Occam's Razor Meet the Incredible Contortions of the Theistic Mind

Granville Sewell, a semi-regular contributor to the Discovery Institute's Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV) site has this little gem: "The Biggest Theological Objection to Design", it's a long read and follows a pretty winding road.  The bottom line is yet another rationalization as to the existence of evil in the world.

One of the many arguments against a deity, or maybe I should say one of the religious arguments against a deity, can be summed up in one line "Why do bad things happen to good people".  It's an argument that gets addresses pretty regularly because nothing strains a theistic belief like a catastrophe.  Be it a serious illness, a death of a loved on, or some other crisis that a theist believes should not befall them because, after all, they have been doing all the theistic-ally-correct things.  They believe, donate to their church, pray regularly, praise their version of a deity, try and bring in converts . . . you know, usual stuff theists do.  So why do bad things happen to those 'good' people?

A corollary is something we've discussed a number of times, why aren't all theists wealthy?  I mean with all the people who contribute to prosperity gospel evangelists and their billion dollar lifestyle, and get promises of wealth and financial security in return.  Why aren't all of those prayers answered?  See a trend here?

Here is where Granville's post starts getting crazy.  First off, the title, is this question really biggest theological challenge to Design?  There I have to disagree, I think it's the biggest question about religion, not just a design argument. . . since Granville claims ID is science:

"So while ID really is science, not theology,"

I do have to ask, if Intelligent Design (ID) is science, why does a theological challenge matter?  Look at history.  Theological challenges to real science are normally ignored, even the Creationism attacking Evolution was pretty much ignored until it started impacting actual science education.  Why does Granville need to address a theological challenge to something he claims is science? Unless when he says 'design', he's not talking about ID?

Granville uses the term 'design', not 'Intelligent Design', so I  wasn't sure if he's really making some sort of demarcation, but since his also says 

" . . . the absurdity of the Darwinist attempt to explain away the obvious design in Nature . . ."

I have to assume he is talking ID, particular since this line is the common fallback position of ID 'theorists'.  So that being settled, when Granville says 'design' he's talking about ID and all the baggage ID brings with it . . . especially it's religion -- so maybe Granville isn't being totally honest about ID being science?

I do find it hard to believe that this is the biggest theological challenge to ID because most theists do not subscribe to ID.  There are many reasons they haven't drank the DI's kool-aid, one of the ones I hear most often is the DI's own efforts to divorce their ID argument from their religious beliefs.  Many of the believers in ID frequently wink-and-nod when anyone claims ID is science, they know better.  After all, even with a couple of decades plus of effort, the DI has never been able to hide their religious beliefs -- books and articles are either self-published or religious imprints, meetings and conferences are at religious schools and churches, or hosted by campus ministries . . . We've talked many times about how hard it is for the DI to divorce itself from its religion, impossible as of yet.  To perform such an exorcism, they would have to produce some actual science, maybe that's what Granville is going to do?

But since he thinks this religious argument is so important, let's take a peek:

"A wonderful little article in UpReach (Nov.-Dec. 1984). by Batsell Barrett Baxter, entitled “Is God Really Good?” contains some insights into the “problem of pain,” as C.S. Lewis calls it, which I have found very useful. I will follow Baxter’s outline in presenting my own thoughts on this question, and I would like to begin with his conclusion: “As I have faced the tragedy of evil in our world and have tried to analyze its origin, I have come to the conclusion that it was an inevitable accompaniment of our greatest blessings and benefits.” "

So . . . bad things happen as an accompaniment to our greatest blessings and benefits?  So in other words we deserve the bad things that happen because without them we could never understand, or appreciate, the good?  That makes very little sense.  I love my wife, but to understand or appreciate, I have to hate others or have others hate me?  If that were true, then wouldn't the bad things be proportional to the good?  Wouldn't it also make sense that the bad things wouldn't happen to a child because a child has little appreciation for the good?  It doesn't add up, but adding up isn't Granville's desire, rationalization is.  Look at the wording:

"The laws of Nature which God has made work together to create a magnificent world of mountains and rivers, jungles and waterfalls, oceans and forests, animals and plants. The basic laws of physics are cleverly designed to create conditions on Earth suitable for human life and human development. "

He's making an argument that hinges of the laws of nature and the laws of physics being a product of the actions of a deity.  Without that, his whole premise falls apart.  Does he offer any support for that statement?  Nothing but the ordinary ID wishful thinking.  He presents it as if it is a foregone conclusion -- but it only is to someone who already shares his belief set.  It's not a valid conclusion because the theists accept it on faith, no support needed.  Everyone else look for the support and finds nothing.  It's like he's building a pyramidal house of cards, only upside down the everything rests on two cards. But there's nothing under those two cards, it's all belief, faith, acceptance without support.  How can he really believe that ID is science when the rest of his post deals with nothing but religion?

Of course, there is the usual argument of blaming the people themselves, the 'free will' argument.  It seems to be a common fallback.  Granville sums up that part of his post with this:

"Again we conclude that evil and unhappiness are the inevitable by-products of one of our most priceless blessings: our human free will."

Yes, 'free will' and like his natural world argument he starts from the premise that this is something granted by a deity.  But this doesn't explain many of the causes of unhappiness or the things we characterize as 'evil'.  Yes, much of our unhappiness can be traced to decisions made by other people -- the bully, the abusive parent, the drunk driver . . . but who decides a mother of two will get cancer; metal fatigue causes a car wreck; tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes cause so much devastation and loss of life; or winds bringing down a plane full of people?  How does human free will fit those catastrophic scenarios?  I know, people like little kennie ham (owner of three Kentucky ministries) say that all disease and bad things are due to human failings and sin, particularly where a certain apple is involved.  But, once again, we are down to Granville's religious belief, not science, not design, but belief.  Is it reasonable  to believe my transgression against some religious rule brought about cancer in a women half-a-world away?

You can read the whole post, after all you have free will , but you will more than likely find what I found.  Granville arguing in favor of his religious beliefs.  Without those beliefs, his arguments, even the ones he quoted from others, fall meaningless to the ground.  It feels more like he's looking an excuse to justify the bad things and use them to rationalize his religious beliefs.

When the only tool in your toolbox is Rationalization, then that's what you tend to do.  I think I mentioned this story once before in an older post, but it bears repeating:

A man was sitting in his easy chair watching a baseball game. It was the bottom of the ninth, two outs, based loaded, and his team was down. Visually he was pretty much an Archie Bunker type. In fact you could easily picture Archie Bunker doing exactly this.

The announcer names the next batter, an African-American player and the man is livid. He goes on to proclaim the game to be over and how the next batter is a choker and can't handle the pressure of playing baseball all because of his race. . . you can easily picture this little bout of verbal diarrhea.

On the first swing of the bat the baseball the player hits it out of the park and wins the game.
The man now proclaims that the man was super-strong from all those years in the jungle.

Think about the mental gyrations that man had to go through, all to protect his prejudice in his own mind.  Granville reminds me of that story as well.  When there's no rational support, make some up . . . it's certainly easier than having to consider maybe your religious beliefs aren't all you want them to be.

There is a Difference Between designing intelligently and Intelligent Design

Sarah Chaffee, one of the Discovery Institute's (DI) talking heads doesn't seem to understand several things.  First she claims biologists disregard function, then just because you use intelligence to design something doesn't mean you are using 'Intelligent Design, and finally when she misrepresents these things, she undermines her own arguments.  You can check out Sarah's most recent post: "Happy Engineers Week -- Let's Remember Intelligence Is at the Heart of It All".  

She starts with this:

"As we've observed in the past, engineering and medicine differ from evolutionary biology in that they focus on how things work. Evolutionists can seem at times to disregard function, but doctors and engineers never can."

Really, biologists disregard function?  Not in any biology class I have taken nor in any biology book I have read.  Function is an integral part of biology and evolution, the reality is that biologists are not restricted to one function.  Let me give you an example, Michael Behe, the on-and-off-again darling of the Intelligent Design Movement, wrote a book a while ago that listed a number if things he claimed had to have been Intelligently Designed because, as he said, they were too complex to occur naturally.  In his examples he developed this idea of 'irreducible complexity', claiming, among other things, that if you remove any part, the object would no longer function.

But the error Behe made, and continues to make, is that he was restricting himself to the one specific function.  Biologist who studied the same examples as Behe looked at the objects beyond that one function and found that while the original function may no longer work, those parts can certainly serve other functions.  By looking beyond the one function, they were able to form a much more complete picture of the evolution of the what, the how, and even the why.

Behe used an example of a Mousetrap, claiming that removing one part rendered the mousetrap non-functional.  Of course the possibility that the mousetrap could serve another function is foreign to Behe.  Biologist Ken Miller wrote a rebuttal "The Design Mousetrap" which addressed the area Behe missed completely, a different function, just not the original one.  In a more pertinent example, Behe described Bacterial Flagellum as irreducible complex because if you remove any of the parts, you lose the whip-like function that give mobility that the flagellum gives to some bacteria.  However, apparently the flagellum evolved from the type-3 secretory system.(Wikipedia: Evolution of Flagellum).  I say 'apparently' because unlike the claims made by ID proponents, scientists frame things in terms based on our current understanding.  I believe 10, or so, of the proteins involved in the secretory system are also in the flagellum, leading researchers to make the conclusion.  Again, unlike science, ID proponents stop once they reach a conclusion they like, scientists keep looking and never completely close a door.

As you can see, claiming biologists disregard function as nothing more than a straw-man argument. Sarah tries to make the reader think that only ID proponents address function, but that would be a lie. Yes, it's a lie Sarah and her partners-in-crime repeat often, but that doesn't make it reality.  Behe faced this evidence in court and tried to deny it, even though he hadn't kept current.  You would think someone who studies things like bacterial flagellum would stay up on the science of it . . . unless your point was never to see something that might discount your own unsupported conclusions.

Back to Sarah and something we have discussed many times before, whenever someone uses their brain for something other than keeping their eyebrows from meeting, the DI likes to try and twist is into some sort of victory for Intelligent Design (ID).  Engineers design and build, well, . . . pretty much everything.  Here in Dayton Ohio we are constantly reminded of this because of the many innovations and inventions that have their roots in this area.  So many things from the Wright Bros, cash registers, and even pull-tab for pop cans to electric car starters and code breaking machines. Inventors, architects, and engineers all use their intelligence, training, experience to make some incredible creations.  But what does any of that have to do with ID?  Let us not forget what ID is . . so let's look at the DI's definition and also a definition that ID proponents particularly dislike (and are always trying to change):

The DI defines Intelligent Design as:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."(DI website FAQ: Intelligent Design (Feb 27, 2017))

While the rest of the world defines it as such:

"Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" but found to be pseudoscience.  Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design (Feb 27 2017))

Can you explain how either of these definitions can be used to justify Sarah's words:

"Speaking of engineering, here's a rundown of news on one of the most exciting fields where the science of intelligent design really shines: biomimetics. This field uses designs from nature to boost efficiency and create new products."

Interesting claim, shining examples of ID, but where is the ID?  Sarah's only half right, there is intelligence involved.  If you read Sarah's post you will see that there are some engineering examples that take inspiration from nature.  OK, so what?

We've been doing this for how long?  Early wing designs for airplanes mimics bird wings.  Of course without feathers and the ability to control all those feathery surfaces, airplane wings only share some similarities with birds.  We often borrow from nature in designing things.  I'm sure the originator of the wheel took note in how round rocks rolled downhill at some point and early boat developers noticed that wood floated.  But the connection I cannot seem to reach is how this ties into Intelligent Design, as described by the DI!  The DI likes to call ID a theory, but where and how is this 'theory' applied?

ID proponents, like Sarah, have made many claims about how 'nature' was designed by an intelligent designer (The Christian God, who they hate naming 'officially').  But they have yet to offer any evidence supporting these claims.  Without such support their claims fall flat, and trotting out example of human design and the use of intelligence doesn't automatically link the two.  Remember that 30 years ago there was no Intelligent Design Movement, ID was called 'Creation Science'.  So I guess the equivalent argument is that since a human being is capable of creating something, 'Creation Science' is somehow validated? No, it's not!  Just because you are using the same word doesn't equate the two!

Those are my first two issues with Sarah, her attempt to claim biologists disregard function and her assumption that intelligence somehow can be seen as the "science of intelligent design" shining.  I did find it interesting that Sarah used the lower case 'intelligent design' as opposed to the usual 'Intelligent Design', My final point is how this claim actually undermines the whole ID Movement.

Sarah has made two different attacks here, the first (function) she tries to limit biologists and put them in a box of her own making.  This way she can make further claims about ID by knocking down a straw-man of biology.  Her second attack is to try and make you think that since everything a human engineers and builds is designed using their intelligence, that nature must have been designed by an intelligence.  Of course she offers no support for making such a connection.  Think it through, the ONLY thing supporting ID is the appearance of design in nature.  Basically, according to the DI, if it looks designed, it must have been designed.  ID is nothing more than a re-statement of the old Watchmaker Analogy:

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."  William Paley, Natural Theology (1802)

The DI often claims that ID isn't a restatement of this analogy, that it is something new and different and much more 'scientific'.  And yet, look at the examples Sarah bring forth, more and more 'appearance' and 'inspiration', but with nothing supporting the idea that natural objects had to have been designed, nor support that it had to be designed by an intelligence.  So every time Sarah, or any of the posters at the DI's Evolution 'news' and Views website put out something like this, they are simply reminding us that the DI has nothing other than conjecture and wishful thinking backing them up.

Sarah's final line makes even less sense:

"Mind over matter -- it holds true and leads to advancement in technology, science, math and engineering."

While the words are fine, the context is missing.  Where are the advancements in technology, science, math and engineering that can actually be attributed to ID?  Not by making an unsupported claim, but where is the application of ID in any of these areas?  So far  . . . there haven't been any.  When you look at actual advances, the application of one of more scientific theories is evident.  In fact the advances more than likely would not have happened without an understanding of the applicable scientific theories.  Could we build an engine without some understanding of metallurgy and thermodynamics?  Could we build an airplane without understanding those two and much more like Aerodynamics?  Could we have gone to the Moon with those three and also an understanding of Gravity? So where does ID fit with any of the things Sarah claimed as 'shining examples' of intelligent design?

That's why her closing line, when considered within the context of her post, makes little sense.  Yes, intelligence does hold true and each and every advancement in any field can be traced back to people using their intelligence, their experience, and often their own sweat and tears.  They put in the time and work to makes these advances, but doesn't anyone see any ID proponent doing the same? Other than marketing the same foolishness over and over again, you never see anything else, do you?  One of the other things Behe admitted in court was that no one was doing any actual scientific work to support his ideas, nothing has changed in the 11 years since that court case, has it?

So, once more with feeling DI, where are the advances in science and engineering that can point to a direct relationship with your idea of 'Intelligent Design'?  Don't worry, we'll keep waiting for you to spin some more marketing material.  It will be just as 'effective' as all your earlier efforts selling your pseudo-scientific religious babble.

More Misdirection from the Discovery Institute

In my last post (Skepticism vs. Scholarship (From James F. McGrath)) I said:

"As new scientific discoveries are made, you can bet that shortly thereafter they will try and put an ID [Intelligent Design] spin on it, regardless of the fact the discovery doesn't support it."

This new post over on the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution and 'news' and Views (EnV) blog bears that out. "University of Alabama "Space Archaeologist" Seeks Evidence of Intelligent Design".  As you read their post, I want you to identify where Intelligent Design . . . not intelligence or design . . .  but something from the Discovery Institute, being being used in Sarah Parcak's work.  If you can't see it, don't worry, it's only in the very limited imagination of the DI.

In a nutshell, the associate professor of anthropology (University of Alabama at Birmingham) pioneered the use of satellite imagery to discover ruins, tombs, and more.  She's highly recognized, well regarded, and apparently quite successful.  What she is identifying signs of human habitation in ways that would have been impossible before today's modern satellites.  So what does this have to do with the DI?  Nothing, but since when does nothing stop the DI?

What the good professor is looking for are patterns, patterns that when combined with her other research, indicate the probability of being a former location of a town or village.  We recognize patterns all the time, but does there being a pattern automatically mean an intelligent source?  Here is a quote from Professor Parcak from the Smithsonian article::

"Any discovery in remote sensing rests on hundreds of hours of deep, deep study. Before looking at satellite imagery of a cemetery or a pyramid field, you have to already understand why something should be there."

I am surprised the DI used this particular quote, because I believe it defeats their own argument.  Parcak isn't just looking for patterns, she, and I would guess her team, spend hundreds of hours studying a location before looking at the imagery itself.  Her own words, "you have to understand why something should be there."  I this as a parallel to actual scientific work, you look, you study, you learn and what that does is frame any discoveries.  You don't just look at something and declare you are done!  But isn't that the modus operandi of the DI?

Parcak is looking for patterns, the DI insists on calling it 'design', they do that so they can tie into their pet idea of 'Intelligent Design'.  Does Parcak call it design?  Certainly no sign in the Smithsonian article.  The DI wants to call it 'design' so they can compare what she is doing to what they should be doing in examining DNA.  Of course they aren't exactly doing what she is doing.  They are making lots of declarative statements, but never seem to follow up with any supporting evidence.  The reason I am surprised they want to draw such a parallel is because I believe they are missing two points of Parcak's work.

One is illustrated in the quote above.  Where are the hours of deep study of DNA that would lead you to understand why design should be there?  There isn't any.  The DI looks just deep enough to recognize what they claim in the 'appearance' of design, and then they declare victory and demand to be taken seriously.

The second thing they are missing is based on another quote, this one near the  end of the Smithsonian article:

"Parcak often confirms discoveries made at her desk by visiting previously unseen sites and coring the earth or otherwise scouting for artifacts, a process called “ground truthing.”

Where is the 'ground truthing of the DI's arguments?  Where is the supporting evidence?  You will notice that Parcak doesn't just leave things at the level of the imagery, her discoveries are confirmed in the field.  The DI doesn't seem to think that's a required step, they even missed this quote from the article.

Let's imagine that Parcak made an announcement of a discovery and failed to follow-up with what she calls 'ground truthing'. Would she have been written up in the Smithsonian? Would she have been called "The Indiana Jones of low Earth orbit"?  Would she even be an associate professor?  She most certainly wouldn't have made over 3,000 discoveries with a hit rate of close to 100%!  What's the DI's hit rate on actual scientific discoveries again?  That's right: 0%?

As we have learned over and over again, the appearance of design does not mean it was actually designed.  The DI hasn't made the case that apparent design must have been designed and since they claim that only intelligence can design things, any 'design' must be the hallmark of an 'Intelligent Designer' (code word for the Christian God).  Yet their arguments fail on a number of points, particularly on a lack of evidence.  Conjecture and wishful thinking are not evidence.

What we have also learned, yet again, is that whenever anyone uses their brain (intelligence) and discovers anything that can be interpreted, or even mis-interpreted, as 'design' then the DI is going to try and claim yet another victory for their pet concept ID.  They, the DI, still cannot tell the difference between their Intelligent Design 'theory' and use of intelligence in scientific discoveries.  They keep confusing the two in order to confuse everyone else.  If they really want to make this claim, they should be able to tell us just what part of 'Intelligent Design Theory' is this particular professor using?

Well?