Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Denying the Obvious

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Living things appear to be designed for a purpose. That statement is entirely non-controversial. Even the world’s most famous materialist admits it: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York; Norton, 1986), 1.

I will go one step further and assert that the appearance of design in living things is far from ambiguous or equivocal; it is overwhelming. Honest materialists do not dispute this assertion either. Dawkins again: Living things “overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker . . .” Id., 21.

To be sure, Dawkins attributes the overwhelming appearance of design in living things to the accretion of random errors sorted through a fitness function called “natural selection.” But advances in the study of living systems in recent years (especially at the microscopic level) have made the “accretion of random errors” explanation for the overwhelming appearance of design seem at least dubitable, if not downright facile.

Moreover, as our knowledge of the vast gulf separating living things from non-living matter has increased, the less satisfactory “chance dunnit” explanations have become. It was one thing to attribute the appearance of the first living organisms to chance events occurring in some “warm little pond” 100 years ago when Haeckel was suggesting a cell was a “simple globule of protoplasm.” Haeckel’s glib simplification is amusing now that we know that even the simplest living cells are marvels of staggeringly complex nano-technology.

Better, it seems to me, to admit that living things appear overwhelmingly to be designed because they are in fact designed. Dawkins and his ilk deny design, however, not because the evidence compels them to deny it, but because their a priori metaphysical commitments compel them to do so. In other words, Dawkins denies the obvious because his religious beliefs require him to do so.

When one accepts materialism, in addition to design, one is compelled to deny other glaringly obvious truths. Here are a few:

1. Good and evil exist. Dawkins denies that good and evil exist. Yet he most assuredly knows that they do exist. In fact, like almost everyone else who denies the existence of good and evil, he lives his everyday life as if this most basic truth claim of his is absolutely false.

2. The universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. No materialist denies that literally dozens of constants rest on a razor’s edge between “too much” and “too little” for the existence of life. They do, however, deny that this finely tuned state of events results from fine tuning. Instead, they resort to glib “it must be that way, because that is the way that it is,” anthropic arguments that are laughable for their lack of curiosity and intellectual rigor.

3. The DNA code is a code. All semiotic codes whose provenance is known have been designed by intelligent agents. Materialists must assert that the most elegant, sophisticated and complex semiotic code in the known universe resulted from . . . Actually, they don’t have a clue how DNA first arose though blind chance and mechanical law; the only thing they know for certain is that intelligence played no role.

4. “I” exist. Materialists, to be logically consistent, must say that consciousness is an illusion. In other words, when a materialist uses the word “I” in a sentence, he must believe that the pronoun has no real antecedent.

5. Free will exists. Materialists must deny the existence of libertarian free will, which requires them to say things like “I [which word has no real antecedent] choose [an illusion of course] not to believe [even though I admit it is absurd to suggest that particles in motion can hold such a thing as a “belief”] in free will.”

6. A man’s body is designed to be complementary  with a woman’s body and vice versa. All of the confusion about whether same-sex relations are licit would be swept away in an instant if everyone acknowledged this obvious truth.

I welcome our readers to add to this list.

[Update]
Since I posted the OP, our readers have suggested the following for the list.

7. Tim writes: “Although not glaringly obvious, one truth that must be denied by the strict materialist is that the world around us can even be understood by us.” In a similar vein, JDH writes: “A corollary to the fact that true materialist must deny that free will exists is that in a truly materialist world, it is impossible to practice science.”

8. Barry:  The world is broken. I’m broken. Everyone knows  the way things are is different from the way things ought to be. Everyone knows the way they are is different from the way they ought to be.

9.  WJM:  “Materialists must deny the fact that when they argue, they are making an appeal to an entity assumed to be unbound/uncaused by physics and chemistry.”

[Update 2]

The sentence in bold has been revised to take into account a valid comment by Mark Frank, for which I thank him.

Comments
Re MF: Apparently he will not acknowledge the implications of subjectivism, as in might and manipulation make 'right.' This is of course yet another well why not have the cake and eat it error. KFkairosfocus
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Most of us would agree that in moral experience we do apprehend objective values and duties. …
Rubbish. Almost everyone I talks to recognises that ethical views are in the end subjective (albeit important) and that you cannot deduce values from facts.
Most of us recognize that sexual abuse of another person is wrong.
Completely true. WLC’s problem is that he is too blinkered to see the difference.
 
Mark Frank
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
: Moral Experience Philosophers who reflect on our moral experience see no more reason to distrust that moral experience than the experience of our five senses. My senses are not infallible, but that doesn't lead me to think that there is no external world around me. Similarly, in the absence of some reason to distrust my moral experience, I should accept what it tells me, namely, that some things are objectively good or evil, right or wrong. Most of us would agree that in moral experience we do apprehend objective values and duties. ... Most of us recognize that sexual abuse of another person is wrong. Actions like rape, torture and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior - they're moral abominations. By the same token love, generosity, and self-sacrifice are really good. People who fail to see this are just handicapped, the moral equivalent of someone who is physically blind, and there's no reason to let their impairment call into question what we see clearly. - On Guard, pp. 140-141
Love that last sentence.Mung
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
To be pedantic I should have written – 2) the members of X are obviously true.
But then your "3) Therefore X is true" doesn't make sense.
As a matter of interest how do you accuse someone of something without calling them on it?
1.) You were engaged in all those alleged counter-examples before the post to which I was responding in which you laid out your form of his argument. 2.) "You accused him of a non sequitur" was a figure of speech. Apparently you weren't aware of the non sequitur until I pointed it out to you.Mung
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Mark Frank was also called on his alleged counter-examples and promptly choked. That would be the problem, Mark. And what point did others get OK, Mark? That you are out of your depth and in way over your head- that point?Joe
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
WJM:
Hyper-Anti-Authoritarianism. There’s nothing that screams out “authority” that must be rebelled against more than self-evident truths and necessary conclusions. It’s the same thing that is at the root of their extreme anti-theism.
Sadly, dead on target. The challenge of SETs is, they are undeniably true, not just axioms taken up to play a game, and they can have pretty sharp consequences for worldviews that deny them. KF KFkairosfocus
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT
#110 Mung
You’ve accused Barry of a non-sequitur. But instead of calling him on it, you want to argue over whether the conclusion follows by offering counter-examples.
It appeared to me that Barry was arguing because some things appeared to be obviously true therefore they were true. I provided counter-examples. What's the problem? As a matter of interest how do you accuse someone of something without calling them on it?
MF: Let X be the set of statements of “obviously true” propositions. 2) X seems obviously true Therefore X is in the set of X. Correct? Clarity? Really?
To be pedantic I should have written - 2) the members of X are obviously true. I am a bit surprised you were unable to grasp that, others seemed to get the point OK.Mark Frank
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
My reference: ArtifactJoe
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
The Grand Canyon is designed? Works of art require artists- and work is a sign of an intelligent agency, even one acting stupidly. The presence of work is how archaeologists determine artifact from rock. It is how forensic science determines intelligent agency involvement. Geez vel, just print your own dictionary and be done with it.Joe
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Mark, you're hilarious. You've accused Barry of a non-sequitur. But instead of calling him on it, you want to argue over whether the conclusion follows by offering counter-examples. Truly rich. MF: Let X be the set of statements of “obviously true” propositions. 2) X seems obviously true Therefore X is in the set of X. Correct? Clarity? Really?Mung
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Design ...6 : the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of artvelikovskys
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Joe, Unless you want to redefine the word, intelligent agency is the only known cause of design. That is why the Dawkins’ invented the word “designoid” for the which appears designed but wasn’t What designed the Grand Canyon?velikovskys
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
JWTruthInLove- I don't have a religion.Joe
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
It’s as if Darwinists are just love to live in denial of many obvious truths.
Hyper-Anti-Authoritarianism. There's nothing that screams out "authority" that must be rebelled against more than self-evident truths and necessary conclusions. It's the same thing that is at the root of their extreme anti-theism.William J Murray
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
@Joe:
A reason I have heard for the male/ female complementary form is natural and sexual selection.
I believe God created humans. The human body as a multifunctional interface supports both hetero- and homosexual relationship-types. Btw. What is your religion, if I may ask?
All of the confusion about whether same-sex relations are licit would be swept away in an instant if everyone acknowledged this obvious truth.
And that to me is the most interesting part. The conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the statement about "complementarity" (see Barry's car-example).JWTruthInLove
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Joe's test for the existence of free will: If you can deny an obvious truth and believe it, then you might just be a redneck have free will.Joe
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
On another note:
6. A man’s body is designed to be complementary with a woman’s body and vice versa. All of the confusion about whether same-sex relations are licit would be swept away in an instant if everyone acknowledged this obvious truth.
Free will trumps obvious truths, Barry. ;)Joe
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
JWT- A reason I have heard for the male/ female complementary form is natural and sexual selection. IOW it is an obvious truth regardless of what side you are on, just the designer is different (although NS has never been known to design anything).Joe
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
And Barry is against same-sex relationships. The TSZ ilk, ie the Darwinists, are for them.Joe
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
@Joe: Barry is not a Darwinist.JWTruthInLove
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Yes, JWT, the TSZ ilk are confused-> another obvious truth. Also Darwinian evolution should eliminate same sex relationships as they are biologically unfit. Perhaps this is a relatively recent phenomena and NS hasn't had the time. And if we are the product of Darwinian evolution why do we then not only tolerate, but seem to promote, this unfit behavior? Why elevate this obvious unfit behavior to the same status as fit behavior? It's as if Darwinists are just love to live in denial of many obvious truths.Joe
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Barry I think there is scope for further clarity. I believe this is the first time you have used the phrase "subjective self-awareness". Is that the same as 4 in the OP? I explicitly said I believed 4 was true in #90. Of course, I also think it is compatible with materialism - but that is another long story.Mark Frank
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Barry:
Mark, we all make our bets and take our chances. If that makes you feel better about your bet, good for you. Good luck with that.
I'm starting my own casino, one where the house has to play by my rules.Mung
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Over at TSZ people are confused by President Barry's 6th statement. And here's another one:
Silly Barry Barry thinks "A man’s body is designed to be complimentary [sic] with a woman’s body and vice versa. All of the confusion about whether same-sex relations are licit would be swept away in an instant if everyone acknowledged this obvious truth." Well, no, it's not "an obvious truth", even if uses the correct word "complementary". And even if it were, what does that have to do with whether same-sex relations are "licit" (...)
JWTruthInLove
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Mark, we have reached clarity. Our disagreement is profound and I think further discourse will not increase that clarity. My position: If your metaphysical commitment requires you to deny numerous obviously true propositions including but not limited to the primordial datum that you have subjective self-awareness, then just maybe there is a problem with your metaphysical commitment. Your position: In the past some people thought some things were obvious that turned out not to be true. So I can feel OK about continuing to deny numerous obvious truths like subjective self-awareness. Mark, we all make our bets and take our chances. If that makes you feel better about your bet, good for you. Good luck with that.Barry Arrington
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Well Mark, for one there are more than two different positions to consider. Your contrived dualism is your first mistake.Joe
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
#92 BA It seems to me that you have just summarised what I was laying out in more detail. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you can help by explaining which steps in my analysis are wrong? MarkMark Frank
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Mark, you have failed to understand the thrust of my argument. It is really quite simple: If your basic metaphysical commitment requires you to explain away glaringly obvious things over and over and over and over and over and over, maybe the problem is with your metaphysical commitment.Barry Arrington
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
It is a given that the way Mark Frank sees Barry's argument and Barry's actual argument, are not the same thing.Joe
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Now that all the clarifications are out of the way - it is interesting to lay out the logic of Barry's argument as I see it. A few abbreviations: Let: D be the proposition that life was designed. M be the proposition that materialism is true. X be the set of statements of "obviously true" propositions. Then I believe Barry's argument is: 1) If (~D & M) then ~X 2) X seems obviously true 3) Therefore X is true 4) Therefore ~(~D & M) 5) Therefore D OR ~M (inclusive OR) Clearly step 3 is still key to the argument. I have provided examples of propositions that seem obviously true but in fact are false. Some people have disputed some of them but Barry has accepted that in general you cannot conclude that something is true because it appears to be obviously true. So the jump from 2 to 3 needs a bit more justification than just noting X appears to be obviously true. Of course the argument holds if any member of X is true. And I accept that some of the members of X are true - particularly 4,5 and 7. However, in these cases I would deny that (~D & M) entails they are false.Mark Frank
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply