney, 2006] Continued from part #6.

[Graphic: "The Atheist Syndrome" by J.P. Koster (1989)]

"In many ways the book is a personal statement, a mini-polemic. What has ID done personally to Williams? Nothing! He shows by his comments about ID that he barely knows what it is, and probably has never read any ID primary literature.

I feel passionate about the subject," says Williams, who reveals much about his formative years, including the episode when he stopped his "self-righteous pugilist" father, a staunch Communist Party believer, from beating his younger brother. So what has Williams' (presumably atheist like him) "father, a staunch Communist Party believer" got to do with ID?

Williams seems to be self-describing what Koster calls "the atheist syndrome," i.e. "The hurt son of the abusive father all too often organized a subconscious plan of attack. ... he decided to make his life's work the destruction of his father and the destruction of the God who had come to symbolize his father: angry, cruel, hostile, or at very best totally indifferent to suffering. .... The subtle manipulation of `scientific facts' into an attack on God as a symbolic father is the core of the atheist syndrome":

"There are children, however, who had other ways of dealing with chronic child abuse systematized as `discipline' and supposedly backed by Scripture. These sons of feared and hated fathers did not act out their rebellion in a visible way. Their wounds were too deep and their fear too great. Perhaps their high intelligence and greater sensitivity encouraged a deeper, much more subtle form of rebellion against a hostile father they identified with a hostile God. The hurt son of the abusive father all too often organized a subconscious plan of attack. Direct confrontation with the hostile father, or his God, was too dangerous. The son knuckled under, temporarily, but nurtured a deep resentment both against his father and against God. Subconsciously, he decided to make his life's work the destruction of his father and the destruction of the God who had come to symbolize his father: angry, cruel, hostile, or at very best totally indifferent to suffering. The son tried to do this in a subtle way. He could not attack his father or God openly, because Victorian familial piety forbade him to say to his father, `You're a brute and I hate you for it!' Instead, he struck at his father by denying God. The emerging `science' of the mid-nineteenth century provided a good avenue of attack because many of the old truths and assumed facts were being questioned. If the `facts' could be reinterpreted to shut God out, the victimized son would have acted out an attack without a direct confrontation against the father he feared. The subtle manipulation of `scientific facts' into an attack on God as a symbolic father is the core of the atheist syndrome. It should be emphasized that this all took place on a subconscious level. The son-victim didn't hop out of bed one fine Victorian morning and say to himself, Well then, today I'm going to get back at the old man at home by blasting the Old Man upstairs out of the sky! His subconscious urge for revenge on God took the conscious form of denying the existence of God. The best way to neutralize a powerful (assumed) enemy is to will or wish Him out of existence. It's also much safer to deny that a Person one fears actually exists than it is to risk a confrontation which experience has shown to be painful and dangerous. This then was the Victorian legacy: a stern, -and in some cases brutally, loveless culture, producing a reactionary and genuinely mad generation of psychotic God-haters." (Koster, J.P., "The Atheist Syndrome," Wolgemuth & Hyatt: Brentwood TN, 1989, p.16)

The universe is a spooky place. If the force of gravity, or any of a number of other factors in the cosmos, were slightly different, humankind would not be here. Indeed! Here is a quote by none other than anti-ID biologist Ken Miller, making a design argument that an IDist would be proud of, based on "The value of the gravitational constant" being "just right for the existence of life. A little bigger, and the universe would have collapsed before we could evolve; a little smaller, and the planet upon which we stand would never have formed" (my emphasis):

"Does g have to be 6.67 x 10-11? What if g were a little larger or a little smaller? It turns but that the consequences of even very small changes in the gravitational constant would be profound. If the constant were even slightly larger, it would have increased the force of gravity just enough to slow expansion after the big bang. And, according to Hawking, `If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size.' [Hawking, S.W., "A Brief History of Time," Bantam: New York NY, 1988, p.121] Conversely, if g were smaller, the dust from the big bang would just have continued to expand, never coalescing into galaxies, stars, planets, or us. The value of the gravitational constant is just right for the existence of life. A little bigger, and the universe would have collapsed before we could evolve; a little smaller, and the planet upon which we stand would never have formed. The gravitational constant has just the right value to permit the evolution of life" (Miller, K.R., "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution," [1999], HarperCollins: New York NY, 2000, reprint, pp.227-228. Emphasis original)

No doubt to an atheist like Williams that seems "spooky" but to a Christian (like me) the discovery of the exquisite degree of fine-tuning of the Universe for life is to be expected.

Here is another psychologically interesting reaction ("It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. .... I found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust ... Nor has this reaction faded over the years ... an intense antagonism...") by another atheist, astronomer George Greenstein, to "the idea ... that we owe our existence to a stupendous series of coincidences" which "is far too close for comfort to notions such as: We are the center of the universe. God loves mankind ... The universe has a plan; we are essential to that plan." (emphasis original):

"But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this `something' in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. The very thought that the fitness of the cosmos for life might be a mystery requiring solution struck me as ludicrous, absurd. I found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust, and well-nigh impossible to mention it to friends without apology. To admit to fellow scientists that I was interested in the problem felt like admitting to some shameful personal inadequacy. Nor has this reaction faded over the years: I have had to struggle against it incessantly during the writing of this book. I am sure that the same reaction is at work within every other scientist, and that it is this which accounts for the widespread indifference accorded the idea at present. And more than that: I now believe that what appears as indifference in fact masks an intense antagonism. It was not for some time that I was able to place my finger on the source of my discomfort. It arises, I understand now, because the contention that we owe our existence to a stupendous series of coincidences strikes a responsive chord. That contention is far too close for comfort to notions such as: We are the center of the universe. God loves mankind more than all other creatures. The cosmos is watching over us. The universe has a plan; we are essential to that plan." (Greenstein, G., "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos," William Morrow & Co: New York NY, 1988, pp.25-26. Emphasis original)

"With all these happy circumstances, it's little wonder that a few conclude that someone's been setting up a Wendy House for us and our friends," he says. Indeed again! In fact Williams' fellow atheists the late John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry admitted in Nature that "the physical constants have just the values required to ensure that the Universe contains stars with planets capable of supporting intelligent life" and "The simplest interpretation is that the Universe was designed by a creator who intended that intelligent life should evolve" (my emphasis):

"The idea that the world is peculiarly adapted to the appearance of life is not a new one. In 1913, the biochemist L.J. Henderson pointed out that many substances such as water have precisely those properties required if life is to exist. Most biologists rejected his views, arguing that organisms are adapted to their environments by natural selection, not the other way around. But the questions he raised have surfaced again recently in a new form. It turns out that the physical constants have just the values required to ensure that the Universe contains stars with planets capable of supporting intelligent life. The 'cosmological anthropic principle' has been suggested as an explanation for this puzzling fact. The principle takes several forms. The weak anthropic principle merely states that certain universes, with unfortunate lists of physical constants, would not be observable by us, simply because we would not be there. The weak principle is not a theory: it merely acknowledges a peculiar situation. The strong principle, proposed by Brandon Carter, is more radical. It states that the Universe must have those properties that allow life to develop in it at some stage of its life history. How can this curious claim be understood? The simplest interpretation is that the Universe was designed by a creator who intended that intelligent life should evolve. This interpretation lies outside science." (Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry, E., "On the likelihood of habitable worlds," Nature, Vol. 384, 14 November 1996, p.107)

but dismissed it as "outside science", i.e. outside their personal atheistic philosophy!

But if that was the case, that someone must have been very keen on astronomy. "Why wait 10 billion years before getting the whole Genesis yarn going?" Again Williams parades his ignorance of design literature! As physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler pointed out 20 years ago in 1986, "The size of the observable universe ... is inextricably bound-up with its age ... If our Universe were to contain just a single galaxy like the Milky Way ... we might regard this a sensible cosmic economy with little consequence for life" but such a "universe ... would ... have expanded for only about a month. ... A minimum time is necessary ... and stars require billions of years ... to transform primordial hydrogen and helium into the heavier elements ... a universe that is sufficiently mature, and hence sufficiently large ... is necessary for" man's "existence on Earth" (my emphasis):

"The Size of The Universe ... In several other places we have used the fact of the Universe's size as a striking example of how the Weak Anthropic Principle connects aspects of the Universe that appear, at first sight, totally unrelated. The meaning of the Universe's large size has provided a focus of attention for philosophers over the centuries. We find a typical discussion in Paradise Lost where Milton evokes Adam's dilemma: why should the Universe serve the Earth with such a vast number of stars ... if life and mind are important, or unique, why does their appearance on a single minor planet require a further 1022 stars as a supporting cast? ... However, the modern picture of the expanding universe that we have just introduced renders such a line of argument, at best, irrelevant to the question of Design. ... The size of the observable universe ... is inextricably bound-up with its age ... These relations display explicitly the connection between the size, mass and age of an expanding universe. If our Universe were to contain just a single galaxy like the Milky Way, containing 1011 stars, instead of 1012 such galaxies, we might regard this a sensible cosmic economy with little consequence for life. But, a universe of mass 1011 Mo [solar masses] ... would ... have expanded for only about a month. No observers could have evolved to witness such an economy-sized universe. ... A minimum time is necessary to evolve astronomers by natural evolutionary pathways and stars require billions of years ... to transform primordial hydrogen and helium into the heavier elements of which astronomers are principally constructed. Thus, only in a universe that is sufficiently mature, and hence sufficiently large, can `observers' evolve. In answer to Adam's question we would have to respond that the vastness of `Heaven's wide circuit' is necessary for his existence on Earth." (Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," [1986], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1996, reprint, pp.384-385. Emphasis original).

Continued in part #8.

Stephen E. Jones , BSc (Biol)
Genesis 3:13-15. 13Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 14So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

'Lucy's baby' found in Ethiopia

'Lucy's baby' found in Ethiopia, BBC, 20 September 2006 ...

[Graphic: The Dikika girl's skull, New York Times]

The 3.3-million- year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region. The female Australopithecus afarensis bones are from the same species as an adult skeleton found in 1974 which was nicknamed "Lucy". Scientists are thrilled with the find, reported in the journal Nature. ... See also ABC/Reuters, Livescience, New York Times, The Australian, The Independent and Washington Post.

The abstract of the Nature article seems to be saying that bones present in this Dikika girl fossil, which are missing in Lucy, indicate that A. afarensis may have been more ape-like than was previously thought:

"The find includes many previously unknown skeletal elements from the Pliocene hominin record, including a hyoid bone that has a typical African ape morphology. The foot and other evidence from the lower limb provide clear evidence for bipedal locomotion, but the gorilla-like scapula and long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of arboreal behaviour in the A. afarensis locomotor repertoire." (Alemseged, Z., et al., "A juvenile early hominin skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia," Nature, Vol. 443, 21 September 2006, pp.296-301).

When the hype that surrounds every hominid discovery subsides, I would not be surprised if the gap between the two genera, Australopithecus and Homo has widened, not narrowed!

It is a real (if not insoluble) problem in Human Evolution why a forest ape would even begin "a fundamental reconstruction of" its "anatomy, particularly of the foot and pelvis" which "Moreover ... represents an anatomical reconstruction outside the general pattern of human evolution" (my emphasis):

"I believe that we must reassess fundamentally the relative importance we have assigned to upright posture and increase in brain size as determinants of human evolution. We have viewed upright posture as an easily accomplished, gradual trend and increase in brain size as a surprisingly rapid discontinuity- something special both in its evolutionary mode and the magnitude of its effect. I wish to suggest a diametrically opposite view. Upright posture is the surprise, the difficult event, the rapid and fundamental reconstruction of our anatomy. The subsequent enlargement of our brain is, in anatomical terms, a secondary epiphenomenon, an easy transformation embedded in a general pattern of human evolution. Six million years ago at most, if the molecular clock runs true (and Wilson and Sarich would prefer five), we shared our last common ancestor with gorillas and chimps. Presumably, this creature walked primarily on all fours, although it may have moved about on two legs as well, as apes and many monkeys do today. Little more than a million years later, our ancestors were as bipedal as you or I. This, not later enlargement of the brain, was the great punctuation in human evolution. Bipedalism is no easy accomplishment. It requires a fundamental reconstruction of our anatomy, particularly of the foot and pelvis. Moreover, it represents an anatomical reconstruction outside the general pattern of human evolution. ... But upright posture is a different phenomenon. It cannot be achieved by the `easy' route of retaining a feature already present in juvenile stages. ... It is now two in the morning and I'm finished. I think I'll walk over to the refrigerator and get a beer; then I'll go to sleep. Culture-bound creature that I am, the dream I will have in an hour or so when I'm supine astounds me ever so much more than the stroll I will now perform perpendicular to the floor." (Gould, S.J., "Our Greatest Evolutionary Step," in "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," [1980], Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, pp.110-111).

The disadvantages of true bipedalism in its earliest incomplete stages are so great, because "so drastic an anatomical rebuilding is required to transform a quadruped into a biped, an animal in which the evolutionary change is still incomplete would be an inefficient biped" (my emphasis):

"Lovejoy is a fine anatomist, a specialist in the mechanics and origin of bipedalism. He decided some years ago to see whether the biological differences between apes and humans may have provided a competitive edge for the development of upright locomotion. His opening premise was very direct: `Hominids became bipeds for some specific biological reason,' he explained recently. `It wasn't for locomotion, because bipedalism is a lousy way of getting around. ...' As bipeds, humans are embarrassingly slow on foot and not particularly agile in the trees. ... Another part of Lovejoy's argument is that, because so drastic an anatomical rebuilding is required to transform a quadruped into a biped, an animal in which the evolutionary change is still incomplete would be an inefficient biped." (Leakey, R. & Lewin, R., "Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human," [1992], Abacus: London, 1993, reprint, p.87. Emphasis in original)

that "Natural selection ... the blind watchmaker" which "has no purpose in mind. ... has no mind and no mind's eye. ... does not plan for the future. ... has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all":

"Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, p.5)

would prevent it happening, as in fact it has not happened in any other species of mammals, primates, monkeys or apes, except in the line leading to man.

So great was this disadvantage that for decades the dominant paradigm in Human Evolution was the "Savannah Theory" which held that it was strong selection for hunting the vast herds of game on the new dry open grasslands of Africa which caused man's ancestors to leave the trees and become bipedal. But unfortunately, as Richard Leakey noted, "the great plains and the immense herds on them are relatively recent aspects of the African environment, much more recent than the origin of the human family" (my emphasis):

"The images we all have of the great plains of Africa, darkened by huge migrating herds, are indeed dramatic. So powerful are they that we tend to project them into the past, thinking that the landscape must always have been like that. Once again, it is all too easy to allow the power of present images to distort our pictures of the past. There's no doubt that the images of the plains intruded themselves into traditional ideas of human origins: our ancestors striding out onto the open savannah, there to become noble hunters. In fact, the great plains and the immense herds on them are relatively recent aspects of the African environment, much more recent than the origin of the human family." (Leakey, R. & Lewin, R., Ibid., pp.84-85)

However, a far-sighted Watchmaker, such as the Christian God, could "intervene directly to ... inject essential new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species":

"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept instead a theory according to which natural processes and laws drove most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous and deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch, D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1996, pp.187-188)

in such a way that they would `fall under the radar' of natural selection and not be rejected by it.

My Progressive Mediate Creation theory proposes that that this is in fact what actually happened. So Ernst Mayr was right when he observed that, "It is a miracle that man ever happened" in view of the fact that he "was the result of a sequence of thousands of ... highly improbable steps" (my emphasis)!:

"Looking at the SETI project from a biologist's point of view ... I demonstrate that each step leading to the evolution of intelligent life on earth was highly improbable and that the evolution of the human species was the result of a sequence of thousands of these highly improbable steps. It is a miracle that man ever happened, and it would be an even greater miracle if such a sequence of improbabilities had been repeated anywhere else." (Mayr, E.W., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, p.5).

The French mathematician Marcel Schutzenberger, even though he was an evolutionist (not a "creationist" as someone in this Wikipedia article falsely claimed), admitted that "Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates" including "bipedalism" and "The reality is that we" (i.e. evolutionists) "are confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy" (my emphasis):

"Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates: bipedalism, with the concomitant modification of the pelvis, and, without a doubt, the cerebellum, a much more dexterous hand, with fingerprints conferring an especially fine tactile sense; the modifications of the pharynx which permits phonation; the modification of the central nervous system, notably at the level of the temporal lobes, permitting the specific recognition of speech. From the point of view of embryogenesis, these anatomical systems are completely different from one another. Each modification constitutes a gift, a bequest from a primate family to its descendants. It is astonishing that these gifts should have developed simultaneously. Some biologists speak of a predisposition of the genome. Can anyone actually recover the predisposition, supposing that it actually existed? Was it present in the first of the fish? The reality is that we are confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy." (Schutzenberger, M-P., in "The Miracles of Darwinism: Interview with Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger," Origins & Design, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring 1996, pp.10-15).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
Genesis 3:8-12. 8Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" 10He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." 11And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" 12The man said, "The woman you put here with me-she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

Sunday, September 24, 2006

The anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome: a machine designed to destroy

The anaphase promoting complex/ cyclosome: a machine designed to destroy, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 7, 644-656, September 2006, Jan-Michael Peters ...

[Graphic: The Anaphase Promoting Complex/Cyclosome (APC/C), Research Institute of Molecular Pathology (IMP)]

The anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome (APC/C) is a ubiquitin ligase that has essential functions in and outside the eukaryotic cell cycle. It is the most complex molecular machine that is known to catalyse ubiquitylation reactions, and it contains more than a dozen subunits that assemble into a large 1.5-MDa complex. Recent discoveries have revealed an unexpected multitude of mechanisms that control APC/C activity, and have provided a first insight into how this unusual ubiquitin ligase recognizes its substrates. ... Note the words, " a machine designed to ..." and "has essential functions in and outside the eukaryotic cell cycle" (my emphasis)!

Sounds like yet another "highly specified, irreducibly complex system" which "Attempts to explain the evolution of ... by a gradualistic route" will continue to be "incoherent" due to "a choking complexity" which "strangles all such attempts":

"Attempts to explain the evolution of highly specified, irreducibly complex systems either mousetraps or cilia or blood clotting-by a gradualistic route have so far been incoherent, as we have seen in previous chapters. No scientific journal will publish patently incoherent papers, so no studies asking detailed questions of molecular evolution are to be found. Calvin and Hobbes stories can sometimes be spun by ignoring critical details, as Russell Doolittle did when imagining the evolution of blood clotting, but even such superficial attempts are rare. In fact, evolutionary explanations even of systems that do not appear to be irreducibly complex, such as specific metabolic pathways, are missing from the literature. The reason for this appears to be similar to the reason for the failure to explain the origin of life: a choking complexity strangles all such attempts." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, p.177)

The late molecular biologist Francis Crick was no doubt thinking of such molecular machines when he wrote, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved" (my emphasis):

"What is found in biology is mechanisms, mechanisms built with chemical components and that are often modified by other, later, mechanisms added to the earlier ones. ... Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (Crick, F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin Books: London, 1990, reprint, p.138)

The problem for molecular biologists however is that, as exemplified with this subject line, they cannot help but use the language of intelligent design, because, as Richard Dawkins admitted, living things "overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker" (my emphasis):

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. .. We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the survival and replication of the organism's genes. It is not necessary, to suppose that the design of a body-or organ is the best that an engineer could conceive of. ... But any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that-purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, p.21).

But unfortunately for Dawkins' "blind watchmaker" explanation of this particular molecular machine is that it is an essential component of anaphase, i.e.:

"Anaphase ... the stage of meiosis or mitosis when chromosomes separate in a eukaryotic cell. Each chromatid moves to opposite poles of the cell, the opposite ends of the mitotic spindle, near the microtubule organizing centers ..."

And as the late Fred Hoyle pointed out, "the theory of evolution by natural selection" (i.e. the "blind watchmaker") can only "be made to work" with "the sophisticated model of" eukaryotic "sexual reproduction accompanied by crossover":

"Two points of principle are worth emphasis. The first is that the usually supposed logical inevitability of the theory of evolution by natural selection is quite incorrect. There is no inevitability, just the reverse. It is only when the present asexual model is changed to the sophisticated model of sexual reproduction accompanied by crossover that the theory can be made to work, even in the limited degree to be discussed .... This presents an insuperable problem for the notion that life arose out of an abiological organic soup through the development of a primitive replicating system. A primitive replicating system could not have copied itself with anything like the fidelity of present-day systems .... With only poor copying fidelity, a primitive system could carry little genetic information without λ [the mutation rate] becoming unbearably large, and how a primitive system could then improve its fidelity and also evolve into a sexual system with crossover beggars the imagination." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.20)

that anaphase is a prerequisite of!

So, it sounds like yet another chicken-and-egg dilemma for "blind watchmaker" Darwinism.

But of course Dawkins' (and Crick's) atheist personal philosophy prevents them from drawing the obvious conclusion, that the reason living things "overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker" such that "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed" is because they were "designed ... by a master watchmaker"!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
Genesis 3:6-7. 6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

The gods must be crazy if they call this intelligence #6

The gods must be crazy if they call this intelligence [Review of "Unintelligent Design: Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is," by Robyn Williams, Allen & Unwin: Sydney, 2006], Sydney Morning Herald, August 5, 2006, Deborah Smith. Continued from part #5.

[Graphic: Imperfections of Mt Rushmore]

He was keenly aware that other authors, such as Richard Dawkins, had addressed every creationist chestnut, such as perfectly designed eyes, at length. First, if Williams had actually read any ID primary sources he would know that ID is not "creationist" in that: 1) it is not based on the Bible, but only on the evidence of nature; 2) it does not claim that the designer is God; 3) some IDists are agnostics (e.g. Michael Denton and David Berlinski); and 4) some leading creationists (e.g. Ken Ham and Hugh Ross) are opposed to ID because it does not claim that the designer is God.

Second, ID makes no claim that there are "perfectly designed eyes (or perfectly designed anything). All ID claims is that there is design in nature that is beyond the capability of unintelligent processes to generate, or as ID theorist William Dembski put it, that "The world contains events, objects, and structures which exhaust the explanatory resources of undirected natural causes, and which can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes":

"What then is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design begins with the observation that intelligent causes can do things which undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the pieces as meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. This intuition, that there is a fundamental distinction between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other, has underlain the design arguments of past centuries. ... What has emerged is a new program for scientific research known as Intelligent Design. Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable. To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, on the basis of observational features of the world, are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction-notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (as in the movie Contact). ... Intelligent Design presupposes neither a creator nor miracles. Intelligent Design is theologically minimalist. It detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence. ... It is the empirical detectability of intelligent causes that renders Intelligent Design a fully scientific theory, and distinguishes it from the design arguments of philosophers, or what has traditionally been called `natural theology.' The world contains events, objects, and structures which exhaust the explanatory resources of undirected natural causes, and which can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes." (Dembski, W.A., "The Intelligent Design Movement," Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998. Access Research Network, November 15, 1998. Emphasis original)

The eye (or any claimed example of intelligent design) would not have to be perfect to be beyond the capability of unintelligent processes to generate. For example, Mt Rushmore is imperfect (see above) but that does not render it not intelligently designed. Or if SETI ever received a long string of prime numbers from deep space (as in the movie Contact example), but some of the numbers were not primes, it would still be assumed that it was originally designed, but the message had been corrupted in transit.

In fact, even William Paley (who did claim that the designer was God) pointed out in his watch-implies-a- watchmaker argument, " It is not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order to shew with what design it was made":

"Neither, secondly, would it invalidate out conclusion, that the watch sometimes went wrong, or that it seldom went exactly right. The purpose of the machinery, the design, and the designer, might be evident, and in the case supposed would be evident, in whatever way we accounted for the irregularity of the movement, or whether we could account for it or not. It is not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order to shew with what design it was made: still less necessary, where the only question is, whether it were made with any design at all." (Paley, W., "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, pp.3-4).

ID theorists like Michael Behe have from the outset addressed this straw man "argument from imperfection" (which again shows William's ignorance of ID's primary literature) pointing out that its "most basic problem is that the argument demands perfection at all," since "Clearly, designers who have the ability to make better designs do not necessarily do so" and it "overlooks the possibility that the designer might have multiple motives, with engineering excellence oftentimes relegated to a secondary role":

"Miller [Miller, K.R., "Life's Grand Design,"Technology Review, February/March 1994, pp 29-30] elegantly expresses a basic confusion; the key to intelligent-design theory is not whether a `basic structural plan is the obvious product of design.' The conclusion of intelligent design for physically interacting systems rests on the observation of highly specified, irreducible complexity-the ordering of separate, well-fitted components to achieve a function that is beyond any of the components themselves. Although I emphasize that one has to examine molecular systems for evidence of design, let's use Miller's essay as a springboard to examine other problems with the argument from imperfection. The most basic problem is that the argument demands perfection at all. Clearly, designers who have the ability to make better designs do not necessarily do so. For example, in manufacturing, `built-in obsolescence' is not uncommon-a product is intentionally made so it will not last as long as it might, for reasons that supersede the simple goal of engineering excellence. Another example is a personal one: I do not give my children the best, fanciest toys because I don't want to spoil them, and because I want them to learn the value of a dollar. The argument from imperfection overlooks the possibility that the designer might have multiple motives, with engineering excellence oftentimes relegated to a secondary role. Most people throughout history have thought that life was designed despite sickness, death, and other obvious imperfections. Another problem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are. One only has to go into a modern art gallery to come across designed objects for which the purposes are completely obscure (to me at least). Features that strike us as odd in a design might have been placed there by the designer for a reason-for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason or they might not. Odd they may be, but they may still be designed by an intelligence." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.223-224).

Therefore, in advancing the "argument from imperfection" against ID, Williams commits the straw man fallacy, since ID has never claimed that design needs to be perfectly optimal. And in fact, "No real designer attempts optimality in the sense of attaining perfect design..... Real designers strive for constrained optimization .... `All design involves conflicting objectives and hence compromise, and the best designs will always be those that come up with the best compromise'" :

"Many biologists sidestep intelligent design and the evidence for it by shuttling between apparent design and optimal design. To argue for apparent design, they simply lay out the case for pure, unaided Darwinism. To argue against intelligent design, they substitute a handy strawman, identifying intelligent design with optimal design. To render intelligent design as implausible as possible, they then define optimal design as perfect design that is best with respect to every possible criterion of optimization. (Anything less, presumably, would not be worthy of an intelligent designer.) Since actual designs always involve tradeoffs and compromise, such globally-optimal-in-every-respect designs cannot exist except in an idealized realm ... far removed from the actual designs of this world. ... Assimilating all biological design to either apparent or optimal design avoids the central question that needs to be answered, namely, whether there actually is design in biological systems regardless of what additional attributes they possess (like optimality). The automobiles that roll off the assembly plants in Detroit are intelligently designed in the sense that actual human intelligences are responsible for them. Nevertheless, even if we think Detroit manufactures the best cars in the world, it would still be wrong to say that they are optimally designed. ... Is there an even minimally sensible reason for insisting that design theorists must demonstrate optimal design in nature? Critics of intelligent design ... often suggest that any purported cosmic designer would only design optimally. But that is a theological rather than a scientific claim. ... Applied to biology, intelligent design maintains that a designing intelligence is required to account for the complex, information-rich structures in living systems. At the same time, it refuses to speculate about the nature of that designing intelligence. Whereas optimal design demands a perfectionistic designer who has to get everything just right, intelligent design fits our ordinary experience of design, which is conditioned by the needs of a situation, requires negotiation and tradeoffs, and therefore always falls short of some idealized global optimum. No real designer attempts optimality in the sense of attaining perfect design. Indeed, there is no such thing as perfect design. Real designers strive for constrained optimization, which is something altogether different. As Henry Petroski, an engineer and historian at Duke University, aptly remarks in Invention by Design, `All design involves conflicting objectives and hence compromise, and the best designs will always be those that come up with the best compromise.' [Petroski, H., "Invention by Design: How Engineers Get fromThought to Thing," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1996, p.30] Constrained optimization is the art of compromise among conflicting objectives. This is what design is all about. To find fault with biological design because it misses some idealized optimum, as Gould regularly used to do, is simply gratuitous. Not knowing the objectives of the designer, Gould was in no position to say whether the designer proposed a faulty compromise among those objectives." (Dembski, W.A., "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2004, pp.58-59. Emphasis original).

Moreover, Williams also commits the non sequitur fallacy in that the argument from imperfection advanced against ID implicitly assumes that, "the argument from imperfection" is "positive evidence for undirected evolution," e.g. "1. A designer would have made the vertebrate eye without a blind spot. 2. The vertebrate eye has a blind spot. 3. Therefore Darwinian evolution produced the eye":

"The next problem is that proponents of the argument from imperfection frequently use their psychological evaluation of the designer as positive evidence for undirected evolution. The reasoning can be written as a syllogism: 1. A designer would have made the vertebrate eye without a blind spot. 2. The vertebrate eye has a blind spot. 3. Therefore Darwinian evolution produced the eye. It is for reasoning such as this that the phrase non sequitur was invented. The scientific literature contains no evidence that natural selection working on mutation can produce either an eye with a blind spot, an eye without a blind spot, an eyelid, a lens, a retina, rhodopsin, or retinal. The debater has reached his conclusion in favor of Darwinism based solely on an emotional feeling of the way things ought to be. A more objective observer would conclude only that the vertebrate eye was not designed by a person who is impressed with the argument from imperfection; extrapolation to other intelligent agents is not possible. (Behe, 1996, p.224).

But the publisher Richard Walsh convinced The Science Show's presenter there was still a need for a well-known figure such as him to distil the evidence against intelligent design for a different audience, and give it an individual perspective. Notice that it never enters their heads for a moment, presumably because it cannot, within their atheistic worldview:

"... to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out." (Lewontin, R.C., "Billions and Billions of Demons." Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, The New York Times Review of Books, January 9, 1997, pp.28-32, p.28)

"The solution to Cordelia's dilemma-the promotion of her nothing to a meaningful something-requires the more extensive revision of conceptual overhaul. Cordelia's dilemma cannot be resolved from within, for the existing theory has defined her action as a denial or non-phenomenon. A different theory must be imported from another context to change conceptual categories and make her response meaningful. In this sense, Cordelia's dilemma best illustrates the dynamic interaction of theory and fact in science. Correction of error cannot always arise from new discovery within an accepted conceptual system. Sometimes the theory has to crumble first, and a new framework be adopted, before the crucial facts can be seen at all." (Gould, S.J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," in "Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History," [1995], Crown: New York NY, 1997, reprint, p.127)

that ID might actually be true! IDist Tom Woodward gives an example of how for atheists like Dawkins (and Williams), "Never at issue is whether natural mechanisms could produce irreducible complexity in the first place; it is automatically assumed that they can":

"One example of this call for patience is an incident that Phillip Johnson related to me. It concerns Richard Dawkins's visit in the fall of 1996 to the San Francisco Bay area in California to do book signings of his new work, Climbing Mount Improbable. When he came to a large bookstore in Berkeley, he spoke briefly before the book signing, and Johnson was seated in the front row. After Dawkins's remarks, Johnson (whom Dawkins probably did not know) asked whether he had read Behe's book and could offer a response to it. Dawkins said he had read it and complained that Behe was `lazy.' He should `get out there and find those evolutionary pathways' by which the complex machines had arisen. This type of response is rhetorically revealing. Never at issue is whether natural mechanisms could produce irreducible complexity in the first place; it is automatically assumed that they can. Rather, the scientist's job is merely to find those pathways and to track down those causal mechanisms. From the Design perspective, this is again a problem of basic philosophical assumption; appropriate paths of research are rooted ultimately not just in science itself but in a `preferred' metaphysical worldview." (Woodward, T.E., "Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, p.162. Emphasis original).

Continued in part #7.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol)
Genesis 3:1-5. 1Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" 2The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " 4"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Mich. Candidate Backs Intelligent Design, etc

Mich. Candidate Backs Intelligent Design, Forbes.com/AP, Kathy Barks Hoffman, 09.22.2006 ...

[Graphic: Cosmic Inflation - see below]

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos ignited a controversy that kept blogs, party activists and editorial writers fired up for days when he said he approves of intelligent design being taught along with evolution in science classes. DeVos, an evangelical Christian and the son of Amway founder Richard DeVos Sr., made the comment ... during a taped telephone interview on education issues. "I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory," he said. "That theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less." ... DeVos no doubt means well, but the ID movement itself is not at this stage dadvocating "intelligent design being taught along with evolution in science classes." ID's position for now is "Teach the Controversy", i.e. if evolution is taught, students should be taught the evidence both for and against it. The latter can include evidence for ID, but it should not be mandated that students be taught ID.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Michigan schools need to teach evolution in science classes and not include intelligent design. She said school districts can explore intelligent design in current events or comparative religions classes. I believe that God created the universe. That's my religious belief. But religion should not be taught in a science class," she [said] ... Granholm's dichotomy between "science" and "religious belief" is a modern form of Gnosticism which, as ID theorist Cornelius (George) Hunter points out, maintains a "separation of God and the world," with its American manifestation being "now firmly entrenched [in] a doctrine of separation of church and state," such that "God has now been privatized in America":

"This separation of God and the world is one aspect of Gnosticism. It is not surprising that these ideas are encouraged by evolution. As I discussed in Darwin's God, Gnostic ideas predated and influenced the development of evolution, and the wide acceptance of evolution, in turn, strengthened modern Gnosticism. Today, these ideas have had the effect of privatizing God. Evolution has helped to advance the notion that matters of faith should be kept private and out of public life. The reason is that if God is separate from the world and cannot be objectively verified, then what we believe about God is strictly subjective-a matter of opinion. Those who promote this view claim it is neutral and fair to all, for those who wish to believe are free to do so. Likewise, those who wish not to believe are free from unsolicited exposure to religious ideas. God need not be acknowledged in public, for faith is a private affair. Indeed, God should not be acknowledged in public, for this inevitably would force one person's religion on another person. In America these ideas have resonated with the secularization of the government. There is now firmly entrenched a doctrine of separation of church and state. It is commonly interpreted as the idea that the government may not support or allow any type of religious activity. And the government includes everything from the White House to the local elementary school. God has now been privatized in America. The problem with this view is that it is not religiously neutral as claimed. It is in fact, wedded to its gnostic roots as firmly as ever. What is more, its advocates are not generally able to understand the religious bias that is woven into their view. They are apparently so deeply Gnostic that they cannot perceive their own religious position. To them their position seems to be religiously neutral." (Hunter, C.G., "Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, p.118).

In that Gnostic dichotomy, "science" denotes objective fact and "religion" subjective belief, i.e. "science is the domain of hard facts and objective truth" while "Religion is the realm of subjective belief and faith":

"BUT IT WAS THE AWE-INSPIRING SUCCESS of science itself, nurtured for centuries in a Christian belief system, that caused many to turn to it as the comprehensive source of explanation. With the mighty technology spawned by science in his hands, man could exalt himself, it seemed, and dispense with God. Although Darwin was by no means the sole cause of the apotheosis of materialist science, his theories gave it crucial support. It is perhaps not altogether a coincidence that the year 1882, in which Darwin died, found Nietzsche proclaiming that `God is dead...and we have killed him.' The capture of science (in considerable measure) by materialist philosophy was aided by the hasty retreat of many theists. There are those who duck any conflict by declaring that science and religion occupy non-overlapping domains or, to use a current catchphrase, separate `magisteria.' One hears this dichotomy expressed in apothegms such as, `Science asks how; religion asks why.' In this view, science is the domain of hard facts and objective truth. Religion is the realm of subjective belief and faith. Science is publicly verifiable, and is the only kind of truth that can be allowed in the public square. Religion is private, unverifiable, and cannot be permitted to intrude into public affairs, including education. The two magisteria do not conflict, because they never come into contact with each other. To achieve this peace, all the theists have to do is interpret away many of the central beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This retreat makes some theists happy, because they can avoid a fight that they feel ill-equipped to win, and can retire to a cozy warren of warm, fuzzy irrelevancy. It also makes materialists happy, because the field has been ceded to them. ... That's what's different about intelligent design. ID says that the best evidence we have shows that life is the product of a real intelligent agent, actually working in space and time, and that the designer's hand can be detected, scientifically and mathematically, by what we know about the kinds of things that are produced only by intelligence. It is making scientific claims about the real world. Because it relies on objective fact and scientific reasoning, ID seeks admission to the public square. Rather than retreating to the gaseous realm of the subjective, it challenges the materialist conception of science on its own turf. It thus threatens materialism generally, with all that that entails for morality, law, culture --and even for what it means to be human. ... And that's why intelligent design is such a big deal." (Peterson, D., "What's the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?," The American Spectator, December 22, 2005. Emphasis original)

But if Christianity is true (which it is) then it is a false dichotomy. Then Christianity (although it includes subjective belief -as does science), is based on objective fact, e.g. the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ who was, and is, God in human form (Mat 1:23; John 1:1,14; 8:58-59; 10:32-33; 20:27-28; Acts 20:28; Php 2:5-6, Col 2:9; Rom 9:5; Tit 2:13; etc). That is, if Christianity is true (which it is) then it is objectively true, i.e. true for everyone, irrespective of whether one subjectively does not believe it.

Science collides with a Big Bang: An argument is raging between physicists on how the universe began, The Australian, Jonathan Leake, August 21, 2006 ... IT was the monkey picture that did it. Neil Turok, professor of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at Britain's Cambridge University, had just expounded to a conference of fellow physicists his revolutionary theory of how the universe began. When Alan Guth, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the US's leading research universities, took the podium, he pulled no punches. The conference, organised by the US's National Academy of Sciences, froze in embarrassment as Guth attacked Turok and his theories - and called up a slide of a monkey to illustrate his comments. "I was shocked," Turok said. "I had been putting forward a new idea about what happened before the Big Bang and the events that led to the creation of our universe. Depicting me as a monkey was his way of saying I was wrong."... Another older article from my backlog. The importance of this is that Guth's is defending the Big Bang and his cosmic inflation theory (even though neither he nor anyone cannot explain naturalistically what caused the Big Bang and inflation themselves) against those like Turok, Steinhardt and Hawking who don't like the Big Bang because without it "there is no need for inflation or for a creation event - or perhaps even a creator":

"What Turok had done in his lecture and accompanying papers was to challenge an idea that has held physicists in thrall for more than four decades: that time, space and everything else all appeared out of nothing and began with one Big Bang. Instead, Turok says the Big Bang was not a unique event at all. In fact, it was likely to have been one of many, perhaps millions of, Big Bangs. A small but growing band of other researchers, including Paul Steinhardt ... support the idea. If Turok and his supporters are right, the implications are daunting. The life's work of many scientists, and thousands of research papers, would be redundant. No wonder they are fighting back. ... The Big Bang theory has a lot going for it. It fits with the observed expansion of the universe, the age of the oldest stars and the ratio of light and heavy elements found around the universe. The idea has gathered support outside science, too, partly because it suits the creation myths of many religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Pope Pius XII, then head of the Catholic Church, even began preaching Big Bang theology in the 1950s, although he urged researchers not to probe the Big Bang itself, suggesting that the moment of creation was `the work of God'. Pius was prescient. He had put his finger on the very problems that are still troubling many cosmologists today. The universe may have begun with a Big Bang - but where did that come from? What caused it? And was it unique? In the 1970s, Guth was one of those who realised that the Big Bang theory failed to explain how a hot chaotic fireball could become the cool universe with stable clusters of galaxies we see today. Rather than challenge the idea that time and space began with the Big Bang, he suggested the new universe had suddenly expanded trillions of times in a millionth of a second. That idea, called inflation, did such a good mathematical job of explaining the shape of the universe that it was adopted far and wide. Guth himself has built his career on it. Recently, however, it has become clear that the theory has major flaws. There is, for example, no widely accepted way for physics to explain how such `inflation' could have happened. It also fails to deal with the 1990s discovery of `dark energy', the energy field that fills all space and which is now thought to be the cause of the universe's expansion. For Turok and others, such failings have become too much to live with. `The supporters of inflation have become too evangelical. They have no idea why inflation happened but they still believe in it,' he declares. Under his and Steinhardt's theory, the Big Bang was not the beginning of history but simply an event within it, caused by the collision of our universe with another one existing in another dimension. Turok and Steinhardt suggest that such events may happen every trillion years in a kind of cycle. If they are right, then time has always existed and so has the universe. What's more, they always will exist, and so there is no need for inflation or for a creation event - or perhaps even a creator. Pope Pius would be furious. Many of Turok's fellow physicists already are. To those outside physics, Turok's and Steinhardt's ideas may sound radical, but some cosmologists have long recognised that they offer solutions to many of the problems thrown up by the standard Big Bang theory. Among them is Professor Stephen Hawking .... Hawking has suggested that space could have up to 11 dimensions; that our universe could exist inside a `higher dimensional space' that contains one or more other universes; and he has proposed the existence of `shadow worlds' whose presence might only be revealed by tiny fluctuations in our universe's gravitational background. These ideas are the basis of the new theory. .... Andrei Linde, professor of physics at Stanford University, in California, is a longstanding opponent. Linde said: `Turok and Steinhardt's model has many problems and the authors made quite a number of errors, which is why it is not very popular among cosmologists.'" (Leake, J., "Science collides with a Big Bang," The Sunday Times, August 21, 2006).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
Genesis 2:20b-2520... But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." 24For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.