If the earth and all living things were created by an intelligent designer - God, who created this designer? And if God just evolved from 'nothing', then it is possible that the earth similarly evolved, writes James Onen
Robert Kalumba's Sunday article "Does God Really Exist?" (June 28, 2009) seems to have really worked up a storm among religious circles. His article has attracted a number of responses, the most recent ones being one from Mayanja Nkangi (Sunday Vision August 23 - "It's blasphemous...") and that of Brian Drileonzi in Sunday Life of August 23 titled "Where did everything come from in the first place?" Mr Nkangi believes such questions about God dare not be asked to begin with. Sorry, Mr Nkangi, but in this day and age every proposition - whether political, social, scientific or religious - must be subjected to rigorous intellectual scrutiny for it to be worthy of consideration. The draconian medieval times are long gone, Sir! Brian Drileonzi, on the other hand, attempted to use science to show that all the evidence points to there being an intelligent designer of the universe i.e. God. I wish to address Mr Drileonzi's arguments.
There is an inherent problem with "design" arguments, that is, to argue that God must exist because of apparent "intelligent" design in nature. It does not help the believer who points to the marvels of nature and say they must be designed by an intelligent being. Why? Because the assumed rationale behind such an argument is that: "Seemingly complex things need designers, because they can't arise naturally - therefore the universe/earth/life too must have an intelligent designer."
But if this is true, then, by the same logic, wouldn't it also be true that any designer capable of such complex designs would himself have to be extremely complex? If so, then who "intelligently" designed the intelligent designer? If a believer says this cosmic intelligent designer (i.e. God) was not designed, then he has conceded that it is possible for a complex thing to exist without having been "intelligently" designed.
Hence the very rationale behind the design argument collapses. On the other hand, if the cosmic designer was designed, then, we'd have to ask, by whom, or what? But if God was designed, then he's not God anymore - is he? It's quite unlikely that any believer would concede this point.
A believer might choose to insist that God is the only complex thing that does not require design. But that is an assumption one is not even entitled to hold, given that God is the very thing whose existence one is trying to prove using the design argument! The believer would be guilty of fallacy of circular reasoning. The design argument thus ends up working against theism, rather than for it.
Creation/evolution
From his article, it is clear Mr Drileonzi subscribes to Young Earth Creationism. According to Wikipedia, it is the belief that the heavens, earth and life on earth were created by direct acts of God during a short period, sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account.
It should be noted that anyone accepting the claims of Creationism as true is in complete conflict; not only with evolutionary biology but also everything we know from physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology and archaeology - whose findings are completely incompatible with Creationism (including the global flood myth). A good number of fundamentalist Christians have realised this problem and have opted to abandon any respect for the scientific method all together, declaring science a tool of "Satan". Mr Drileonzi might be wise to follow suit - because he can't have it both ways. If he's going to use science to prove his case, then he has to stick to science all the way - not just when it suits him.
Mr Drileonzi tried to attack evolution by saying, among other things, that there were no beneficial mutations. What? There are plenty! For example; antibiotic resistance in bacteria (for bacteria), anti-malarial drug resistance (beneficial to plasmodium) and cases of human immunity to HIV. Indeed, studies have shown that people with the highest level of HIV immunity share a pair of mutated genes - one in each chromosome - that prevent their immune cells from developing a receptor that lets the Aids virus break in. So, what is Mr Drileonzi talking about?
Laws of nature
Mr Drileonzi makes a category error in his discussion of the "laws" of nature. He thinks because there are laws of nature, there must be a law-giver for those laws. When physicists talk about laws of gravity, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, etc, they are referring to descriptive laws. Descriptive laws (in physics) are merely laws that have been formulated to represent or describe certain regularities we observe about nature. Prescriptive laws on the other hand are "decreed" or "prescribed" by an authority, e.g. traffic laws. Thus, prescriptive laws require "law-makers" - but descriptive laws or laws of nature don't. Mr Drileonzi mixes up descriptive laws with prescriptive laws and uses this to argue for the existence of a cosmic law-giver. In doing so, he commits the fallacy of equivocation, and invalidates his argument.
Precedent shows that most things for which supernatural entities were posited as causes in the past were later found to have natural explanations that better explained them, as our scientific knowledge advanced. It is this precedent which accords validity to the position of increasingly many people - that positing God as an explanation for mysteries is unwise, unnecessary, unjustified and counter-productive.
It's highly unlikely that "God" exists.
Comments 1 to 5 of 8 Post a comment
I believe there is an intelligent designer. Look at computers and the internet for instance, one day computers and the internet may become artificially intelligent. Perhaps also, those artificially intelligent computers will also have the same debate as we do about an intelligent designer. If an intelligent designer of a computer is man, by the same logic it is reasonable to suggest that an intelligent designer of the universe is possible.
Science has the argument that all life comes about by random mutation as separate from everything else. This is wrong, for we can view the human body as being a microcosem of the universe, in that if any part of the body decided to mutate randomly and do its own thing the body would quickly collapse into chaos and die. There is an intelligent designer behind the human body that keeps it working in harmony, this is in conflict with the idea of science that does not allow cooperation, harmony and intelligence in systems such as the body, jungles or the universe.
The opening..."If the earth and all living things were created by an intelligent designer - God, who created this designer? And if God just evolved from 'nothing', then it is possible that the earth similarly evolved, writes James Onen."
There is an inherent problem with "design" arguments, that is, to argue that God must exist because of apparent "intelligent" design in nature. REPLY: Intelligent Design does not argue in favor of GOD. It argues for a measurable, scientific approach to whether our universe was deigned randomly or by intelligence...whether that intelligence is the God of the Bible or whether a a force from Star Wars.
Because the rationale behind such an argument is that: "Seemingly complex things need designers, because they can't arise naturally - therefore the universe/earth/life too must have an intelligent designer." REPLY: Okay. I agree with this.
But if this is true, then, by the same logic, wouldn't it also be true that any designer capable of such complex designs would himself have to be extremely complex? REPLY: No it does not. Likely but not assumed.
If so, then who "intelligently" designed the intelligent designer? REPLY: That is not the argument being presented. We are observing our universe and we can leave the ID (whoever he or she or it may be) to His/Her/Its own debate.
Hence the very rationale behind the design argument collapses. On the other hand, if the cosmic designer was designed, then, we'd have to ask, by whom, or what? But if God was designed, then he's not God anymore - is he? It's quite unlikely that any believer would concede this point.
REPLY: Whether believer or unbeliever I do not concede this point. If God were designed (which is not the point of this argument -- or at least not at the beginning -- then how did you become the definer of who God is? "But that is an assumption one is not even entitled to hold."
A believer might choose to insist that God is the only complex thing that does not require design.
REPLY: See above.
But that is an assumption one is not even entitled to hold, given that God is the very thing whose existence one is trying to prove using the design argument! The believer would be guilty of fallacy of circular reasoning.
REPLY: circular reasoning has a legitimate place within scientific circles as well as philosophical. Darwin twisted himself into a pretzel attemtpting to make survival of the fittest result in a benign nature of man...although his writings smack of mankind evolving from primitive tribes to sophisticated tribes by elimination of the weak.
The design argument thus ends up working against theism, rather than for it.
REPLY: Huh?
Thanks for letting me post...this was enjoyable.
Not everyone believes in gods.
Of course, you have every right to believe whatever you choose to believe. I am not against religion. But when Brian Drileonzi (in an earlier article) put forward bad arguments to show that God exists, I felt compelled to respond telling him why I disagree. There is nothing wrong with that, is there? I am glad my article has stimulated debate. My friends, the godless are now among you even in Africa! You better get used to it. They are not your enemies. They are people who simply possess a different point of view than yours. Nothing to be upset about. We all have differing views on many issues - the 'God' question simply being one among many such issues.
Snickels has basically missed most of my points and portrays himself to have disproved me, but has he really? I dont think so. I wish to show him why.
SNICKELS said: Intelligent Design does not argue in favor of GOD. It argues for a measurable, scientific approach to whether our universe was deigned randomly or by intelligence...whether that intelligence is the God of the Bible or whether a force from Star Wars.
MY REPLY: While it is true that Intelligent Design does not specifically imply God, the author if the article I was responding to, WAS SPECIFICALLY using intelligent design theory to prove god. My critique of ID therefore was in relation to Brian Drilieonzis claim that ID somehow proved gods existence. You can read his article here:
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/sunday_life/Where_did_everything_co me_from_in_the_first_place_90099.shtml
Having said that, everyone knows that ID theory was devised to provide scientific justification for the Christian god. Please go read the WEDGE DOCUMENT from the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute ) for clarification (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf). It was on these and other grounds that Judge John E. Jones in his ruling at the Dover trails THREW OUT intelligent design as religion masquerading as science. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decis ion)
SNICKELS said: Whether believer or unbeliever I do not concede this point. If God were designed (which is not the point of this argument -- or at least not at the beginning -- then how did you become the definer of who God is? "But that is an assumption one is not even entitled to hold."
MY REPLY: Who am I to define God? I havent. Im simply critiquing the arguments for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, as has been defined by those that worship it (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3917) - the God that inspired the Bible, including the Creation and Flood story. If that definition of God is wrong then thanks for pointing out this fact. I suppose no such entity exists anyway. Im sure no Christian will agree with you, though.
SNICKELS said: Darwin twisted himself into a pretzel attemtpting to make survival of the fittest result in a benign nature of man...although his writings smack of mankind evolving from primitive tribes to sophisticated tribes by elimination of the weak.
MY REPLY: Can you cite a reference for this please? I think you just made this up. I dont recall Charles Darwin saying or implying any of these things in his writings.
Id be convinced if there was good evidence for the existence of God. I really would. I dont mean to be impolite, but I just have not seen anything resembling good evidence yet.
Cheers.
James Onen (author of the article)
I will suggest to these "NO GOD" advocates to go read the HOLY QUR,AN, which has the most scientific explaination of GOD and NATURE more than any other. After that, they can come back to us, lets talk, but for now they basically uninformed informers. ALIYU
This Mass-Energy stuff that we are made of is miracle stuff. It assembles itself into conscious entities. The material universe is an evolution machine, and like all machines, an artifact. Religious people have a 3 letter word for and entity capable of creating it: God. The fact that that begs the question is irrelevant- we have to beg the question somewhere. According to the astrophysicists, all the matter and energy came about all at once in a gigantic flash of light. Where have you heard that before?
Evolution is far more a proof of God than an alternative.
See All Comments