You go for a walk and see a stick leaning against a tree. Look at the stick and then the tree. From your observation, can you conclude that you're looking at evidence of intelligent activity? Maybe not. Often the branches break and fall times leaning against the tree. Such an event requires no special explanation. Of course, a person could have placed the stick against the tree with a purpose, but it is not necessary to use that explanation if a more "natural."
But suppose you find three rods supported each other so that if any of them sucrase the other two would fall the ground. This "tripod" could not be the result of a gradual accumulation of sticks, the three must have been placed simultaneously. Is it reasonable to assume that this happened by chance? The probability of such an event happens by itself is ridiculously low. An intelligent person should have fixed the poles with a purpose that may be obvious or not.
The key to understanding design
What distinguishes intelligent design "tripod" of the rod propped against the tree? Perhaps two characteristics: complexity and functional interdependence. The complexity of the "tripod" is represented by its three parts. Functional interdependence is evident in the fact that you can not remove any of them without destroying the tripod. The best interpretation of a structure that is composed of three or more elements that must be compared simultaneously is that it is the result of intelligent design. Although it can always be argued that this structure could have originated by chance, such an interpretation would require straining credulity of most people.
Can an argument may be reasonably extended to nature? If so, do we see in it evidence of intelligent design?
The design argument
For many centuries the idea that nature is the result of intelligent design was accepted without hesitation or controversy. The Scriptures claim that you can see God in nature. As an example, listen to the psalmist: "O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth ... When I consider Your heavens, the work of your fingers ... I say: What is man that You are mindful of him? "(Ps. 8:1, 3, 4). Paul was presented with great force in Romans 1:19, 20 which argues that the evidence of God in nature is so clear that no excuse for denying their existence, power and sovereignty. For many authors, the evidence of design in nature points to God the Creator of the Bible. William Paley is an example of this.
Paley and the argument of the invention . 1 Paley argued that nature is full of features that show evidence of design. He called them "inventions", and compared with the devices or man-made machines. The argument Paley can be stated as follows: The existence of traits of living organisms that function as mechanical devices to achieve some purpose, are evidence that they were created by a Designer.
The Paley's famous illustration is that of a clock. Suppose you have never seen a clock, and you find one. Would not it be obvious to think that the clock was designed and built with a purpose, even if you did not know what it is? In the same way many features of living organisms function as machines. If we recognize the work of a designer when looking devices mechanics, we can also admit that there is a designer when we observe similar features in living organisms. According to Paley, nature exhibits properties of a design, which leads us to recognize the God of nature.
Charles Darwin and the argument from design. Charles Darwin Paley opposed from the beginning. Darwin admitted that while he "loved" Paley's arguments, he could not blame God for designing all the evil in nature. 2 Darwin suggested that God was so far removed from nature that did not involve nor was responsible for the state of it. In fact, Darwin argued that nature was not designed and therefore could not point to a designer. He suggested that natural processes alone were sufficient to explain all the features of adaptation of living organisms through the process of natural selection. Apparently, Darwin preferred to have a good God at a distance, that close to us and bad. Probably most of us would agree. But was it a valid argument of Darwin's natural selection? Darwin himself identified
a method by which one could disprove his theory. In Chapter 6 of his book the Origin of Species , 3 said: "If you could prove the existence of any complex organ that could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would fall apart completely" .
Darwin said he could find no such case, although others said the opposite.
Arguments
design clearly the argument from design is not valid if nature was not designed. Darwin changed the focus of the debate to discuss whether nature really intended. Thus, our interest centers on the argument in favor of design.
The argument of "irreducible complexity." Professor Michael Behe \u200b\u200bof Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, United States, is one of today's leaders for design. 4 He bases his argument on what he calls "irreducible complexity." As an illustration, using a common trap for mice, consisting of a platform, a hook to the bait a lever, a "guillotine", a spring and some staples. The parts of the trap operate together to perform a function: to hunt mice. Let's say the trap is an organ that has evolved from a simpler ancestor structure. What would the ancient structure and what role would you have? How can a mousetrap simplified and yet retain its function? Imagine that we remove any of the components of the trap, the resulting structure would have no function. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. If you could a similar example among living organisms, Darwin's theory is "fall apart completely." According to Behe, the cilia are one such example.
A cilium is a hair-like structure that sways in a fluid medium and provides a method for pushing in some unicellular organisms. Cilia are also present on our respiratory system and their movements help to remove particles from the lungs. It takes at least three parts to an active movement: a moving part, a link to a power source and an "anchor" to control the mobile. In the case of a cilium, the insert is made of tubulin molecules, energy is supplied through the activities of dynein molecules, and parts of the cilia are linked by nexin molecules. If any of them, the cilium would have no function. Thus, the cilium appears to be a complex irreducible.
As expected, those who are philosophically committed to the evolution refuse to accept the argument of irreducible complexity. However, this rejection has a philosophical, not empirical, as evidenced the total absence of demonstrations in the evolutionary claims.
The argument from improbability. Some circumstances seem so unexpected that one suspects it must have involved something more than chance. Most scientists are willing to randomly assign an outcome if it can be expected to occur five times in a hundred trials. Some scientists probabilidd decrease is still a thousand, depending on the nature of the event. But there are limits to what one might reasonably accept as a result of chance. If the probability of an event is too low, it is reasonable did not occur as a result of chance. If the acontecimniento also seems to have a purpose, it is reasonable to assume that the event was guided by an intelligent mind.
Darwin admitted that "shudder" when thinking about the problem of the evolution of the human eye. He tried to explain the evolution of the eye, pointing to a variety of less complex eyes in other animals, and suggesting that they may represent stages through which he could develop a more complex eye. However, it is unclear whether managed to convince himself. Eye evolution would require a complicated series of unlikely events, so most people would consider highly unlikely that could happen without a designer. 5
The mystery pitch
Many arguments for design based on the lack of understanding of a particular process. Before you understand the mechanism of blood circulation, one might have felt tempted to argue that the circulation of blood was an incomprehensible mystery, and this in itself was evidence of the operation of a superior intellect. When it was discovered the mechanism of movement problems arose, since they apparently did not need God. Similar examples led to regard with suspicion any argument for design. Such "arguments of the mystery" containing two features: the ignorance of the mechanism of a specific phenomenon and the assertion that the phenomenon is a mystery beyond our comprehension. This raises the argument of the "god of the gaps."
The argument of irreducible complexity should be contrasted with the argument of the mystery. The first is based on two fundamental characteristics: the system must have identified function, and system components must be known and identified, which classifies it as an argument from knowledge and that is completely different from the argument of the mystery. Examples
design in nature
can be described many examples of design in nature, but we note here only a few.
The existence of the universe. 6 The existence of the universe depends on a precise combination of physical constants finely balanced. If any of them were different, the universe could not exist. For example, if the electromagnetic force were slightly higher, atomic nuclei would not exist. Other physical constants include the value of the gravitational constant and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
The adequacy of the conditions for sustaining life on earth. 7 Earth differs from other planets and the conditions that allow life to exist there. If any of them, life as we know, does not exist on earth. For example, the atmospheric composition is unique among planets in our solar system.
The existence of life. Life requires proteins and nucleic acids. None of these materials is where there is no life. Both must be present so that life may exist. For example, protein production requires the presence of both protein enzymes and nucleic acids.
Certain groups of organisms have unique genes. The various groups of organisms have different genes, which are not found in other groups. The new genes require new information, but it seems very unlikely that alone can generate new information by random processes, even if you start with an extra copy of a gene. Further studies are needed to help clarify this point.
human mind. The human mind appears to be extremely complex, far above what it would take for natural selection. The mechanism for certain types of mental activities seems beyond our comprehension. For example, science has no good explanation for the self-consciousness, or the capacity for language and abstract thinking.
designOther examples include the existence of the code genetic process of the production of proteins in living cells, the process of nucleic acid production in the cells, the senses, the regulation of genes, the complex chemical processes of photosynthesis and sex, among others. While there has been some speculation about how these features could arise without intelligent design, the proposed process seems so improbable that intelligent design seems to be the most plausible to many scholars.
design arguments against
have raised several objections against the argument from design. Briefly consider four types:
Pseudo design. 8 guidelines can be established as a result of natural processes, without invoking an intelligent designer. For example, a snowflake has a very intricate structure, but no one suggests that God spoke specifically to create those designs. Rather, the pattern can be explained in terms of physical and molecular properties. Complex systems, nonlinear, often exhibit unexpected properties "emerge" naturally without any element of intelligence. However, the complexity of the required initial conditions, such as the necessary existence of a computer, seem dependent on a designer.
Natural selection can be considered a pseudo argument type design. If organisms can be modified by natural processes to suit your environment, no need to suggest that God intervened in particular to design. A serious weakness of this argument is that it presupposes the existence of the structure should be modified. Recent advances in molecular biology have revealed the existence of complex interdependent levels well above expectations of those who developed the theory of evolution. The problem of the origins of biological structures seems to provide a powerful argument for design.
defective design. 9 Many features of nature seem to have flaws. Some argue that an intelligent creator would have done a better job of designing the nature. Some examples of alleged defective design include the "thumb" of the giant panda and the structural arrangement of the retina of the eyes of vertebrates. However, nobody has shown that these structures do not function well eliminating the basis of the argument. Moreover, the imperfections can be expected in a world that, although it was designed by God, has been ruined by Satan. Design
superimposed. 10 Humans like to organize the observations in schemes, which may be artificial. An example would be to see familiar shapes in the clouds, there is nothing real that requires an explanation, except perhaps to wonder why people do it. Most scientists reject this argument, since the practice of science depends on the existence of actual schemes to be be explained. All observers agree that nature, at least, seems to have been designed.
bad design. 11 Many features of organisms seem "designed" to kill or to cause pain or disease. The malaria parasite is one example. Does not seem right to blame God for the design of the causes of illness and death. On the other hand, if God did not design the "bad" things of nature, why argue that designed the "good" things the same? The presence of evil in nature not refute the argument for design, but may provoke questions about the nature or character of the designer. The biblical explanation is that this world is the battleground between two designers: a Creator and a corruptor. The result is that nature is sending confusing signals, are present in it both good and evil. 12
Conclusion
The "design argument" was generally ignored in the century after Darwin, in part because knowledge of living systems were so incomplete that the gaps only could be filled with imagination. As more biological knowledge has emerged the argument from design and is expressed in more sophisticated ways, such as the argument of "irreducible complexity." The existence of certain characteristics that could not survive in intermediate stages is evidence of a Designer. So is that of a designer God who created, through a special presentation creation, and not a continuous process as indicated by the evolution. The argument of irreducible complexity is an argument that supports an interventionist creation and discontinuous.
According to Paul in his letter to the Romans, nature has been clearly designed, but not everyone is ready to recognize the Designer. Nature can be properly understood only in light of special revelation of God in Scripture. Guided by the Bible, we can join with the Psalmist in praise of the Creator: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork ... All across the land came his voice, and to the end of the world their words "(Ps. 19:1, 4).
L. James Gibson (Ph.D., LLU, director of the Geoscience Research Institute)
Notes and references
1. W. Paley, Natural Theology (Houston: St. Thomas Books, 1972. Reprint ed., 1802.) Paley's argument has been recently reviewed by JT Baldwin: "God and the World: William Paley's Argument From Perfection Tradition: A Continuing Influence, "Harvard Theological Review , 1985, pp. 109-120.
2. See NC Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (University of Chicago Press, 1979), Chapter 7. For example, Darwin said he I could not believe in a God who made cats to play with mice, or small parasitic wasps designed to devour the entrails of the tracks.
3. Charles Darwin, The Origins of Species , 6th. ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1958).
4. MJ Behe, Darwin's Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996).
5. For a recent analysis of the evolution of the eye and design, see Nilsson and S. Pelger, "A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for and Eye to Evolve, "Proceedings, Royal Society of London, 1994, B 256:53-58. One response to this presentation is that of JT Baldwin, "The Argument From Sufficient Initial System Organization as a Continuing Challenge to the Darwinian Transitional Rate and Method of Evolution," Christian Scholar's Review 24 (1995), pp. 423-443.
6. To further analyze this point, see JD Barrow and FJ Tiples, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
7. For a discussion of the topic at the grassroots level, from a non-Christian perspective and somewhat mystical, see JE Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), for a more conventional, see RED Clark: The Universe: Plan or Accident? (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961).
8. To end an argument like this, see R. Deaconess: The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton and Co., 1986). Other examples include the argument of emergent complexity, such as S. Kauffman: The Origin of Order (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). An evaluation of Kauffman's book appears in J. Horgan, "From Complexity to Perplexity", Scientific American 272:6 (1995), pp. 104-109.
9. An example of this argument appears in SJ Gould: The Panda's Thumb (New York: Norton and Co., 1980).
10. A classic presentation of this argument is D. Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1799), (New York: Penguin Books, 1990).
11. For example, see DL Hull, "The God of the Galapagos" Nature 352 (1991), pp. 485-486. See also Chapter 8 in PJ Bowler: Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).
12. For a biblical approach to this problem, see John T. Baldwin: "God, the sparrow and the emerald boa, College and University Dialogue 8:3 (1996), pp. 5-8.-The writing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment