Recently, the Biology professor for Huntington University (Dr. Evans) made a presentation on Intelligent Design. In his presentation he made the case for Intelligent Design by laying out four arguments:
- The Argument from Cosmology
- The Argument from Origins
- The Argument from Biological (Irreducible) Complexity
- The Argument from Mind and Brain
A handout was passed around during the class, which I have made available here.
While I thought his presentation of the arguments was excellent, they were not very compelling. I will explain each of the arguments, and after that respond to them and show why they are not good reasons for believing in Intelligent Design.
The Argument from Cosmology
The universe has several dozen constants that dictate how everything within it operates and interacts. Among them, the cosmological constant appears to be the most finely-tuned parameter. If the value were off by just an infinitesimally small amount, then life in the universe could not have developed. From this we can reasonable conclude that an intelligent being must be behind the creation of the universe who was responsible for tuning this value and others. Otherwise, it seems highly improbable that a universe that caters to our existence could have sprung up out of pure, random chance.
Response
While the universe certainly might appear finely-tuned for us, it depends on your perspective. Based on our understanding of the universe, it actually makes a lot more sense to say that the universe is extremely hostile to our existence. Vast empty areas of space, extreme heat and cold, radiation, and other things stand in our way of flourishing in the universe. To go from saying the universe appears finely-tuned to it is finely-tuned is a large step to take. Instead, it seems far more probable that biological life has tuned itself to the conditions set up by the universe through the process of evolution.
Check out this video by Neil Tyson if you want to learn more about this problem.
One counter-argument people have made to the fine-tuned universe is the idea of an infinite number of universes. However, Intelligent Design proponents are right in criticizing this as an end-all response, because we have no evidence of other universes existing, just speculation that they do. To put this in perspective, though, here are some other things we don’t know:
- We don’t know if the constants accept other values (and to what degree).
- We don’t know that the values of the constants are selected by random chance, or defined according to some other thing (God, innate nature, etc).
- We don’t know if our universe is the only universe.
In addition, if you accept that the constants could have taken any value from 0 to ∞, then you run into a problem with probabilities. With statistics, you can’t talk about probabilities within an infinite set (if you assume that all the numbers have an equal chance of being selected). It is literally incoherent to say something like “Given this range of numbers from 0 to infinity, the chance of selecting a value between 50 and 60 is 1 in whatever.” because each value has an infinity low chance of being selected. It follows from this that the only way to make sense of the constants and the values given to them is to say that the number of values they could have taken are from a finite set.
Lastly, it is important to mention that the only possible universes that appear finely tuned are the ones in which intelligent life arises within them. If a universe arose that didn’t allow for intelligent life to develop, there would be no intelligence in that universe to ponder over how lucky they were. This idea is commonly referred to as the Weak Anthropic Principle.
The Argument from Origins
There are two parts to this argument. The first deals with the universe and the second with abiogenesis (how life developed from non-life):
- The Kalam Cosmological Argument states that since everything must have a cause for its existence, and the universe began to exist, then the universe must have a cause to its existence: God. The best explanation we have for how the universe began is the Big Bang theory, which supports the second premise in the Kalam argument.
- The likelihood of things like DNA, proteins, etc. coming about into existence out of random chance is extremely improbable. From this we should conclude that a creator must have intervened in order for life to form from non-life.
From this argument it seems reasonable for us to conclude that some creator formed the universe, and intervened in certain ways to allow for life to develop.
Response
Without getting too technical (and it does get technical quickly), there are several worries I have with the Kalam Argument. First, we don’t know enough about how causation works to make the assertion that the universe has a cause. The universe must have some sort of explanation for how it came about, but we don’t know enough about it to say that it came about through the typical process of causation. While causation may seem fairly trivial, it is something that is extremely complicated once you try explaining why it happens. Also, you can’t talk about anything “before” the Big Bang because time started when the universe formed. It’s hard for us to imagine causation occurring outside of time and space, at least in the typical sense of causation.
According to Intelligent Design, the probability that even the most simplest of proteins randomly came together is astonishing low. However, what Stephen Meyer and other Intelligent Design proponents seem to fail to realize is that evolution is not just a biological process, but a chemical one as well. It is ridiculous to think that a bunch of random particles could come together all at once by chance to form into a complete protein. But, given enough time, these particles could group together and form more complex molecules through chemical processes, and eventually form into proteins. The nature of these particles and how they react with one another given the laws of physics is an explanation for how very simple molecules could have eventually merged to form more complex proteins. Repeat this process with other required parts for life, add billions of years and many trillions upon trillions of interactions, and it is not improbable at all to suggest that this is how life arose.
A comprehensive list of responses to Behe’s arguments can be found here.
The Argument from Biological Complexity
Irreducible complexity is one of the most popular arguments given for Intelligent Design. Michael Behe, a major proponent of Intelligent Design, defines it like this:
A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
When investigating nature, people like Behe have found certain biological systems within animals that appear impossible to be explained through just the natural process of evolution. Charles Darwin himself thought the eye was a good example of this. From these sorts of examples, it seems reasonable for us to conclude that a creator being must have intervened in order for certain complex structures to have developed.
Response
Before explaining why Irreducible Complexity is not a good argument, I will first commend Michael Behe for not outright denying evolutionary theory as an explanation for the diversity of life we see on Earth. With that said, however, I and most all biologists would disagree with his idea that evolution can’t explain certain biological systems. The most popular example of this is the bacterial flagellum. Since publishing his book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe’s example of the flagellum has been argued against numerous amounts of times. Every other example that has been given as an irreducibly complex system has been strongly criticized. Without a time machine, it is impossible to prove definitively that a certain system arose through purely natural processes. However, none of the examples given as evidence for irreducible complexity have thus far shown to hold much weight.
At one point, Dr. Evans said that evolution only selects changes that are advantageous to survival. This is simply not true. While traits that are disadvantageous to a species will be removed through the process of natural selection, traits that are neither advantageous or disadvantageous may successfully be passed down through generations of a species. Continue this process, and more genetic changes can lead to producing a desirable overall trait that is a conglomeration of multiple traits that were not previously advantageous. Irreducible complexity asks for a system that is produced directly, but we know that biological and chemical evolution work gradually over time.
Lastly, a large majority of scientists reject irreducible complexity. Now, this is not a reason that it fails in and of itself. However, scientists are dedicated to testing new ideas regardless of their own biases, and so far it has failed to defend itself against the rigors of scientific inquiry.
The Argument from Mind and Brain
The idea that humans have an immaterial, eternal soul is something that is very common throughout all of human civilization. Descartes made this distinction by stating that since we can imagine ourselves to exist without our body, then our soul must be a separate and distinct thing from our physical body. In contrast, Materialism states that all that exists are physical things. However, there are many reasons to suggest that the mind is a separate thing as Descartes thought. This idea is known as substance dualism.
Here are several reasons to support the idea that the mind and body are separate:
- Studies have shown that concentrating on certain thoughts and intentions can actually lead to a physical change in the brain.
- Some people who have had Near Death Experiences have been able to recall events that happened while they were brain dead.
- The placebo effect has demonstrated to show just how powerful the mind is, and how it can influence the body.
- The psi effect is the idea that the mind can communicate with other minds or inanimate objects without physical contact or any normal way of communicating.
From these examples we should conclude that the mind is a separate (and powerful) thing that is distinct from our physical brains. This alludes to an intelligent creator of our minds that is also timeless and immaterial who created us in his own image.
Response
All of these points are misleading, disingenuous, incorrect, or just plain wrong. There are a whole numbers of things I could say about this particular argument, but I’ll do my best to only respond back to the aforementioned points.
Mind Changes Brain
It’s true that studies have shown physical changes in brains after a patient has focused on certain thoughts. However, this does absolutely nothing to support the claim that a mind exists. If anything, it shows that our brains are adaptable, and to a certain degree can change according to the stimuli we give it. Also, to make the claim that a mind exists and can interact with the physical realm, you need to provide a method of interaction between the two.
Near Death Experiences
No scientific tests have shown that NDEs are anything more than hallucinatory. Research has shown that experiences people have during a NDE can be replicated in test subjects who take hallucinogenic drugs like ketamine or dimethyltryptamine. People who claim to have had NDEs will believe that the experiences they had were real. Similarly, many people who have had vivid dreams believe the events that transpired in the dreams actually happened.
It’s fine if someone wants to believe that they had a real experience beyond this life, but if they want to persuade other people, the burden of proof is on their shoulders to show that their experience actually happened. So far, no one has been able to demonstrate this. Vague statements of saying you met a family member beyond the grave, or that you knew who was in the room while you were brain dead is not good evidence. During the periods of time before and after it is dead, a brain is likely to be undergoing some very abnormal processes, which could give rise to these bizarre experiences.
Placebo Effect
The placebo effect is real. However, the fact that it exists in no way supports the idea that souls exist. If anything, it shows just how powerful the brain is, and how it can work to benefit the person. Studies have demonstratively shown that by believing a medicine is going to make you better, even if the pill is a placebo, chemicals are released throughout your body that actually do help your body get better. Many placebos have been shown to coincide with the release of dopamine throughout the body.
Think of the effect like this: The brain is what controls pain, motor fatigue, and fever, among other things. By believing you are going to get better, these reactions can be calmed, reduced, or even removed through entirely natural processes within the body. To further support this, if you believe that you are only going to get worse, tests have shown that you are not as likely to get better. This supports the idea that the physical processes in the brain directly influence (to an extent) whether or not we will feel better, with or without a placebo or actual medicine.
The Psi Effect
I really don’t have much to say about this claim other than if it wants to be treated as credible, scientific tests must be done to show it occurs. I will however mention a challenge offered by a popular skeptic, James Randi. The challenge offers $1 million to anyone who is able to scientifically demonstrate any sort of paranormal power, be it through telepathy, supernatural powers, occult practices, or so on. So far, no one has claimed the prize, though many people have attempted and failed.
Conclusion
None of these examples seem to give any weight to the idea that there exists any sort of nonmaterial, eternal soul. Instead, the mind is better thought of as an emergent property that arises out of the physical processes in the brain. If you are at all interested in the subject of the mind and brain, I would highly recommend the book The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers.
Having an open mind about things is very important. However, just because we are open to new ideas does not allow us to reject reason, logic, and rational thinking. Of course things like NDEs and the psi effect could possibly be real, but until there is scientific evidence to suggest otherwise, these ideas can’t be treated as factually true.
Further reading/viewing:
- TalkOrigins – A site dedicated to explaining the arguments presented by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents.
- Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again) by H. Allen Orr – Article written as a response to Michael Behe’s book.
- The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution – Yes, this book is written by the infamous Richard Dawkins. However, Dawkins explicitly states in the beginning of the book that he doesn’t intend to talk about God, but instead focus on the evidence for evolution. If you know me in person, I am more than happy to lend my copy of the book to you!
- The Fine Tuning Argument Debunked – A short video discussing some of the problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument.
- Irreducible Complexity Demystified – Responses to some of the other supposed irreducibly complex systems referenced by Michael Behe.
- BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos – An awesome documentary on how beauty, order, and complexity arise from chaos.
If you have any thoughts, questions, or comments, feel free to sound off below in the Comments section! Also, if you have any links to articles or videos that are hosted online that are relevant to Intelligent Design, feel free to share those as well.
#
Chris,
I just wanted to point out that, simply because a set of numbers extends from 0 to infinity, it doesn’t mean that we can say nothing about the set of numbers from a probabilistic point of view.
A specific example that comes to mind is the normal distribution. The domain of the normal distribution is the set of all real numbers, which extends from negative infinity to positive infinity. However, even though the domain is infinite, we can still say that, if we choose a number at random, there is a 68% chance that it will be within one normal distribution of the mean.
Of course, this does not necessarily have any bearing on intelligent design; I just wanted to point out that it is still possible for us to make statements about the probability of numbers that extend from 0 to infinity.
#
Hey Tim, thanks for the response. I’m a bit rusty when it comes to probability and statistics. The section you mentioned came from a response we read in class to the Fine-Tuning Argument.
I’m okay with saying at least one thing about probabilities and infinite sets: The mean of a doubly infinite set [-∞,∞] is 0. However, with the fine-tuning argument, the constants are given values within the set [0,∞]. In order to have a normal distribution, we need to figure out the mean and standard deviation. With this series of numbers being infinite, how do we get those values? Is the mean of the set ½∞?
Furthermore, the chance that a random number is selected in an infinite set is 1/∞. Isn’t this effectively zero? In a set, the sum of the probabilities should equal 1. With an infinite set, it doesn’t seem like that happens, but it instead adds up to ∞.
If you’re talking about using probabilities with infinite sets in a purely conceptual sense, then I think I understand what you’re saying, and agree with you. However, the values given to the cosmological constant and others are real values. I’ve been reading up on the relevant material since I saw your comment, but I haven’t found much on this specific topic. If you have any links that you think would be helpful, feel free to post them!
#
Chris,
Thank you for the link to the article.
In your original post, you mentioned the following:
“In addition, if you accept that the constants could have taken any value from 0 to ∞, then you run into a problem with probabilities. With statistics, you can’t talk about probabilities within an infinite set.”
That would be true if all values had an equal probability of being selected. Turning to the article you provided, the author mentions the following:
“The critical point is that the Euclidean measure function described above is not normalizable. If we assume every value of every variable to be as likely as every other—more precisely, if we assume that, for each variable, every small interval of radius e on R has the same measure as every other—there is no way to add up” the regions of R+ K so as to make them sum to one. If they have any sum,
it is infinite.”
Therefore, if we assume that each constant has an equal chance of being selected, then it is true that we can’t state much, if anything, from a probability point of view. However, I was proposing that we not assume the constants have an equal probability of occurring. After reviewing your article, I see that the author already addresses this issue:
“If we do not insist on treating all equal intervals for all parameters as equally probable, then we can perfectly well speak of the probability that a particular parameter falls within a given interval by invoking density functions that integrate (or can be scaled so as to integrate) to unity.”
The author then goes on to mention the faults with that approach, which I won’t go into here.
The point I want to make is, if you stipulate that all constants must have an equal chance of being chosen, then I agree with your original statement. However, I wanted to make sure you considered the possibility that some constants had a greater chance of being selected.
Finding a mean and standard deviation of the probabilities of an infinite set, is usually done by taking many repeating measurements of the data. However, I’m not sure that is possible to do for the cosmological constant.
To address your concern about the sum of probabilities on an infinite set. As it turns out, it is possible to add up all the numbers of an infinite set and end up with a finite number. An example the author of the article you provided gives is the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … + 1/2^(n+1). If you add up all those numbers, which make up an infinite set, you end up with the finite sum of 1.
Lastly, I just want to mention that I am only trying to address your specific mathematical statement.
Here are some links:
An example of finding the average of an infinite sequence (notice that the probabilities would have to be known) http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110213232858AABtMDh
Normal distributions and how it is possible to talk about the probability of an infinite set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
Infinite geometric series and how the sum of an infinite set of numbers can be a finite number: http://www.intmath.com/series-binomial-theorem/3-infinite-geometric-series.php
#
For some reason WordPress thought your comment was spam, sorry about that.
I spent a good part of my afternoon looking around online for information on how to talk about probabilities and infinite sets, but what you’ve said made more sense than anything I found. I’m going to update that part of my article so it’s clearer. Thanks for sharing the links at the end, and thanks for commenting!
I could go on for a while about all this right now, but unfortunately I have three final exams tomorrow. If I have any more thoughts on this particular matter, I’ll be sure to update this post or comment here.