More Nonsense from the Fundies on "Design"

Sometimes it appears the well of ignorance of the fundies yapping about "design" and "intelligence" appears to emanate from a bottomless pit. In this blog we lacerate even more of their nonsense and outlandish claims, which have no basis at all (as I will show). We return to the same blog and some further sputterings:

"Whence arises all the order and beauty we see in the world ?" asked Sir Isaac Newton . The question is natural , and it was asked by a believing scientist who recognized the necessity of a cause for every effect"

Actually, Newton was no "believing scientist" of the orthodox sort, a little trifle this particular fundie always sidesteps in order to dishonestly conflate all types of believers (though at other times, when it suits his purpose, he condemns them all to Hell).

In the PBS documentary ‘Newton’s Dark Secrets’ – much of Newton’s occultism is made known, including his calculation that the world would end in 2060. This and other discoveries shed light that Newton was not the “rationalist believer” so many fundies and other religionists make him out to be but rather an irrationalist – and as we know this lot gravitate more to superstitious beliefs.

The documentary also goes on to note Newton violently rejected becoming a Minister at Trinity College – which had been required of all Fellows. Instead, Newton veered into heresy denying the divinity of Christ, as well as the Trinity. Just the first part would ordinarily put Newton (along with the Pope) in this particular fundie's Hell conga line, but no matter, in this case he finds it convenient to invoke him! Desperation breeds strange bedfellows!

Some more offal about "design" proclamators (or would be ones):

"Albert Einstein also marveled at the order and harmony he and his fellow scientists observed throughout the universe . He noted that the religious feeling of the scientist "takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law , which reveals an INTELLIGENCE OF SUCH SUPERIORITY that , compared with it , all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly INSIGNIFICANT REFLECTION"

However, to all intents, Einstein was an implicit atheist – in the sense of not accepting a personal God, nor even free will. As Einstein biographer Jeremy Bernstein notes (‘Einstein’, 1973, p. 20), Einstein “was consistently agnostic with respect to any belief in a God preoccupied with the working out of human destiny. Though Einstein made constant and amiable references to “God” throughout his life, these were always taken to mean the rational connections, the laws, governing the behavior of the universe”. And as Bernstein notes later (ibid.) Einstein had no use at all for any personal God concept or “Savior” derived from it. Nor did he even accept a life after death, as when he writes:

"Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death. Let those feeble souls, whether from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts”

Einstein also rejected a "God who rewards or punishes" as well as free will, as when he wrote in his book Ideas and Opinions:

"A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity – internal and external- so that he cannot be responsible….any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motion it undergoes.”

Yet this fundie definitely believes in a God who rewards and punishes, as well as free will. SO why invoke Einstein? Because he is dishonest, and in this instance - so desperate to enlist scientific "support" for his designer premise, that it matters not the scientists he invokes would be condemned to Hell (along with Atheists, Jews and Catholics) in any other sphere.

Now we get into the nitty gritty of his remarks:

"No wonder the late renowned British astrophysicist and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle , after examining the different settings that regulate our planet and the rest of the universe , marveled : "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics , as well as the chemistry and biology [ of the universe ] , and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature"

Since he's cited Hoyle, let's probe the putative logical basis of his remarks more closely. The negative last statement, "there are no blind forces worth speaking about" . Let us call that statement S(A). Then the implied corollary statement is S(B): that a purposive force or "designer" exists.

The trick is to show that S(A) "proves" S(B) and not merely (subjectively) suggests or intimates it. In terms of propositional functions, let q = S(A) and p = S(B).

Then p = f(q)

the contradictory hypothesis (NO designer) is

p' = f(~q)

e.g. remote probabilities for natural outcomes do not prove special design. The central problem is that of testing the hypothesis p = f(q): How does one separate naturally low probabilities from outcomes based on the intervention of a special agent? What criteria allow such separation?

For example - we know that any one supposed single fusion of (proton) nuclei in the Sun is expected to occur on average once every 14 billion years.However, no designer is required to explain how the Sun shines (from fusion reactions) rather, quantum mechanical tunneling does. Thus, in this case, the contradictory hypothesis p' = f(~q) applies.

The second problem for the hypothesis:Why doesn't the "designer" insinuate itself into the domains of other worlds in the solar system to create ("design") life? Why isn't Mercury inhabited, or Venus? Or Jupiter? IF the designer is also omnipotent it ought to be able to design outside of purely natural (or terrestrial) norms and limits. (Thus an organism on Venus, for example, that can live off sulphuric acid, CO2 in the atmosphere and an atmospheric pressure of 90 atm.)

If the designer is not omnipotent, and indeed doesn't exist in the first place - it makes more sense that life will only occur on certain planets within habitable temperature zones and containing the elements (oxygen, nitrogen, water etc.) needed for life. In such cases, it isn't "design" at work but a long, gradual process of chemical evolution that eventually leads to life forms.

Thus, the only real emergent reason for a designer in the first place would be that it possesses ubiquitous power to design ANYWHERE! If it can't do that, or is limited by conditions already in place - we simply don't need it, it's redundant.

Third problem for the hypothesis:Predict what the designer or design agent can do for another planet other than Earth:

IF the designer exists and is not a figment of Hoyle's (or the fundie's) imagination, then it should be possible to predict what it can design in a totally novel situation. Say, different planetary conditions, mass, gravity, etc.Test: Predict the predominant life form that will appear on Planet `X', IF:

a)It orbits a spectral class F-9 type star (the Sun is G-2 so has a cooler surface temp.)

b)The mean distance from the central star is 252 million miles (2.7 A.U.)

c)At its aphelion (farthest point in orbit from its Sun) it receives 57% of the radiative intensity that Earth receivesd)

d)At its perihelion, or closest point, it receives 79%.

e)The g-force for the planet is 1.2 Earth value (e.g. 1.2 x 9.8 m/s^2)

f)The mean global air temperature of the planet is 24F compared to roughly 58F for Earth.

g)The atmosphere is: 40% oxygen, 40% nitrogen, 18% CO2, and 2% Argon

h)The planet's surface is 1/3 ocean which has 3% greater acidity than Earth's oceans.

i)The primordial atmosphere of the planet had twice the CO2 of the primordial Earth, and one third more methane, plus ammonia (NH3)

j) The planet has no molten iron core so produces no magnetic field - hence there is no magnetosphere to trap incoming, high intensity solar particles & radiation. (E.g. high energy protons, electrons from solar flares)

Given these parameters any advocate of a designer, who goes so far as to assert "design" trumps random chance algorithms, should be able to predict with high accuracy the main species that such a designer would allow to emerge on Planet X. (If he can't, he doesn't know the potentials of his designer very well, and then it's not a very credible hypothesis). Generally, when one advocates for "straightforward causes" in defending a "designer", he confuses the principles of sufficient reason and causation in the context of inquiry. But as philosopher of science Mario Bunge has noted (`Causality and Modern Science', Dover Publications, 1979, p. 231):

"Giving reasons is no longer regarded as assigning causes. In Science, it means to combine particular propositions about facts with hypotheses, laws, axioms and definitions. In general, there is no correspondence between sufficient reason and causation."

In addition, one can have a disjunctive plurality of causes for one effect. In this case, it is well nigh impossible to parse and isolate causes. One can also have causal indeterminacy, such as we behold in quantum mechanics (as in the case of particle-wave duality, quantum non-locality)In the end, "irreducible complexity" (which is the specious basis of ID) inevitably amounts to a cop-out argument from ignorance. Because a structure (e.g. eardrum) or process (origin of life from inanimate matter) appears difficult from the inferior vantage point of the percipient, it's automatically assumed that no scientific appeal can be made. No model, however remotely probable, can be offered.

Thus "intelligent design" is latched on to as a "god of the gaps". But history shows how absurd such an approach is. Though proponents bandy about words like "design" and "designer" they are yet unable to state clearly what this entity is. Is it some kind of deity? (If so, they are definitely in the realm of religious dogma). Is it a space alien from Tau Ceti, or Zeta Reticuli? Is it an invisible, inter-dimensional "essence"? They can't even specify their "designer" so why should we take it any more seriously than the tooth fairy or elves? (I take it back, if they can predict the form of outcomes a designer would have using the listed parameters for a planet above)

And lastly, we look at this choice canard:

"Supporters of evolution like to point out that acceptance of the idea of a divine Creator requires faith in someone or something we cannot see . Yet they are far from comfortable admitting that all who believe that life evolved from inert matter ALSO have faith in a theory that CANNOT BE PROVEN"

First, let's correct the fundie again, since no evolutionist is concerned with life origin - but rather the evolution of species after that fact. He again confuses ontogenesis with evolution. Anyway, we will defend the ontogenesists here. No, their hypothesis of life origin hasn't yet been "proven" BUT it has been demonstrated via plausible premises from bio-chemical processes and thermal (energy) considerations.

Thus, the most likely form of such a proto-organism would be as coacervate droplets. To obtain energy (the most critical need of any life or proto-life) they could use one of two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate (ADP):

L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP

or

ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + P

where L*M is some large, indeterminate energy-rich compound that could serve as "food". Whatever the specific form, it is conceived to have two major parts (L, M) capable of being broken down to liberate energy. Concurrent with the first reaction is a second entailing autocatalytic molecules designated X*Y. They can accelerate their own formation using ATP.

On the basis of the above chemical reactions, the hypothetical coacervate would consist of the combination: X*Y + R (where R is a likely compound called a protenoid). Does the coacervate meet the conditions for life? Well, it has very simple organization consisting of the molecules X*Y and R. It can increase size ("grow") until it becomes metastable then unstable. Whereupon it fissions - effectively disclosing reproduction. Finally, it can maintain itself over indefinite intervals so long as it extracts the compounds it needs for energy.

Some have demanded to know the nearest extant or current organism to the hypothetical one above. That would be none other than the PPLO or pleuro-pneumonia like organism, which is as close to the theoretical lower limit of a viable "organism" as possible. About 12 million atoms and a molecular weight of 2.88 million daltons.

A (discovered) variant of this is a primitve form of bacterial life that existed on Earth at least 3.85 billion years ago in the form of methanotrophs- simple organisms living on methane. The emergence of these is not that difficult to comprehend - given the volatile nature of the early reducing atmosphere, and the chemicals etc. available.Based on the methanotroph find (e.g. reported by Holland, H.D., 'Evidence for Life on Earth More than 3850 Million Years Ago', in Science, Vol. 275, p. 38) one can say the first life forms were almost certainly prokaryotic autotrophs. 'Prokaryotic' meaning having one chromosome only, and 'autotroph' meaning it didn't have to depend on other organisms for nutrition.

The bottom line basis here is that, no matter how hard it might be to accept or believe, random processes can more easily be invoked to account for the origin of life on Earth than appealing to any "designer". As I showed, that concept has severe logical contradictions and inconsistencies which can't be remedied merely by papering over its faults.

Any more than by citing "support" from "believing scientists" (sic) who in other contexts the invokers would roundly and rapidly condemn to eternal hellfire - if not for denying Christ's divinity (Newton) then for denying his yen for reward or punishment, as well as the free will of humans (Einstein).