Rosine Chandebois on the Blind Watchmaker

_{William Dembski

November 30, 2005

Education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

[From a colleague and friend:]

DÃ¢â‚¬â„¢aucuns disent aveugle lÃ¢â‚¬â„¢horloger qui a concu la vie, mais cÃ¢â‚¬â„¢est son horologe
qui nous frappe tous de cecite: les uns aveugles par tant dÃ¢â‚¬â„¢intelligence, les
autres etant les pires aveugles parce quÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ils nÃ¢â‚¬â„¢en veulent rien voir.

[Some call blind the watchmaker who conceived of life, but it is his watch that
strikes all of us blind: some are blinded by so much intelligence, others are
blind in the worst way because they do not wish to see it at all.]

—Rosine Chandebois, Pour en finir avec le darwinisme [To Be Done With
Darwinism] (Editions Espaces, 1993).

(Chandebois is an experimental embryologist at the University of Marseille.)

Comments

According to internet sources, the paperback of The Design Inference was to be published on November 30th, 2005. However, it is not yet available. Could Dr. Dembski let readers of his web site know as soon as the paper version is really here? And could he give us his best guess as to when that might be? cwcw_{December 6, 2005
December
12
Dec
6
06
2005
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Hmmm. I also referred to the Blind Watchmaker... OK, OK! I know you are all interested: Here was the whole letter. .... In Monday's opinion page, Gene Lyons asserts "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." The first question to ask about this column is this, "Why is Gene Lyons, a flag-waver for liberal causes and politicians, writing a science column?" And in asking the question you have the answer: Attacks on the scientific theory of Intelligent Design have everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science. I will show how. But first, what is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design? "Contrary to caricatures, it's a theory that draws on insights in well-established fields such as information and probability theory, forensics, and the philosophy of science. Design theorists argue that certain features of the natural world bear markers of intelligent agency." (Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University.) A vast number of biological systems such as the blood-clotting system in mammals, upon examination, are found to be "irreducibly complex". If just one part of the system doesn't function properly, the system doesn't function at all making survival impossible. The whole system had to have functioned properly the first time it was tried or there would have been no second try. Furthermore, human beings have the ability to look at something and tell whether it was made by intelligence or by accident. Spilt paint on a canvas may or may not have been caused by chance, either way it conveys no meaning. But there is no question that the "Mona Lisa" by DaVinci was designed. Now, why the political opposition to Design by political writers such as Gene Lyons? Gene Lyons for those who don't know, is one of the true believers in liberal orthodoxy. He is a man who regardless of the facts has written that "Bush Lied" but Bill Clinton never lied, not about WMD's in Iraq and nor even about the stains on the blue dress. Why? Here is my theory. Liberal politics in the Western world is based on a religious faith in Blind Chance. The scientific theory of evolution is built on faith in blind chance, the "Blind Watchmaker", no God, no Designer. It follows, therefore, there is no Lawgiver, particularly no Author of Commandments, therefore no absolutes, no right, no wrong, only "relative correctness". When you get right down to it, in fact, man is the glorious epitome of the long advance from the primordial soup, above all, ruler of all. In short, "man is god", a heady idea, hard to relinquish. With these premises, the reasoning follows a relentless track through "relative morals" that leads straight to...Abortion politics. Abortion politics is the holy grail of liberal politics in America. Abortion symbolizes everything liberals "believe". Not only that "man is God" to decide right and wrong, life and death, but that a woman's relative and political "right to chose" trumps the unborn baby's "right to life". The religion of Darwinism has had consequences. Over 40 million people in America alone have been sacrificed on the alter of blind chance and moral relativism. Referred to as mere "products of conception", these people committed no crime, but were denied "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in a nation founded on this profound idea that from the get-go assumed Intelligent Design: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." "Created equal" suggests a Creator. Creator suggests Designer. "Self-evident" suggests these truths can clearly be seen and understood. So, when reading political attacks on the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, realize that these attacks are written by people who themselves subscribe to a "faith", that of blind chance, nihilism, meaninglessness, purposelessness. It is unfortunately not the faith upon which the nation was founded. Now their "faith" is being challenged and they don't want to hear it. Even worse, they don't want you to hear it. Because if you hear it and if you--considering it for yourself--find it makes sense (which it self-evidently does), it may change your politics. And that is what they really, really don't want. ....Red Reader_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

"...others are blind in the worst way because they do not wish to see at all." I wrote a letter to the local newspaper editor two days ago in response to a *political* attack on Intelligent Design by a political columnist named Gene Lyons (a flag waver for liberal causes and politicians). In 2nd paragraph, I defined ID quoting Doctor Gonzalez off the Discovery Institute's website. To illustrate, I said, "Spilt paint on a canvas may or may not have been caused by chance, either way it conveys no meaning. But there is no question that the 'Mona Lisa' by DaVinci was designed." A friend who read my letter called to make this statement, "It is mind-boggling; Darwinists will admit the Mona Lisa is designed, but declare that DaVinci himself was not!"Red Reader_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

This fits into an overall pattern: you can't be both an embryologist and a Darwinist! They do not compute.PaV_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

A C.S. Lewis quote from Mere Christianity with some word changes made to highlight the debate between naturalism and design. "My argument against design was that the universe seemed so 'natural'. But how had I got this idea of designed and natural? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it natural? If the whole show was Ã¢â‚¬ËœnaturalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of design by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against design collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really Ã¢â‚¬ËœnaturalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove naturalism - in other words, that the whole of reality was Ã¢â‚¬ËœundesignedÃ¢â‚¬â„¢--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of design--was full of sense. Consequently naturalism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no design, we should never have found out that it has no design: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."Lurker_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

dare I say it? Beautiful.DaysofNoah_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

The watchmaker argument is compelling and vigorating than ever before! Go Paley!Benjii_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

dit bon ! I think paleys watch is still a valid argument - you could imagine the whole universe as a watch -the fine tuning of the universe is as Paul Davies says.. suspicious "why is nature so ingeniously, one might say suspiciously friendly to life ? Its almost as if a Grand Designer had it all figured out".(Paul Davies 'A brief History of the Multiverse') WormHerder outWormHerder_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Go Frenchies, take Darwinism down!Benjii_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply