| |
This is in response to a Ms. Arliene Botnick's speech. I hope this is
my final email on the topic as I don't want to drag this discussion
forever.
Let me start by correcting one of the errors in my previous comments.
While defining boundaries of theory and fact in my mind, I wrote, "A
theory must agree with all the existing facts to be taken seriously
but it may or may not agree with all existing theories. It can cancel
or expand any existing theory." I guess I misspoke. I meant to write
that a new fact could cancel or expand an existing theory. A theory
cannot cancel any exiting theory in absence of new factual evidence.
On to Ms. Botnick's speech. She writes:
"In a recent Toronto Star article, Tom Harpur cites the conversion to
faith of one of Britain's most well recognized atheists, Anthony
Flew. Harpur tells how in Flew's recent video, 'Has Science
Discovered God,' he says that current investigations of DNA have
shown 'by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements
which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been
involved.' Not a rousing affirmation of the Divine, but definitely an
acceptance of a purposeful and planned genesis."
There is this "argument from incredibility", again. This is how this
argument flows
1- Some phenomenon (in this case structure and working of DNA) is
incredibly complex.
2- It is also incredibly efficient at doing what its doing (without
efficiency, complexity is useless)
3- Hence there must be an intelligent force that designed it that
away and it could not have happened randomly
I have written before that complexity is a relative term. What's'
incredible to us is maybe trivial on cosmic levels. I totally agree
with the first and second point and partially agree with the third
one. Yes, it is designed meticulously by, and here is where I will
adopt a different route, iterative and self-correcting mechanism of
nature. Just because something has gained an efficiency and
complexity over the course of millions of years doesn't necessarily
mean an intelligent design. Darwin and the evolutionary biologists of
20th century have exhaustively explained the process of random and
cumulative change that gives birth to hitherto known complex systems
e.g. DNA. There is abundant information out there on that and I would
encourage everyone to at least have one look at it before dismissing
the possibility.
Of course, one can argue that this iterative and self-correcting
mechanism of nature is designed by an intelligent designer and that
is an argument worth having but that would require
a) a new discussion
and b) at least a tacit recognition of evolution of species in the
first place. Its the b part that most religious folks shy away from.
Ms. Botnick writes, "Yet we can care about one another, respect one
another, live side by side at peace with one another. We don't want
chaos to engulf us.....Let's look to our future and, with God's help,
we will have one." I agree but lets look around the world. What are
the biggest factors dividing humanity and justifying brutality on to
other humans? I bet religion is pretty high up on the list if not at
the top of it. The feel good emotions that we are all humans and thus
should respect each other do not make the slightest of dents in
exclusivity of the three biggest organized religions today. I buy a
used car after checking its history. Before investing the hopes of
humanity's future to the institution of religion, lets give its
history a good hard look and see what lies beneath the apparently
attractive exterior.
Rafi Aamer
rafiaamer@comcast.net
|
|