If you happen to be reading this blog, chances are you have at least heard of the "Watchmaker Argument" or "Argument From Design" before. The concept has a long philosophical history, but it is most often discussed in connection to William Paley who invoked the argument to open his book Natural Theology. For those unfamiliar with the work, Paley states that if you were to happen across a watch as you were crossing a field you would immediately recognize it as the product of a designer. So too, Paley argues, is design manifest and detectable in nature. I am not as concerned with Paley's watch as his stone, however. The opening of the first chapter of Natural Theology reads;
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 any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer.
The mundane stone is juxtaposed next to the more interesting watch, the origins of the stone being of little consequence. What could anyone say about the history of a bit of rock? In 1802 Paley's off-hand dismissal of the lowly stone may have passed without much notice, the science of geology still being relatively immature during that time despite the researches of naturalists in earlier centuries, but seemingly insignificant stones cannot be so easily overlooked today.
While the science of geology might not be the most thrilling to the average person (if only it were otherwise!), knowledge of the history of the earth would allow whomever stubbed their toe on a stone to say more about it than Paley did. The observer might first try to identify the rock as being igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic, the relatively simple designation of one of these types immediately offering some clues to the story of the stone. If our hypothetical observer was lucky there would be other stones lying around too, and the nature of these stones could further help identify the origins of the first. If the stone was found among a group of varying stones and boulders of different size and composition, for instance, it could designate the presence of glacial till and hence the ancient passing of a glacier through the area. Every stone has a different story to tell, despite the short shrift Paley gave his hypothetical chunk of rock.
Despite the greater understanding of nature since Paley's time it seems that many people are still doing what Paley did; fixating upon supposed evidence of design but ignoring what the "book of Nature" actually reveals. Certain organisms or their structures are claimed to be "too complex" to have evolved, but no matter how much we may admire the intricacy of cellular processes or be in awe of the movement of a galloping horse, an understanding of nature is all-too-often missing from such amazement. People throw around the phrase "I'm not a scientist" as if it's equivalent to "Not in the face!" when they approach the ever-changing designs natural selection has produced, and this simple disclaimer about their own lack of background is seen as sufficient to cover any mistakes they may make in trying to find a role for an Architect in nature.
Indeed, creationist arguments are passed down from one generation of pastors and priests to the next, the pulpit being used for the promulgation of ill-founded attempts to find something, anything, that shows the manifest work of God in the natural world. Passages from the Bible like Romans 1:20 state "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse," leading some to try to give God some elbow room in a natural world that leaves no vestige of divine intervention. Proteins that coincidentally bear a resemblance to a religious symbol and the vast beauty of the universe, the unimaginably big and the intricately tiny, are both used to inspire awe but not to bring about understanding. What good are these examples if they do nothing but put the easily-convinced at ease?
More than any misunderstanding about the natural world, however, creationism is a pernicious threat as it makes it easy to parrot preachers without much thought. I wonder how many people truly believe that the Bible says that the Creation began in the year 4004 B.C. The book itself says no such thing. The date, calculated by James Ussher in the middle of the 17th century, was another attempt in a long line of scholarly endeavors to chronicle not only the events in the Bible but also all of human history. In order to do this Ussher had to pick which Biblical sources he would use and even had to go outside the holy book to fill in gaps (you cannot simply add up genealogies or the reigns of kings; doing so won't even close the gap between the Old and New Testaments), and it puzzles me why no one among the current crop of creationists has seen it fit to give another go at trying to calculate the antiquity of the globe. I have no doubt that whatever number was produced would be at variance with what nature itself has shown to be true, but at least I could say they were trying and there would be something to discuss. Instead Ussher's chronology is presented as if God entrusted this date to Moses and it is to be found somewhere in scripture.
I suppose that the aspect of creationism that I find so bothersome is the way in which it can so quickly shut down inquiry. Over the past several years I have taken time to sit down and carefully read the arguments of those who cling so tightly to their interpretation of the Bible that they strangle the very religion that they are attempting to protect and I have found nothing inspiring or comforting. There is no grandeur in their particular view of life, the works of modern creationists peddling cheap and unsatisfying answers to those who feel threatened by life's machinations through the course of Deep Time. Creationist organizations continuously pump out a steady stream of anti-science sludge that aim to "arm" the reader with all the answers they will ever need in 150 pages or less, but never is there the admonishment that the reader holds a responsibility to learn more about nature. Contrast such an impoverished view with these words written by T.H. Huxley to Charles Kingsley;
Science seems to me to teach in the highest and strongest manner the great truth which is embodied in the Christian conception of entire surrender to the will of God. Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. I have only begun to learn content and peace of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this.
For those who hunger and thirst for answers about the natural world, creationism offers no food nor drink. The authoritarian thrust of creationist pundits is so heavily concerned with the allegiance to doctrine that the "course of Creation" is little more than an afterthought; as long as people believe than the rest is accessory. Make no mistake, scientific inquiry has not answered all questions about the natural world, but only through it can anyone "follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads." Such virtues are rarely honored by modern churches, however, and I fear that too many people have become satisfied with being too-easily satisfied.
- Log in to post comments
Overstatement. You're mistaking the noisy for the majority.
Scott; I disagree. From what I have seen many churches are primarily concerned with growing their own communities; being relevant but also not stepping on too many toes. Evolution (and the interaction between science and religion in general) is a thorny issue that many churches avoid and by being silent they are also sending the message that faith, above all, is important and anything else is secondary. I'm not just talking about the "loud" creationists but also many of the modern churches that don't want to offend anyone by discussing some of the issues I mentioned above.
In fact, the silence from "moderate" churches worries me almost as much from the louder ones committed to creationism. If they find no conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs, why keep being silent? Just because a church is not outwardly concerned with creationism does not mean that it is necessarily "friendly" to science and so I think my argument still stands.
A while back, after I read Stephen King's novel Salem's Lot, I was browsing the relevant Wikipedia pages when I came across this:
I was immediately struck by the thought that this is also a pretty good analysis of how Creationism spreads. There are a very few Type Ones (oddly enough, mostly with the Initial KH ... I've sometime wondered how different Jerry Harris's career trajectory might have been had his parents named him Kerry :-)). Down at the bottom, are the many Type Threes who are really passive recipients of Creationism, and who in my experience are usually very ready to hear an alternative point of view provided it's brought with respect rather than hostility.
But what I want to find a way to do is reach the Type Twos. I'm talking about church leaders who would, if they were in a different job, be Type Threes, but who feel that as part of their job description it's incumbent on them to pass Creationism on to their congregations. It's distressing to the scientific Christian how common this is: I've known excellent church leaders, intelligent people, who have a blind-spot in this area -- yet my hunch is that many or maybe even most would, like Type Threes, be open to hearing the scientific perspective given the chance. I'm pretty sure that a couple of church leaders known to me are less likely to talk Creationism from the pulpit these days, having talked with me, than they would have been previously. That has to be good. Everyone wins (except people whose initials are KH).
So my mission is to seek out Type Twos and ... well, of course, this is where the vampire analogy breaks down pretty badly. In a Stephen King novel, I'd drive stakes through their hearts. But I would prefer the approach of talking to them over a beer.
@Michael: "So my mission is to seek out Type Twos"
I think there's an even more basic approach here, which is to find and target "hubs". Rogue evangelists and creationists thrive by targeting low-income, poorly-educated communities through churches that act as community hubs. Building up a relationship with some of these churches would ultimately have far more usefulness than the current technique where we send P.Z. Myers out to shout and call them all idiots.
THE BIGGER PICTURE IN THE DEBATE ON DARWINISM IS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for aliens seeding the earth.
There is a better way.
The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.
A review:
"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. Gone are the nonexistent particles once thought to be complementary to the electron and proton (examples: neutrons, neutrinos, photons, mesons, quarks, Z's, bosons, etc.) and a host of other pseudo particles.
To the curious, scientists sought to explain Atomic theory by introducing fantastic particles that supposedly came tumbling out of the impact between two particles, when in fact, the supposed finds were simply particulate debris. There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron. All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God.
Introducing the scheme of coincidence, which by definition, "is the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. This is the mischievous tenet of electron interpretation which states that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an i from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.
The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.
Continue your education by reading The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com
Um, what? I'm saddened this is real.
For those unfamiliar with C. David Parson's "Quest for Right," he sent me a copy of his book. I had requested it at a time when I was considering running for school board in my local district. C. David's claim that his theories are scientific and in no way to be confused with Creationism intrigued me.
I have read parts of the 1st book, and none of it is based on any sort of science. In fact, I critique it in Quest for Right is Doing it Wrong.
Back to the original post, which is excellent as usual. I still contend that if Paley had been able to see what has been learned about the natural world, he would not have put forth his "Watchmaker" argument. He was no stupid man, and would have most likely been intrigued by evolution.
Creationism, is yes, both bad science and bad theology and I wonder how people cling to it.
While I like the idea of "quantum magic", mostly because of the mental image I get of Emma Watson waving a wand and shouting "Heisenberga!", the funniest part of this is how it uses the word elucidation.
The author of "Quest is Right" just loves to post an advertisement for his books where it does not fit - he did so in a post on my blog, and I declined to publish it...
That Parsons idiot posted the same thing on my blog. I just left it there as it looks so much like a joke.
By the way Brian, coming from Ireland I've often wondered about my fellow countryman Ussher's contribution to the age of the earth debate. Why does nobody refer to the Jewish calender - which is calculated in pretty much the same way as Ussher's chronology ?
http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm
Another point regarding design. You are quite correct with your geology analogy but I would take it one step further. Is there any possible way for a IDiot to conclude that any object is not designed. They make a big fuss about design being manifest within objects (the fact that intracellular molecules function in a machine like fashion, for instance) yet - if you take the design hypothesis as a given (stick with me for a second!)given our limited understanding of the universe how one you say that ANY object is designed or not.
Are we not like ants walking across the Rosetta stone?
How is specified complexity supposed to work when dealing with an infinitely complex creator?
OK (Idiot mode switched off) back to normal again.
Its just question I would like answered by an ID proponent - give an example of something that is NOT designed - and the proof that backs this assertion.
I agree with Brian on this: my experiences are admittedly anecdotal, but in conversations with Protestant Christians on four continents, I have more often than not found a certain sympathy towards biblical literalism - even if the people in question are generally quite liberally minded. This may be a matter of plumping for the familiar without a real consideration of the issues, but the the fact that familiar creationist talking points about randomness and "just" theories often pop up leads me suspect - rather worryingly - not.
This was fantastic, Brian, thank you!
Chris wrote:
I think you have hit the nail on the head there, Chris. Many people who would be considered as Creationists are in that position very much my default, not having had a coherent alternative offered to them in a form they can take (i.e. not PZ Myers calling them all idiots). My conviction is that a huge proportion of these Creationists-by-default are more than ready to hear the alternative.
Michael,
So what's the alternative? Neo-Darwinism has been around for almost a century, and yet they still don't get it. The problem isn't "lack of alternate", it's that science requires them to reject fundamental tenets of their theology. You might as well call them idiots - you're not going to be able to argue them out of the fundaments of their world-view.
You can't argue someone out of a religion. Conversion only happens when their world-view has failed them spectacularly.
See? This is a case where the PZ tactic is entirely appropriate.
I call bullshit. I can literally bring you a neutron on a plate. You can even see a single photon with your own eyes (if you've been in the dark for a few hours). Neutrinos, mesons, quarks, and bosons (including Z and photon) are similarly undeniable. The "particulate debris" dismissal is intellectual laziness at its purest -- have a closer look at this "debris", and you'll see the same particles in it again and again! You will never see chaos!
You don't know what you're talking about, so shut up and go back to reading. There's a lot of knowledge out there that you don't even know exists. :-|
The point made by a few commenters here about IDCers being in the minority, and I guess not to be too concerned with, therefore, misses the point.
IDC pushers are committed to a mission, no matter how long it takes, to impregnate their religious beliefs into the minds of school children. And as amazing and disgusting as it is to me, they are meeting with some success. IDC advocates have been and continue to infiltrate local and state school boards and national and state legislatures. And despite the frequent rate of scientific announcements that continue to solidify the honesty of biological evolution, they are showing no signs at all of letting up on their most noxious quest.
Brian's point that the majority segment of organized religion that is at odds with the goals, beliefs and methods of the IDCers is failing to step forward and to help delegitimize IDC, is an accurate assessment. And by such failing they are aiding and abetting the IDC movement--and contributing to the ignorance of school children.
If it's true that a single dedicated person can have a remarkable effect upon the direction of humanity, then the fact that IDCers are in the minority is pointless.
Very nice post, Brian; thank you.
--
In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness. -- Carl Sagan
David M. said, "I can literally bring you a neutron on a plate."
No quantum magic allowed!
The following text concerning the "neutron" is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.
"The year 1932 remained in the spotlight in that another important piece of the puzzle was uncovered, hence, completing the phenomenon of a charged particle's reversal moment. But, once again, the scene had been set via a previous prediction that would serve to veil the true character of the find. Sir Rutherford and other elementary physicists suggested that the current two-particle atom might be missing an element. The third particle would be of the same weight as a proton, but bear no electric charge. The hypothetical particle was christened a neutron. Thus, the stage was set for the mislabeling of an additional phenomenon.
The error was set in motion as two German elementary physicists, Bothe and Becker, bombarded the metal beryllium with strut bullets. When a strut struck a beryllium protruband, an impact energy wave propagated throughout the family cluster ushering sensitive members into a reversal moment. While the discharging of struts was not understood, it was expected. But, what Bothe and Becker could not have known is that a reversed-charged energy cell manifesting in an open field is discharged differently than one located in the prohibited area between two buttresses in place."
Want to know what the new terms: struts, protruband, reversal moment, reversed-charged energy cell, etc., signify? Continue your education by reading The Quest for Right, a 7-book series on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, vs. Darwinism. No quantum magic allowed.
More Info: http://questforright.com
David M. said, "You can even see a single photon with your own eyes (if you've been in the dark for a few hours)."
No quantum magic allowed; this is the real world.
The following text is taken from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right:
The controversy surrounding the "photon" began when Heinrich Hertz discovered the photoelectric effect in 1887. Hertz found that a neutrally charged zinc platewatch the terminologybecame electrically charged when illuminated by ultraviolet light. It seemed that light had knocked or chipped electrons out of the zinc in an instance of photoemission. As a result of a great number of negative charged electrons being knocked out of their respective shells, the plate began to acquire a positive electrical charge. Note: The summation is in line with the discredited theory that each proton must be accompanied by an electron in order to make an atom electrically neutral. Since electrons were being chipped away, leaving an imbalance of positively charged ions, the obvious conclusion was that the plate was acquiring a positive charge. Back to reality: The term electrically charged is a counterfeit proposal. A loss of a relatively few open buttresses does not cause a metal plate to acquire a positive charge; the constitute molecules of all objects in the universe consist of positive protrubands and negative buttressesmore later.
The photoelectric effect raised the curiosity of scientists who wanted to know how light could knock an electron out of a metal plate. During the ongoing research, several curious aspects were noted. First and foremost, researchers discovered that the photoelectric effect is tied to a specific frequency threshold; those frequencies of light beneath the threshold did not produce the effect. For example, if the plate is illuminated with red light, regardless of the intensity, photoemission does not occur. The higher frequencies of yellow, blue, and violet are still beneath the threshold and will have the same noneffect: electrons will not be released. But when the plate is illuminated by ultraviolet light, photoelectrons are released; even a very weak beam will produce the photoelectric effect.
To further complicate the mystery of photoemission, buttresses (the new architecture) are released with varying energies; the higher the frequency of light above the threshold, the greater the speed of a buttress when ejected. More clearly, if a photoelectric plate is illuminated with light just above the ultraviolet threshold, buttresses are released with minimum energy. The release occurs regardless of whether the beam is very feeble or of high intensity. If the intensity of the light is increased, a greater number of photobuttresses (the correct nomenclature) will be released, but the maximum energy remains the same. When the plate is illuminated with a light of a higher frequency still, the buttresses are released with an even higher energy. If the intensity is doubled, the number of ejected buttresses will also double, but again the ejection speed remains constant. The chain of events may be clarified by simply stating that the maximum energy or speed of a photobuttress is determined by the wavelength of light and not its intensity.
Due to Rutherford and Bohr's faulty architecture, no practical theory in wave mechanics has, to date, been developed to explain why the maximum energy of a photobuttress is determined by the wavelength of light. Scientists reasoned that, if photoemission was indeed an incidence of light waves, it should have been released in a smooth continuous action instead of having different energies. The sentiment proposes that the maximum energy of a photobuttress is independent of the frequency of light. Unfortunately, observations of the phenomenon are adverse to the council's ruling.
In 1905 Albert Einstein released a 17-page paper suggesting that the wave theory of light may be incomplete. Borrowing from Planck's quantum theory, Einstein surmised that light might be concentrated in little bundles of photons. He further suggested the possibility that each wavelength of light was associated with a photon of a different size. The prospect scored those particles associated with ultraviolet light to be of a sufficient size and energy to physically knock a buttress out of a photoelectric plate. Those light frequencies beneath the threshold were associated with smaller particles not having the ability to chip out an electron even if the plate were illuminated with light of high intensity.
The imaginative concept could be likened to a small boy trying to knock an apple out of a tree with a handful of pebbles. If the pebbles were too small, he could bombard the tree all day and never knock out an apple. But, as he began to use larger stones, he would find that a direct hit would impart its energy to the apple, breaking it free. With the illustration in mind, imagine a beam of light being a shower of particles bombarding the photoelectric plate. If a particle associated with a red wavelength scores a direct hit on a buttress in place, its energy is not sufficient for photoemission to occur. But when a larger photon, one associated with ultraviolet light, scores a direct hit, the target is imparted with sufficient energy for it to escape. Therefore, if the energy of the photon were inversely proportional to the wavelength of light, the photobuttress would be imparted with the varying energies observed when a photoelectric plate is illuminated by light of different wavelengths.
Although Einstein offered a compelling explanation for the photoelectric effect, he introduced a hitherto unknown and completely hypothetical elementary particle to physics. Unbeknownst to the famous physicist, his theory was totally dependent on the incorrect architecture of the atom and the nonexistent orbiting electrons. The fact is like taking the pebbles from the little boy who was trying to knock the apples out of the tree. In the absence of both photons and orbiting electrons, photoemission does not occur as summarized. Copyright The Quest for Right.
Do you want to know the truth about the photoelectric effect? Continue your education by reading The Quest for right. Got answers! http://questforright.com
David M. said, "Neutrinos, mesons, quarks, and bosons (including Z and photon) are similarly undeniable."
Discover the truth about these mystical particles -- none of them exist -- by reading The Quest for Right.
Things will never be the same after this. http://questforright.com
P.S., Did David M. really say, "intellectual laziness at its purest?" For the discerning, a period of some 26 years of intense study and investigation went into the 7-book series on origins. The scientific merit of the several volumes cannot be legitimately questioned. The Quest for Right offers 7 volumes as proof. Note: One reporter exclaimed, The Quest for Right is "probably the greatest undertaking of the 21st Century." Hardly, laziness.
Is it just me, or have I just walked into a C. David Parsons infomercial? CDP, methinks thou dost protest too much. Throwing more verbiage at your idea doesn't make it so.
As for Paley: His watch analogy is a load of $#!+ from the word go. A watch doesn't grow. A watch doesn't adapt. A watch doesn't respond to its surroundings. A watch doesn't give birth to little baby watches. A watch doesn't hunt for food, fight for territory, die of disease, or hide from watch-eating predators. It literally doesn't have the sense to come in out of the rain and save itself from rusting away. It can't do any of those things because it's an inert, inanimate object.
Every time anyone brings up the watch analogy, I want to ram their head through the nearest wall, or at least hang them by their feet out the nearest 12th-floor window and not pull them back in until they've said 100 times, "A WATCH IS NOT A LIVING ORGANISM!"
End of rant. We now return you to your irregularly unscheduled infomercial already in progress. YMMV; AWYSB.