Step by step analysis of the argument from design as presented by Jews for Jesus
Many members of Aish HaTorah are not aware of the negative aspects built into an outreach organization. The Aish HaTorah use of the Design Argument is a marketing tool to be “fishers of men (Jews)”. Irreducible complexity is observed in the political wrangling between them and Chabad outreach.
Chabad outreach and Aish HaTorah outreach both think that they are the better than the other one. They are competitive by nature and outwardly display friendliness to their outer core of members. If you are on the middle to inner core you will hear plenty about the shortcomings of Aish if you are Chabad. If you are Aish then you will share your distaste for Chabad with people that you trust to listen to Loshon Harah (evil speech.)
The Chabad and Aish HaTorah outreach to the Bombardier Beetle will determine who is the superman on the block. David Hume, Thomas Aquinas and the theistic argument for design is more content generation. Generation after generation.
The bombardier beetle is used by both groups to defend against certain foreign ideas. Jews for Jesus is both open and relaxed about this.
Creationism believes that all life looks designed, and an often used example of this intelligent design is a creature known as the Bombardier Beetle. Defending this claim requires a careful examination of the bombardier beetle and of the definition of the word “design”. Under scrutiny, however, the bombardier beetle can be a proof of evolution and seriously challenges the design argument.
What Makes Bombardier Beetles Special?
Bombardier beetles are so-called ground beetles in the four groups Brachinini, Paussini, Ozaenini, and Metriini and comprise over 500 species. The group Brachinus is the most common group.
Bombardier beetles are amazing creatures. They are so called due to their ferocious ability to defend themselves against predators by shooting a mixture of scalding hot and toxic chemicals from glands in their behinds.
This is how their defensive squirting action works. Secreting cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide which collect in a bladderlike vessel. This vessel is opened through a muscle-controlled sphincter onto a thick-walled reaction chamber. This chamber is lined with cells secreting catalases and peroxidases. As the contents of the bladder are forced into the reaction chamber, the catalases and peroxidases quickly break the hydrogen peroxide down and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones. This releases free oxygen and generates sufficient heat to bring the mixture to the level of boiling which vaporizes a fifth of it. Under pressure of the released gasses, the sphincter is automatically shut which forces the chemicals through openings found in the abdomen.
Unfortunately, and making real debate and communication almost impossible, creationists offer an un faithful account of the process. The creationist Duane Gish made the claim that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones would explode spontaneously when mixed without a chemical inhibitor, and that the beetle starts with a mix of all three and adds an anti-inhibitor when he wants the explosion.
In reality, the two simply do not explode when mixed, as has been frequently demonstrated. Gish stubbornly still used the mistaken scenario after being corrected by Kofahl in 1978. Why let the truth get in the way of a good story? The same mistake is also repeated in books by Hitching in 1981, Huse in 1983 and 1993, and twice in a creationist magazine in 1990.
How strong is an argument of design if the people making it don’t know what the design looks like?
Irreducible Complexity: The Design Argument’s Best Buddy that Never Calls Back
Just knowing what something looks like doesn’t reveal whether it is designed; for that, we must define “design”.
Although it’s rarely defined, the most important aspect of design as it relates to creationism appears to be complexity. Richard Lumsden says,
Systems that are of high complexity, that is functionally integrated multicomponent systems, systems that are of high specificity where only one or very few of many possible arrangements of these components works, and systems which are of low probability, at least spontaneous occurrence . . . these are the hallmarks of purposefully designed engineered systems. [Lumsden, 1995]
The problem for proponents of intelligent design and the design argument is that the theory of evolution already allows that complex, functionally integrated, low-probability systems can arise via gradual variation and selection. Darwin’sntheory explains how a few photosensitive cells might evolve gradually into human eyes. In order for complexity to be a problem for the concept of evolution, it must demonstrate some property that rules out gradual development. Michael Behe proposes such a property with the concept he calls “irreducible complexity,” which he defines as “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Although Behe leaves open the questions of whether bombardier beetles are irreducibly complex, Gish expresses the concept with reference to them when he says, “How are you going to explain that step-by-step by evolution by natural selection? It cannot be done!”.
Gish is obviously not as right as he believes himself to be; a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is not hard to imagine.
In a future post I will show a potential step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism all the way from a primitive arthropod.
Governor General Michaëlle Jean on a Woman’s Intrinsic Right to Pass Gas
For Governor General Michaëlle Jean, denying more than half of the world’s population the most basic human right to flatulence is one of the worst scandals of our time. This is what has inspired her determination to break down the wall of indifference and give a voice to women.
She believes that flatulence—at home, in our neighbourhoods, in our communities—is one of the basic rights that are all too often abused where women are concerned, even in our so-called progressive societies. That is why she has made flatulence for women a priority in her mandate. It is also a commitment that stems from her years spent working with women and children who had suffered through many forms of flatulence suppression, which led her to help establish a network of shelters for them.
In her view, the struggle for flatulence equality is not just a woman’s struggle; it is the struggle of every person who demands respect, justice and dignity. She strongly believes that we have everything to gain when we give women the means to expel gas. “Empower women,” Her Excellency states, “and you will see a decrease in poverty, illiteracy, illness and gas build up.”
Women’s Historical Struggle for the Right to Pass Gas
It has been well known for centuries that retaining flatus is bad for the health. Emperor Claudius even passed a law legalizing the passing of gas at banquets out of his compassionate concern for people’s health and his reliance and fear of the ruthless and flatulent women of the imperial family.
There are some conservative doctors (those who do not believe in global warming) that confidently state that there is no medical harm caused when a woman retains her flatus, either through a desire to avoid embarrassment or through patriarchal pressure. These politically motivated doctors state that holding your gases in will not poison women as they are a natural component of a woman’s intestinal contents.
These doctors, who listen to a lot of talk radio and did not vote for Obama, are not concerned if a woman develops a stomach ache due to the gas pressure. They care not that pathological distention of the bowel could result if a person holds in gas too much. They are indifferent to the fact that retaining flatus can cause hemorrhoids!
Flatulence is an Argument from Design
The level of flatulence in nature implies that there must be a creator God. We must explain how we think the gassy world in which we live came into existence. Naturalists (atheists, or materialists) would argue that since flatulence is able to enter our world it is possible for chance collisions of molecules to produce farts.
But such an explanation has many problems. For instance, although farts are free to enter the system of our world, what mechanism connects these gasses to the work of ordering chaotic molecules into the precise, complex order needed for a satisfying experience of passing gas? Organizing matter into meaningful structures and the relative proportions of these gases that emerge from our anal opening depend on several factors: what we ate, how much air we swallowed, what kinds of bacteria we have in our intestines, and how long we hold in the fart. Random arrangements accomplish nothing. And randomly assembled molecules cannot evolve into farts because they lack the ability to replicate themselves. The whole complex mechanism involved in DNA and protein synthesis would be required before natural selection could ever come into play. Theists argue that such complexity of flatulence could only arise as the direct result of intervention by someone with purpose and intelligence.
Suppose we put some dynamite under a flatulent person, and blew it up. The system contains sufficient fart energy and the correct building blocks to build the Taj-Mahal. But is it really likely that blowing the bricks up would have this result? The answer is obviously no but this is a distraction from the main theme of this article.
For more information on Women’s Rights, Flatulence and the Argument from Design check here, here, here, and here.
Women Empowered: No More Will We Retain Our Flatus!
Content Opportunity with reports from the Argument from Bad Design and anonymous Chabad members – The Tyra Banks show continues to feature the tapeworm diet with guests that are promoting it as being good for Israel and the Jewish people.
On the latest show, representatives of the controversial religious group Chabad were praising the tapeworm diet as an essential part of their form of orthodoxy and a critical facet of their kiruv or outreach to non-observant Jews.
A Chabadnik, Menachem Mendel, on the Tyra Banks show had to travel to Monsey, New York. He had not been to Monsey before, which he described as an 18th century shtetl just north of Manhattan. It was replete with people who had the dress and mannerisms of 18th Eastern European Jews but was otherwise like a typical American suburban town.
Many different groups live in Monsey: Satmar, Belz, Ger, Modern Orthodox, Yekke (to use a mildly derogative term to describe those of German origin), people who hate Chabad and we pretend to love and so on. A wide swath of Orthodox Jewry (and a number of Conservative and Reform Jews as well). These people are raising their families with high-powered Judaism. They live in an environment where one can live an observant life, and where the community re-enforces the lifestyle by making halachic (observant) Judaism the normative way to live.
There is also a growing Jewish tapeworm community in Monsey. Either by attending one of the Tapeworm Yeshivas, going to a kiruv (outreach) event, or by being m’kareved (brought close) by a Monsey tapeworm family, there are people who are impressed with what they see in the strange Jewish tapeworm diet that pervades Monsey and want to be part of it.
“Whereas groups like Aish Hatorah and their website aish.com use a faux intellectual approach while really appealing to people who are immersed in pop culture and way too much television, Chabad appeals directly to the soul of the Jew. ” said Chabad rep Menachem Mendel. “This means that we feed them a lot of food and ply them with hard liquor. When they are all liquored up we say things that are supposedly from Chassidus and blow their minds. That is when we introduce the tapeworm.”
According to our anonymous sources the tapeworms are put into a famous Shabbos lunch item known as a “cholent” (sijmilar to Irish stew but causing a great deal more flatulence). The guest eats this dish with the tapeworm or tapeworms and then his or her soul is influenced to become observant.
The Tyra Banks show is planning to bring back members of other Jewish outreach organization who are already using the tapeworm. There is speculation that Aish HaTorah is already planning to introduce the tapeworm into the refreshments that they serve at their Discovery seminars. The Discovery seminars are sponsored by Aish HaTorah. The purpose of the seminars are to inculcate Jews regarding their religious heritage by using intellectual smoke and mirrors. What is relevant about Judaism to modern Jews that watch a lot of CSI on TV? Why should one be an observant Jew? Does God exist? Did God design the universe (design argument)? Is it appropriate to use tapeworms in order to influence Jews to become Torah observant? These are some of the questions that the Discovery Seminar takes on.
One of the topics that Discovery covers are the phony Bible codes. Some people have claimed that the codes are the only thing Discovery talks about. Wrong. It is just one of the most marketable aspects of it.
Thomas Aquinas had five ways of proving God. His fifth proof was to point to things such as the regular and perfect rotation of the planets. Aquinas said that this regularity can only have come about through the desire or will of an intelligent being otherwise the fact that things obey uniform laws would merely be the result of chance. His initial argument was founded on an ignorance of science and the notion that the path and motion of the planets must be ‘God’s will’ each and every single time rather than the result of natural laws. However it must be admitted then that there still remains a more profound question as to why these laws exist at all. The regularity we observe in the universe around us (and, indeed, within us) can still be taken as evidence for God if we wish to look at it that way.
There is so much beauty in the universe! Can this not be taken as evidence of God’s handiwork? Beauty, in itself, has no survival value and where does the theory of evolution fit in with that? The fact that we can perceive beauty in all sorts of things in the universe, from human art to natural form, could suggest a designer God. This is one way in which a conclusion could be reached in which we see the universe as a fundamentally good creation of God, with a clear purpose and God’s fingerprints everywhere and in everything.
Yes we do perceive, or are programmed to perceive, beauty, but is the universe, as a whole, really like this when you look at it with all honesty? One way to critique the Design Argument would be to find ways to contradict it. If you’re basing an argument on evidence, you can’t then simply ignore anything that doesn’t fit into your argument. It would be natural to bring up the fact that there are a multitude of evil acts taking place in the world and there certainly is tremendous suffering. Of course the evil and the suffering in the world are referred to as unhappy byproducts of God’s gift to humankind of “free will”. In order to have free will God had to open the gateway to potential evil and the theist can still consider that God maintains the necessary qualities of benevolence, omnipotence and omniscience. Now although the “problem of evil” is a whole other topic, it is natural to rear its head in a discussion of the argument from design. My issues in brief would be as follows. God, by normative definition, can do anything. He can create any space, any form and any set of conditions or circumstances that animate and motivate these forms. God can do what is inconceivable to us. So if we want God to be benevolent, shouldn’t we be asking whether the Supreme Being couldn’t have managed to supply us with free will without the attendant suffering? Of course he could have, answers the theist, but he didn’t and it is not our place to question why God did it a certain way rather than another. And that is when the theist conveniently discards the need for evidence. The believer who until a certain point attempts to prove their point through logic and evidence suddenly tosses it all and becomes a – well, a mere believer, without even any pretension remaining to base anything on “science” or what Aish.com refers to as evidence in a court.
It is always interesting to watch the shuffle occur when the rationalistic approach doesn’t plug the hole anymore. It is that way just because it is that way and that is the theistic argument when it shipwrecks. The lifeboats come out and the lifejackets go on and God just continues to work in mysterious ways. Logic be damned. (Hey by the way. Remember in a previous post I said I was not an atheist? Well I still refuse to be labeled that way because everything depends on what your definition of God is. I don’t agree with the normative definition and I rarely use the word God seriously but I am no agent of Richard Dawkins. Oh well, you will label me anyway won’t you?)
Of course not all suffering comes at the hands of selfish men and women. Much of it comes from nature itself. hurricanes, earthquakes, famine caused by drought and other natural factors, and other natural disasters which cause tremendous suffering to humans and animals. Can we apply the same answer given by the theists to the “problem of evil”. Did the earth need to have the capacity to wreak such havoc in order to have its own free will? I don’t see the sense in that.
Yes there is tremendous beauty in the universe and in this very world. The Grand Canyon is an example of stunning beauty and wonder. Yet I ask you a question, gentle reader: would you be willing to give up the Grand Canyon if that action could save one single child from suffering caused by neglect, extreme poverty and hunger, war, etc. I know that I would. Would you? Would God? Maybe the world is a mixed place. Not all bad and not all good but is it really the work of a Great and Perfect Designer? If we are to base our understanding of the design argument for the existence of God by first observing the designs made by man then that should open aish.com’s courtroom to the notion that a Perfect Being would not make an imperfect design. And since we are basing this whole argument on man-made design standards then we can make a strong case that, from a human point of view, this ain’t no perfect world. And remember, the whole design argument came from a human point of view.
Evidence versus evidence. More later.
Introducing Design Argument Girl with her pet reptile. She proves, without words, the existence of herself and of your ability to see. What beautiful eyes you have!
A proof of God as the creator of space and time so capably stated.
This young philosopher speaks of the structure of the universe as if she lived there. The design argument was never cuter nor so pretty in pink.
Contact