Rescuing the Design Argument – HARDER!

You don’t really need to know this for the GCSE but it’s worth knowing that the debate doesn’t stop with evolution and the Big Bang. If you’re interested you can take A-level Philosophy and find out more about this (shameless plug).

The criticism from science goes along the lines that we don’t need God to explain the complexity in the world around us because we have evolution.

Here’s the response I don’t like.

There are systems in the world that cannot be explained by evolution.

Evolution requires series of changes after changes, each one providing a tiny advantage to the organism who has that change that it’s parents didn’t have.

There are systems that cannot be explained by this because they require so many changes to happen at once in order for it to be useful. The chances of all these changes happening in one generation (between parent and child) is too small to be taken seriously. It must have had a designer in order to have come about at all. This is called the argument from IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY.

The most common example of this is the flagelum (little wiggly bits wot poke out the back) of certain bacteria. They work like an electric motor requiring a load of different cells to work together in harmony to make the flagelum spin around and move the bacterium through whatever it’s trying to move through. But a bacterium without a flagelum can’t just have a mutant child with a flagelum, the odds against it are stupidly large. So, God must have done it.

Scientists have responded to this by asking religious believers to get a Biology GCSE and come back later. They say there are perfectly useful mechanisms within the current theory of evolution to explain this if only the religious people understood the theory.

There is also a response that I do like but that involves rejecting the who epistemology (theory of knowledge) that science rest on. Fun, fun, fun…

%d bloggers like this: