Monthly Archives: October 2011

Intelligent Design

Is Life Designed? Part 3

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In the first two parts of this series, I presented Mark Isaak’s arguments from his 2003 article.  In this article, his central contention was that human design and life are not analogous; there are at least six important differences that make the analogy break down.

Analogies imply that there are similarities and differences between two things.  An analogy works if the similarities outweigh the differences, or if the similarities are in the essential properties of the two things and the differences are in the accidental properties of the two things. I recap below each point Isaak made:

1. Human design includes blueprints, tools, and other evidence of the design process.  Life shows no evidence of a design process.

I argued that actually possessing evidence of a design process is not an essential property of making an inference to human design.  Additionally, since Isaak wrote his article, we do see the design process in labs that are designing artificial life forms, which weakens Isaak’s point further.

2. Human designs display simple organization.  Life displays complex organization and intermodular interdependence.

I argued that simple organization is not an essential property of human design.  In fact, the more complex human designs are, the more likely we are to attribute design.

3. Human designs are manufactured.  Life is characterized by reproduction, growth, and development.

I argued that manufacturing which excludes self-replication is not an essential property of human design.  After all, we have examples of human designers combining self-replication and manufacturing processes.

4. Human designs are generally repaired from the outside.  Life is self-healing, at least in part.

I argued that human designs are not always repaired from the outside, and that this is therefore not an essential atrribute of human design.

5. In human design form follows function.  In life, forms follow nested hierarchy.

I argued that human design does not always have form following function, and therefore this attribute of human design is not essential.

6. In human design, there is rapid change.  In life, there is slow change.

I argued that human designs change both rapidly and slowly, so rapid change cannot be an essential attribute of human design.

After examining all of Isaak’s differences between human design and life, it seems to me that he has not made the case that life does not look designed.  He has identified accidental or secondary attributes of some human designs, but claimed that these are essential or primary attributes of all human design.

Where does this leave us?  It convinces me that the design argument from analogy is a live option.  Arguments from analogy are never certain, but as scientists continue to make technological advances of the kind Craig Venter’s team is making, I see the design argument from analogy only getting stronger.

Intelligent Design

Is Life Designed? Part 2

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In part 1 of this series, I introduced Mark Isaak’s 2003 article which argued that human designs are not analogous to life, and that an argument to design using the analogical method fails.  Mark Isaak listed six attributes of human design that are not found in life, and now we take up attribute number three from his list, which I’ve copied again below. 

  1. Human design includes blueprints, tools, and other evidence of the design process.  Life shows no evidence of a design process.
  2. Human designs display simple organization.  Life displays complex organization and intermodular interdependence.
  3. Human designs are manufactured.  Life is characterized by reproduction, growth, and development.
  4. Human designs are generally repaired from the outside.  Life is self-healing, at least in part.
  5. In human design form follows function.  In life, forms follow nested hierarchy.
  6. In human design, there is rapid change.  In life, there is slow change.

Difference number three:  Isaak notes that human designs are manufactured in some way, whereas life reproduces, grows, and develops.  My first reaction is to ask: Why does reproduction preclude design?  And are there not numerous examples of human scientists manufacturing life through cloning processes?  What about Craig Venter’s team manufacturing synthetic life forms?  Add to this that one of the express purposes of some forms of nanotechnology is self-replication, the very thing that Isaak claims only life can do.  This alleged difference between human design and life simply collapses under inspection.

Difference number four:  Isaak claims that human designs are repaired from the outside, whereas life is capable of partial self-healing.  Again, the distinction falls apart.  There are self-healing materials that scientists are developing to prevent cracking in structures; I’m sure other examples of self-healing technologies could be found.  Humans consider self-healing to be a property of design that is highly beneficial and are making rapid progress in its development.  Why does Isaak assume that human designs are incapable of reaching this goal?

Difference number five:  According to Isaak, in human design form follows function, but in life forms follow nested hierarchy.  Isaak argues that a “human hand, a bat’s wing, a mole’s paw, a dog’s paw, and a whale’s flipper all have the same basic bone structure, despite their different functions of grasping, flying, digging, running, and swimming.”  In other words, the singular form of the bone is used in different animals to perform many different functions.  This idea of a singular form being used for many different functions, he argues, is not seen in human designs.

But that is just not true.  Take the field I work in: semiconductors.  For any integrated circuit, there are a limited number of forms that are employed (e.g., resistors, capacitors, transistors).  These very few forms are put to use in a multitude of different functions: amplifiers, receivers, timers, filters, switches, just to name a few.  The whole semiconductor industry is built on the idea that a handful of forms can be used to design millions of different functions.  This is identical to what Isaak sees in life, so he has failed to find a true difference between human design and life.

Difference number six:  Isaak argues that human designs change rapidly, whereas life changes slowly.   I think we can all agree that life has clearly changed over its history.  After all, isn’t that the whole point of evolution, a theory which Isaak defends? 

According to evolution, modern human designers have only been around for tens of thousands of years.  Some of the tools that humans designed in their early history have changed slowly (e.g., knives and wheels), and some of the tools have changed rapidly (e.g., communication technology). 

But this is exactly the same case in life.  Some animals have changed slowly over their evolutionary history (e.g., sharks), but some have changed rapidly (e.g., primates).  Isaak’s argument struggles because slowness and rapidity are relative terms.  Rapid compared to what? 

I can’t see any way for Isaak to differentiate successfully between human design and life with regard to the rapidity of change unless he merely says that life has been changing for billions of years and human designs have been changing for thousands of years.  Yes, that’s a difference, but what of it?

In part 3 of this series, I will draw together some conclusions about Mark Isaak’s argument that life and human design are not analogous.

Intelligent Design

Is Life Designed? Part 1

28 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In an article written in 2003, Mark Isaak explored “What Design Looks Like.”  The central argument of the article was simple.  According to Isaak, creationists who claim that life is designed are using an argument from analogy –  the analogy is between human design and biological life.  In his article, Isaak lists 11 attributes of human design and then looks at life to see if it shares these same 11 attributes.

Isaak agrees that human design and life share 5 attributes: 1) intermediate level of structural complexity, 2) modular structure, 3) evidence of careless modification (jury-rigging, vestigial parts), 4) change over time; new forms are modifications of previous forms and 5) functional integration.  If we stopped here, Isaak thinks that the argument from analogy would work, that life would compare favorably to human design.

But, Isaak then goes on to list 6 attributes of human design that life does not possess.

  1. Human design includes blueprints, tools, and other evidence of the design process.  Life shows no evidence of a design process.
  2. Human designs display simple organization.  Life displays complex organization and intermodular interdependence.
  3. Human designs are manufactured.  Life is characterized by reproduction, growth, and development.
  4. Human designs are generally repaired from the outside.  Life is self-healing, at least in part.
  5. In human design form follows function.  In life, forms follow nested hierarchy.
  6. In human design, there is rapid change.  In life, there is slow change.

Isaak’s conclusion: the design argument from analogy fails.  There are too many differences between human design and life for the analogy to hold.  Isaak explains: “In particular, life’s growth and reproduction alone are enough, it seems to me, to place life and design in quite separate categories. Life’s complexity and its nested hierarchy of traits are also highly significant differences. The overall conclusion is clear: life looks undesigned.”

If you are like me, you are scratching your head.  Something seems very odd about what Isaak says counts against life being designed.  Let me slow it down a little bit.

First, he argues that life can’t be designed because we don’t have blueprints, or tools, or any other evidence of a life design process.  But surely we, standing here today, don’t have direct experience of every design process ever used.  Don’t we routinely discover objects of antiquity where we do not understand immediately how they were designed?

Take the example of the ancient Egyptian pyramids.  Haven’t modern scientists struggled for decades trying to figure out how the giant Egyptian pyramids were designed and constructed?  There have been numerous theories about what the actual processes were.  Does the fact that we don’t have blueprints for the ancient pyramids mean they weren’t designed?  If those blueprints were found, would anyone seriously suggest that it is only after the blueprints were found we could conclude that the pyramids were designed?

But it gets worse for Isaak.  With regard to life, there are labs designing artificial life forms as we speak (Craig Venter).  Granted, they are a long ways off from designing all the kinds of life we see around us, but there certainly are life design processes developing.  So Isaak’s argument fails twice.

Second, Isaak argues that because life displays complex organization with intermodular interdependence, it cannot be designed.  This strikes me as completely bizarre.  What he is saying is that because biologists have not been able to reduce life down to simple, independent subsystems that do not interact with each other, life cannot be designed.

But it is the amazing complexity and interdependence of biological systems that cause most scientists to react in awe to the genious of life.  The complexity should count toward design, not against.  Somehow Isaak argues just the opposite – because we can’t break life down into simple non-interacting parts, it can’t be designed.  That strikes me as a complete non sequitur. 

In the next post of this series, I will address more of Mark Isaak’s 6 alleged differences between human design and life.  Stay tuned.

Archaeology

Apostle Philip’s Tomb Found

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Bible History Daily website announced in July 2011 that archaeologists had discovered the Apostle Philip’s tomb.  Here is an excerpt from the article:

Italian archaeologists working at the site of Hierapolis in southwestern Turkey believe they have discovered the tomb of St. Philip, one of Jesus’ 12 apostles. According to excavator Francesco D’Andria, Philip’s tomb has traditionally been associated with the martyrium church built at the site,* though no evidence of the ancient burial was ever found. Last month, however, D’Andria and his team located a smaller church less than 150 feet away from the martyrium that appears to contain the grave of the apostle.

Please go the Bible History Daily for the complete article.

Intelligent Design

Is “Who Designed the Designer?” a Good Argument?

28 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The intelligent design movement claims that when we look at certain features of the natural world, we are justified in inferring that these features were designed by an intelligent agent or designer.  The exact arguments are hashed out elsewhere on this blog and in numerous books and websites.

One of the most common responses to the inference that a feature of the natural world is designed is the question: “Well then, who designed the designer?”  The point of this question seems to be that merely positing a designer is useless unless we can say what caused the designer.

In a recent post written by Barry Arrington on the Uncommon Descent blog, he refutes the idea that we must know the cause of a designer before we can infer that a designer exists.  Here is his  short, but clear refutation:

Step 1:  Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild.

Step 2:  Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.

Step 3:  John’s design inference is obviously correct.  Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter.

Craig Venter is , of course, a famous scientist who is doing research on synthetic life forms, so he serves Arrington’s refutation well.  I hope you can see why the demand to say who designed Craig Venter is completely irrelevant to the inference that Venter designed the artificial life form.  The fact that John discovered that this life form was designed is an important scientific finding, in and of itself.

The goal of asking “Who designed the designer?” as a way of derailing design inferences just does not work.

Evil, Pain, and Suffering, Sin, Will of God

Can We Judge God’s Intentions When People Suffer?

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Bad things happen to people all the time.  They happen to you and to me, in places nearby and in places far away.  Sometimes when we see a person or persons suffering, and we don’t like their worldview, their moral beliefs, or lifestyle, we Christians do something that we need to stop doing.  We look at the people suffering and we think to ourselves, or even say out loud, “God is punishing them because they are unrighteous.”

There are infamous examples of Christians proclaiming judgment after hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes kill multitudes of people.  Those examples are bad enough, but I want to also call attention to the daily judgments we sometimes make about people who are suffering – people who we confidently believe are being punished by God because of their immoral actions.

Why should we stop judging God’s intentions in this manner?  Because we don’t know, in a given situation, what God’s intentions are.  He simply does not tell us and we need to stop acting like he does.  In addition, and more importantly, Jesus himself denies that we should judge those who suffer or die as more sinful than we are.

In Luke 13:1-5, Luke records the following conversation:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.  Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?  I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?  I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Jesus first refers to some Galileans who were killed by Pilate as they sacrificed.  He flatly rejects the idea that these Galileans are worse sinners than others because they were killed.  Jesus then refers to eighteen people who died when a tower collapsed on them.  Again Jesus denies that these eighteen were more guilty than everyone else.

John Martin, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, explains these verses:

Jesus taught the crowds that calamity can happen to anyone because all are human. Jesus cited two common instances about destruction. The first concerned some Galileans who were killed by Pilate while they were offering sacrifices. The second concerned 18 seemingly innocent bystanders in Siloam who were killed when a tower … fell on them. Jesus’ point was that being killed or not being killed is no measure of a person’s unrighteousness or righteousness. Anyone can be killed. Only God’s grace causes any to live. This point is brought out in verses 3 and 5—unless you repent, you too will all perish. Death is the common denominator for everyone. Only repentance can bring life as people prepare to enter the kingdom.

Next time you think you can judge God’s intentions when people suffer, think again.  Remember that even Jesus refused to make these kinds of judgments.

Philosophy, Polls, Science and God

How Should Religion and Science Interact?

7 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, philosophers continuously changed their views on how science and religion should interact.  Philosopher William Lawhead describes the continuum chronologically in his textbook The Voyage of Discovery.

Initially, most scientists and philosophers “saw religion and science as co-equal partners in the search for truth.”

Lawhead continues: “Gradually the viewpoint emerged that the claims of revealed religion should be accepted, but only after they have been trimmed down to conform to the scientific outlook.”  Put another way, religious claims must be confirmed by science.

The third stage of development was deism – the belief that the world is wholly rational on its own and that human reason alone can answer questions of nature, religion, and morality.  The deists retained God as the Creator of the universe, but believed that God did not intervene in nature after he created it.

Following deism, “Agnosticism or religious skepticism began to appear in the works of such thinkers as David Hume.  The agnostics urged that we must suspend judgment concerning God’s existence, for reason does not give us any grounds for believing in a deity, although it cannot prove that one does not exist.”

Lawhead explains that “finally, full-blown naturalism or atheism appeared. . . . Its proponents claimed that the philosophical and scientific evidence is stacked against the God hypothesis.  Therefore the rational person will reject it, just as we have the flat-earth theory and the theory that diseases have supernatural causes.”

What is fascinating to me is that all of these views are still held by our contemporary society, hundreds of years later.  That is one reason I find the study of philosophy to be so useful; the ideas never go out of style.  In fact, the same ideas are repeated over and over again throughout history.

What about you?  Which of these five views do you hold about the interaction of science and religion?  Please vote in the poll below and leave comments explaining your vote.