An Argument for a Designer
Jonathan L. McCarthy
There has been a lot of ruckus lately about this issue of intelligent design. Interestingly, as Christian as you may think this theory is, it is still a far cry from our faith, but at least it seems to be a step closer to the right direction. When you consider it, though, teaching I.D. isn't going to necessarily put kids in contact with Christ. You can still be a pagan and believe in god (small 'g'). However, as I said, the theory is veritable and the intentions (in some) good. As simple as this article may seem, I think it is necessary because there are a lot of people out there who claim to be intelligent and yet deny this basic truth.
So, I simply want to show in logical formula that there must be an intelligent designer. According to Modus Ponens, one of several logical patterns, p implies q, and if one has p, one must inevitably have q. Now, this question entirely depends upon the premise. My premise is this, that a design, implies a designer.
Obviously, it would be easy enough to do the run-down of p implies q and finish this article, but that would be hardly fair. I need to prove my premise. First I need to define design. A design is an arrangement of anything that has enough complexity to it to demand an intelligent creator. Humans make "design judgements" every day of our lives probably hundreds of times...subconsciously of course. When we see a flight of stairs, we assume that someone with an intelligent mind created those stairs to bear our weight. We recognize a design. When we lay eyes on a computer, we assume that a thinking inventor pieced it together to boot up upon pushing the start button. We recognize a design. I could go on endlessly, but the point is clear.
So, subconsciously, we all recognize that once an object attains a certain degree of complexity, it had to be put together that way on purpose by a thinking being. Nature alone wouldn't attain that complexity. Let's say that this degree is 4c (4 complexity). A flight of stairs is 4c, a seesaw is 5c, and a computer is 900c. Anything at 4c or above implies design (p implies q). It is important to realize that your brain functions this way. Let me pose a question. Which is more complex, a flight of stairs or your cardiac system? Obviously, your cardiac system is more complex. If we therefore, carry out our Modus Ponens, we must determine that the cardiac system was designed.
The logic for this is: Premise 1: Anything greater than or equal to 4c demands design Premise 2: The human cardiac system is greater than 4c Conclusion: The human cardiac system demands design. The analogy goes all through nature.
chanel handbags
Like it or not, but this premise is established in each and every one of our minds. Once something attains that hypothetical 4c, it is no longer a fluke of chance. So, to deny I.D., you really must deny a principle that goes far more than skin deep.
There has been a lot of ruckus lately about this issue of intelligent design. Interestingly, as Christian as you may think this theory is, it is still a far cry from our faith, but at least it seems to be a step closer to the right direction. When you consider it, though, teaching I.D. isn't going to necessarily put kids in contact with Christ. You can still be a pagan and believe in god (small 'g'). However, as I said, the theory is veritable and the intentions (in some) good. As simple as this article may seem, I think it is necessary because there are a lot of people out there who claim to be intelligent and yet deny this basic truth.
So, I simply want to show in logical formula that there must be an intelligent designer. According to Modus Ponens, one of several logical patterns, p implies q, and if one has p, one must inevitably have q. Now, this question entirely depends upon the premise. My premise is this, that a design, implies a designer.
Obviously, it would be easy enough to do the run-down of p implies q and finish this article, but that would be hardly fair. I need to prove my premise. First I need to define design. A design is an arrangement of anything that has enough complexity to it to demand an intelligent creator. Humans make "design judgements" every day of our lives probably hundreds of times...subconsciously of course. When we see a flight of stairs, we assume that someone with an intelligent mind created those stairs to bear our weight. We recognize a design. When we lay eyes on a computer, we assume that a thinking inventor pieced it together to boot up upon pushing the start button. We recognize a design. I could go on endlessly, but the point is clear.
So, subconsciously, we all recognize that once an object attains a certain degree of complexity, it had to be put together that way on purpose by a thinking being. Nature alone wouldn't attain that complexity. Let's say that this degree is 4c (4 complexity). A flight of stairs is 4c, a seesaw is 5c, and a computer is 900c. Anything at 4c or above implies design (p implies q). It is important to realize that your brain functions this way. Let me pose a question. Which is more complex, a flight of stairs or your cardiac system? Obviously, your cardiac system is more complex. If we therefore, carry out our Modus Ponens, we must determine that the cardiac system was designed.
The logic for this is: Premise 1: Anything greater than or equal to 4c demands design Premise 2: The human cardiac system is greater than 4c Conclusion: The human cardiac system demands design. The analogy goes all through nature.
chanel handbags
Like it or not, but this premise is established in each and every one of our minds. Once something attains that hypothetical 4c, it is no longer a fluke of chance. So, to deny I.D., you really must deny a principle that goes far more than skin deep.
posted by Jonathan M @ 10:49 AM
15 Comments:
At 11:31 AM, January 02, 2006,
SimonTemplar said…
would it be accurate to say that you are actually stating to MP arguments here the first being
Design implies Designer
the second being
Complexity implies design
Combining them into one argument
complexity implies a designer
At 9:36 PM, January 02, 2006,
Jonathan M said…
Yes, I believe this is called the transitivity property.
At 1:11 PM, January 17, 2006,
Lindsey said…
Very good post!! Well thought-out and presented.
At 1:46 PM, April 09, 2006,
Seanny McShawn said…
Your analysis, unfortunately, fell apart shortly after you began assigning c's to represent complexity. We'll play a game:
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one (Cardiac system) is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!
Stairs, see-saws and computers are man-made. Cardiac systems are not. Your argument is that it was God-made, but since that is not proven through your process it is still just an argument.
So, the argument is that
1. x implies p, and
2. p implies q,
3. therefor x implies q.
Since step 1 was not proven, the conclusion (3) is also unproven. The flaw in the argument originated here:
So, subconsciously, we all recognize that once an object attains a certain degree of complexity, it had to be put together that way on purpose by a thinking being.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to show that "we all" subconsciously recognize this. For the conclusion to be true, every person must fit your critieria. Since I don't recognize your premise, we do not all agree. Thus, the premise is false or, at the very least, unproven.
At 1:50 PM, April 09, 2006,
David Ketter said…
Actually Seanny, his first statement is axiomatic. It's an assumption that cannot be proven or disproven but from the information available (Creation), it's a logical conclusion.
At 6:44 PM, April 09, 2006,
Seanny McShawn said…
Hrm. Which statement are you stating is the first one? Admittedly, it made sense to me to rearrange the order of points as follows, so we may not actually be disagreeing:
1. X implies P (Complexity implies Design)
2. P implies Q (Design implies Designer)
3. Therefore X implies Q (Complexity implies Designer)
I had hoped, by continuing to use P and Q, that the change would have been self-evident, but, on rereading it, that might not be the case. So, if you're stating that design implying a designer is axiomatic, I agree. If you're stating that complexity implying a design is axiomatic, on the other hand, I don't.
S'pose we should clarify that before continuing.
At 8:13 PM, April 13, 2006,
David Ketter said…
I suppose in your syllogism, it's the second statement. Simon had it right...Design implies Designer. That is an axiomatic statement.
At 1:34 AM, April 14, 2006,
Seanny McShawn said…
Good good, it would be silly of me to suggest that design did not indicate a designer since, by its very defintion, it does. I rearranged the order of Simon's points this way because they seemed to follow one another a little more smoothly. My apologies for the confusion.
In any case, I believe the issue still remains: Complexity does not, as far as I can tell, always imply design, and therefore a complex natural system does not necessarily have to be created by a god.
At 10:31 AM, April 14, 2006,
David Ketter said…
In any case, I believe the issue still remains: Complexity does not, as far as I can tell, always imply design, and therefore a complex natural system does not necessarily have to be created by a god.
Why and how does complexity not imply design?
At 1:04 AM, April 15, 2006,
Seanny McShawn said…
Why and how does complexity not imply design?
Design: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.
Complex: a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts.
Complexity is, of course, the state of being complex.
I walk through Queen's Park in downtown Toronto a couple of times a week. There is a decidedly large number of trees there, well over 300 of them, all very old, and all with a very complex system of roots. One would likely be amazed at what a cross-section of the ground there would reveal. The roots of one tree, alone, do not seem particularly complex. Really, these big wooden beasts are just extending their little feeding aparati to soak up as many nutrients as possible. Yet, the entire structure of roots that have occurred as a result of so many trees looking for food is quite complex. These masses of tree roots were not designed. There was no common intention behind them, or a collective desire to criss-cross and form such seeming patterns. In fact, if there were to be a design, it would make more sense for them to grow in straighter lines, not criscrossing one another, so that they might maximize food intake. Are these massive numbers of criss-crossing roots not complex? If they are complex, is there an overreaching design behind the complexity? How do you know?
What about weather patterns or cave formations?
So the ball is in your court now: Why and how does complexity imply design?
At 1:08 PM, April 15, 2006,
David Ketter said…
These masses of tree roots were not designed. There was no common intention behind them, or a collective desire to criss-cross and form such seeming patterns. In fact, if there were to be a design, it would make more sense for them to grow in straighter lines, not criscrossing one another, so that they might maximize food intake. Are these massive numbers of criss-crossing roots not complex? If they are complex, is there an overreaching design behind the complexity? How do you know?
What you describe here is, indeed, complex. However, could the tree just "evolve" to become so complex? After all, it is "simply" looking for nutrients, but the complexity of it all indicates design. How so? Trees - anywhere - begin with a seed - whether that comes by the naturally complex process of spreading from a parent tree or an interventive action on the part of a human planting it. In each case, that seed grows with a decidedly complex process and sprouts seeds of its own...the engineering of its spread being so genius that how could it possible be chance?
There is no recognizable pattern, to be sure, but it's the design behind the process that brings that complexity to full fruition.
At 1:46 AM, April 17, 2006,
Seanny McShawn said…
My question:
If they are complex, is there an overreaching design behind the complexity? How do you know?
Your answer:
the engineering of its spread being so genius that how could it possible be chance?
Simply because this seems unlikely to you does not make it impossible.
In essence, most of my question remains unanswered. You stated that you believed the tree root system to be complex. You only went further than that to say that you couldn't imagine how a tree isn't designed, and thus that the tree root system must have been designed/the result of design too. Also, the matter of cave formations and weather patterns remains unaddressed.
So far, nothing has been shown to imply that complexity implies design, only that you believe complexity exists.
At 5:43 PM, April 19, 2006,
David Ketter said…
Simply because this seems unlikely to you does not make it impossible.
You know, it's not a matter of it "seeming" unlikely. The fact remains that is it very unlikely. In statistics, we refer to this situation as being "statistically significant" - meaning that we must conclude that our results could not have come about by chance alone.
So far, nothing has been shown to imply that complexity implies design, only that you believe complexity exists.
Look around you, man! "The heavens declare the glory of God..." - ancient humans could see this fact - and they had one of two responses: worship nature or a god/goddess that influenced any particular aspect of it or worship its Creator.
As for weather patterns and cave formations, it's not totally random...statistically significant? Yes, but that defies the idea that it's simply chance.
At 12:30 AM, April 23, 2006,
Seanny McShawn said…
In statistics, we refer to this situation as being "statistically significant" - meaning that we must conclude that our results could not have come about by chance alone.
And so you've immediately thrown up your hands and declared that "God did it." Me, I'm not happy with that answer, especially when it hasn't sufficed on so many occasions in the past.
Look around you, man! "The heavens declare the glory of God..." - ancient humans could see this fact - and they had one of two responses: worship nature or a god/goddess that influenced any particular aspect of it or worship its Creator.
I hope you're not implying that we should turn to the findings of prehistoric man to determine the nature of our universe. In addition to their observed fact that God is responsible for creating the world/universe, they also "observed" that the Earth was flat, and possibly resting on top of an never-ending stack of really big turtles. Their track-record for first impressions is not one that I'm going put much stock in. I'll stick with the guys and gals that have centuries of research to back them up.
As for weather patterns and cave formations, it's not totally random...statistically significant? Yes, but that defies the idea that it's simply chance.
And if they're not totally random? Perhaps cave formations are a result of combinations of running water, huge quantities of time, geological movement and any number of other things. There are explanations, I'm sure, for the behaviour of all of these factors. But where does design enter the picture? In the behaviour of these different elements in forming the cave? In the introduction of these elements in the area such that they'll form a cave? In the placement of these elements such that they'll eventually be introduced to the area such that they'll form a cave? How far back do we go? And if you can't pinpoint where the design starts or stops, how do you know that it's happening at all?
There are so many factors involved in these things that they seem impossible to account for and keep track of. Are they random? Is a random state possible? If we keep encountering incomplete explanations that require the research to take a further step back to examine the sources, undoubtedly the results will seem random. But is design implied? Have we stepped far back enough that we can account for God? I still see no direct evidence for it. Any implications of design that I've seen can imply other causes just as easily.
Where is the conclusive evidence?
At 7:22 AM, April 25, 2006,
David S. MacMillan III said…
Hey all,
Seanny had a very good point regarding complexity. Tree roots are definitely complicated, but they were not specifically designed by an Intelligent Designer.
The issue is the chance of a particular complex situation happening randomly. In the case of tree roots, it doesn't matter what orientation they fall under as long as they are, indeed, random. If there are 10^15 ways the tree roots could possibly be arranged, then you have 10^15 chances out of 10^possibilities - or a 1 out of 1 chance of getting something.
Check out my latest post.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home