Category Archives: Teleology

Demystifying the Aish HaTorah Design Argument for the Existence of God – Teleological Claptrap

Why do rational people lie to themselves?

I am happy if you wish to read the original Aish HaTorah article on the Design Argument. I am equally happy if you don’t.

Imagine, if you will, that you are walking in a bad neighbourhood where the houses are neglected, there is a lack of education, and a lot of dangerous gangs. You suddenly come across two small stones in close proximity to each other. Most probably, you would think nothing of it unless you needed one of the stones for a particular purpose, perhaps to defend yourself from someone. Two stones randomly sitting beside each other is not such a big deal. No need to sweat it.

You continue your stroll through the neighbourhood and stumble upon three piles of human corpses piled up in a brick-layer fashion. Chances are you would quickly surmise that someone was here and arranged these bodies in this manner. It didn’t just happen. A shock for sure but still really no big deal and nothing to sweat about.

You continue your walk and happen to find a dead puffin lying in the middle of the road. Would you suspect that a windstorm somehow threw the puffin pieces together and randomly created a puffin?

Somebody gave birth to that puffin. It didn’t just happen. A creature implies a mother.

Alternatively, say you didn’t see a puffin at all but instead you came across a Patek Phillipe watch, say model 4907/ij. You will surely notice that it celebrates the 10-year triumph of the famous Twenty~4® collection. Patek Philippe was likely not involved in the design of this model directly and it was probably the work of many different people having different levels of expertise – certainly not just one designer! You already know, just by looking at the complexity of this watch that it had more than one designer to deal with the different aspects of functionality, colour and style. You would also know that there would be a marketing section of the Patek Phillipe company that would be on the look out for trends to determine what styles would likely do well with high end consumers. They would have also had an enormous impact on the look of this particular model.

By handling this watch and examining it you might then ponder as to whether it would work as an analogy for the design of the universe proving that God is One – an Indivisible Creator. You would realize that the watch proved nothing of the sort but rather it might “prove” that the universe – even if it could be analogous to a watch at all, and that is not likely – was designed by several gods, some involved with creating the suns, some determining which animals would exist (and which would uselessly become extinct), some involved with answering the petitions of Olympic curlers, and some designing the potato bug.

You would note that the universe bespeaks timeless elegance, the new model universe in yellow gold would be the first unset version without a diamond-set case. You would note that three color choices are available for the universe: “Night Glow” and “Autumn Brown” – two hues created especially for this yellow-gold universe – and, of course, the endearingly classic “Timeless White“. If you bought into the design argument you would expect to have a selection of universes to pick from perhaps.

Did the universe have a designer or group of designers that must have also been designed ad infinitum?

David Hume may I say is calling?

The intricacy of design in our world, when intoxicated, is staggering — infinitely more complex than a gang related pile of corpses in a bad neighbourhood, a puffin or a Patek Phillipe watch. Therefore the team of designers for the universe must have been considerable and who could have afforded to pay them all in this economy?

Now I am going to commence to use really large numbers to give you a sense of being a little out of control. Here goes: There are 10 billion nerve cells in the brain. Each of the 10 billion cells sprouts between 10,000 to 100,000 fibers to contact other nerve cells in the brain, creating approximately 1,000 million million connections, or, 10 to the 15th power. Are you shvitzing?

Here I come now with some really enormous numbers. Serious serious numbers. Behold! There are 10 billion nerve cells in the brain with approximately 1,000 million million connections.

It is hard to imagine the multitude that 1015 represents. On and on I go. Take half of the United States, which is 1 million square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10,000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100,000 leaves. That is a whizbang bulbous amount of leaves. I take it you are still with me and feeling the groove of the number thing I am doing to your head. You see sir, that’s how many connections are smashed inside your brain. And they’re not just haphazardly thrown together by an impostor God or a monkey washing a cat. They form an incredibly intricate network system that has no parallel in the military industrial complex or in the other brands of universes that have been designed by other manufacturers.

Imagine walking by that in the seedy neighbourhood! The natural response when perceiving design of such mind-boggling complexity is to conclude that there must be a huge team of busy, possibly amoral, designers, behind everything that created this model of universe. Not to mention the team of designers that created the team that designed the team that designed the universe that you may be wearing on your wrist right now.

To be continued…

Share

Bombardier Beetles and the Argument from Design

Creationism and the Bombardier Beetle

bombardier beetle design argumentCreationism 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.

The Bombardier Beetles – Nothing is Real

Share

The sky one night when the world paradigm changed

The Theory of Intelligent Design

intelligent design hatSome aspects of the universe and of living things seem to be best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. By analyzing a system’s components, a design argument proponent may determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Does the watch-maker groovy pie nut-heart pearl diving conference centre deluxe function?

Some watchmakers may be successful mass murderers and still be able to make a lovely watch of remarkable complexity and functionality.

design argument badgeSuch research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent secret agents act in plays at Aish HaTorah. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design and the Design of Stupidity and Wretchedness have applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. Intelligent Design then examines the horrible, torturous conditions that millions of innocent children endure and decides that this must be the work of a benevolent and intelligent God Creator.

Deadly Car Attack Designed by Intelligent Designer

The Yazidi communities bombings took place on August 14, 2007, when four coordinated suicide bomb attacks detonated in the Iraqi towns of Qahtaniya and Jazeera (Siba Sheikh Khidir), near Mosul. Iraqi Red Crescent’s estimates say the bombs killed 796 and wounded 1,562 people, which would make this the Iraq War’s most deadly car bomb attack to date. Another great Design Argument from the makers of Dr. Mengele.

The Lovely Work of Dr. Mengele, Proof of Intelligent Design

Dr. Josef Mengele (1911 – 1979) was a decent looking German SS officer and a physician in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. He had beautifully designed features that won him the approval of female human beings. He earned doctorates in anthropology from Munich University, Intelligent Design at The Saint Menachem Mendel School of Stupidity and Cruelty, and in weird medicine from Frankfurt University. He gained grace and magnificent reward for being one of the SS physicians who supervised the selection of arriving transports of prisoners, determining who was to be killed and who was to become a forced laborer, and for performing well-designed human experiments on camp inmates, amongst whom Mengele was known as the “Archangel of Death” or “Outrageously Beautiful Devil”. All was done and permitted by the Divine Will of God.

In 1940, he was placed in the reserve medical corps, following which he served with the 5th SS Panzergrenadier Division Wiking in the Eastern Front. In 1942, he was wounded at the Russian front and was pronounced medically unfit for combat, and was then promoted to the rank of SS-Hauptsturmführer (Captain) for saving the lives of two German soldiers. He survived the war, and after a period living incognito in Germany he fled to South America, where he became one of the most hunted of Nazi war criminals. Life was so well designed in those days, so like a well-designed watch found in the desert. The problem of evil had theological apologists working day and night, every day of the week.

intelligent design beardThe Chabad Rebbe said this about the holocaust: “It is not my task to justify G-d on this. Only G-d Himself can answer for what He allowed to happen. And the only answer we will accept, said the Rebbe, is the immediate and complete Redemption that will forever banish evil from the face of the earth and bring to light the intrinsic goodness and perfection of G-d’s creation.”

I think that this is proof of “stupid design” or at least, in my opinion – and I am not as charismatic or as great a business manager as the Lubavitcher Rebbe, an example of “stupid belief”. For what is the point of creating a world with such unimaginable and horrendous suffering just so that it could be eventually completely redeemed with all evil banished and finally be perfected. An intelligent designer that was all powerful would start with perfection and would not have allowed for the serious design flaw of evil to exist and persist.

The free will argument does not satisfy a sincere, inquiring mind since free will could obviously have been obtained in a non-horrific manner. Or the Great Designer could have created the universe without a need for free will. Chabad, Christian missionaries, Jews for Jesus and Aish HaTorah apologists will keep harping about free will but surely they must understand at some level that their argument is shallow and weak. But since their purpose is not to arrive at greater understanding for themselves and humankind, but rather to “save souls” or enable souls to return to their roots, truth and logic are secondary to them. How ironic that these groups end up by not serving God at all! What did Ronn Torossian say again?

I love God. God loves me.

God created Dr. Mengele. God loves all his creation. God must love Dr. Mengele! Or God doesn’t exist in the childish manner in which he is presented by Chabad, Jews for Jesus, or Aish HaTorah, business competitors all.

God is in charge. God the Designer permitted the works of the anthropologist Dr. Mengele. I will not post pictures of the works of Dr. Mengele. Just Google it. Google it and explain God’s Design to me.

island of lost souls

Share

Design Argument begins to undermine the design argument

A very common way of attempting to prove the existence of God is to use what is called the ‘Design Argument’ which points to the apparent design, order and purpose in the universe as satisfactory evidence of it having been created by God. Cicero and the ancient Greeks used this argument and it is probably the oldest rationale that people used to justify the belief in God. It is what drives many average religious people in their belief in God. They find it persuasive and conclusive although I think it is not a strong argument.

I have no problem with individuals who believe or disbelieve in God and, unlike the militant atheists, I have no agenda to prove to believers that God does not exist. I am not a believer. I am not an atheist. Finally, I am not an agnostic. I am not sitting on the fence. This is hard for people that I speak with to understand because they like to categorize and wish to put me in a different camp than the one they are in since my ideas don’t fit neatly into their category. Alternatively they are so arrogant as to say that I really belong to their camp but I just don’t realize it yet. My ideas on this are for development in another article or post and not for this one which is simply to demonstrate why I think that the design argument is a weak one to use as a logical basis for a belief in God. It seems unlikely that belief in God can be built on any logical foundation. Rather belief/disbelief in God seems to be based commonly on either personal conditioning or, if more consciously arrived at, based on personal choice and desire. I have a lot more to say on all this but let us return to the topic of the design argument.

We are speaking of a ‘teleological’ argument which is based on the evidence of design that people may observe in the world around them, and has the promise of being based on empirical observation rather than on only the abstract reasoning found in arguments like the ontological one (not going there now – look it up in Wikipedia.)

It goes like this: in the world we see complex designs with a purpose, order, regularity that suggests an intelligent, infinitely great designer, a creator who, in English, we call God. Bishop William Paley famously asks us to consider what we would think if we stumbled upon a watch while traversing a desert. Paley says that we ought to deduce that such a complex design created for the purpose of displaying the time is easily known to not have come about by chance, but rather a resultant artifact of intelligent design. Paley compared the universe to a watch, expertly designed, even if we are not aware of its exact purpose.

But is the evidence actually so clear? Paley and several others have directed our attention to such things as the extremely complex (is it not miraculous?) design of the human eye, how the number of teats on animals equal the number of their young, and how if ice didn’t float then life would be unsustainable on this planet. All of these examples, and a host of others, demonstrate complex design, all for discrete purposes. All of this cannot simply be a fluke. They must necessarily be created by a God who has specifically planned the universe for us humans that can write and read articles such as this. This referred to as the anthropic principle directing our attention to the presence of food on the planet, an ozone layer and the amazingly exact values of scientific constants without which the earth would never have formed. The chain of coincidences needed for human life to emerge is so statistically unlikely as make it obvious that it was no coincidence at all.

I will continue this in another post, or update this post.

Members of the Design Argument team involved in this article.

design argument writing team

Share

The Hen’s Wardrobe Analogy: a proof for the existence of a Tailor

hen design argument

O! Ye sanctimonious scoffers! Before ye lies the fiery coals of the discount clothing warehouse!

So it goes like this: suppose after a savory meal you poke your head out of the tent and go for a walk in the desert. While you are walking here and there you see a pile of rocks. The rocks would probably make very little impression on you as you know from experience that they fell from the sky.

Then you stumble upon a beautiful pocket watch (just like the one you are picturing in your mind right now.) This would also not startle you. You have seen many watches before as they have spontaneously come into existence in the desert dunes. The best watches at the best values are to be found in the endless sands of the desert.

Suddenly you see a hen going into a walk-in closet. You move closer until you can peek into the closet and there you see the hen’s wardrobe. Now you are startled. A simple desert hen is nothing new to you but the hen’s wardrobe makes you sweat more than does, say, the sun. How could there be a wardrobe for the hen? If the hen has a wardrobe then someone must have made the clothing for the hen. Therefore there must have been a Master Tailor fashioning these garments of wool, linen and silk.

From there you take the logical step that leads you to understand that this tailor must have also constructed the CN Tower in Toronto and the Florence Cathedral in Italy. Although these are made of coarser materials, you know it must be so.

This is the famous Hen’s Wardrobe Analogy, a fashion argument for the existence of an ultimate Tailor.

I like any old kind of chicken dance. This one works.

“But I never saw a chicken wear clothes” you rebut. Here is the proof silly.

Share

Hillel the Elder said: “If not now, then when?”

chagallrabbi

Artist: Tracy Chapman

If not now then when
If not today then
Why make your promises
A love declared for days to come
Is as good as none

You can wait ’til morning comes
You can wait for the new day
You can wait and lose this heart
You can wait and soon be sorry

Now love’s the only thing that’s free
We must take it where it’s found
Pretty soon it may be costly

If not now what then
We all must live our lives
Always feeling
Always thinking
The moment has arrived

Tracy Chapman – If Not Now

Share