The Failure of the Intelligent Designer Argument for God’s Existence

 

Well from the title of this article it shouldn’t be very hard to figure out whose side I’m on in this continuing polemic.  What may be fresh, and I hope interesting to readers is the approach I will take to debunk the specious argument that has been dubbed Intelligent Design to explain the creation and development of the universe.

 

One of the most popular proponents of the view is Canadian physicist and creationist, Hugh Ross.  He has written extensively on the topic.  After reading some of his prolific writings on several Christian web sites, I think his work serves as an example of an argument that relies an statistical probability for its thesis, but ignores the fact that this field of mathematics doesn’t support the conclusion of his thesis.  This omission effectively shows how the whole argument hasn’t the profundity it seems to propose. In simple terms, just because something, anything is probabilistically extremely unlikely, doesn’t support a proposition that some other explanation is its cause.For that reason, I’m first going to give you a taste of what Dr. Ross is saying in a rather lengthy quotation, then use an example from my own life with a comparable logical structure, and show it doesn’t allow me to infer an intelligent designer at work. 

 

A Few Examples from Hugh Ross

Dr. Ross gives in various papers up to 93 narrow parameter ranges that physical quantities must stay within for the universe and subsequent life, as we know it to have evolved in.  He of course goes on to infer that this highly configured régime necessarily leads a rational mind to conclude an intelligent designer, i.e. God. In the case of our own galaxy and planet here is an abbreviated quotation from his paper entitled:

Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

The environmental requirements for life to exist depend quite strongly on the life form in question. The conditions for primitive life to exist, for example, are not nearly so demanding as they are for advanced life. Also, it makes a big difference how active the life form is and how long it remains in its environment. On this basis there are six distinct zones or regions in which life can exist. In order of the broadest to the narrowest they are as follows:

1. for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for only a brief time period
2. for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for a long time period
3. for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a brief time period
4. for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a long time period
5. for advanced life that survives for just a brief time period
6. for advanced life that survives for a long time period

Complicating factors, however, are that unicellular, low metabolism life (extremophiles) typically is more easily subject to radiation damage and it has a low molecular repair rate. The origin of life problem is far more difficult for low metabolism life (H. James Cleaves II and John H. Chambers, “Extremophiles May Be Irrelevant to the Origin of Life,” Astrobiology, 4 (2004), pp. 1-9). The following parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist. References follow the list.

1. Galaxy cluster type
• if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
• if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time
2. Galaxy size
• if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions
• if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time
3. Galaxy type
• if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry
• if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available
4. Galaxy mass distribution
• if too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation
• if too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabilized by the gravity and radiation from adjacent spiral arms
5. Galaxy location
• if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
• if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
• if too far away from dwarf galaxies: insufficient infall of gas and dust to sustain ongoing star formation

I gave you just this snippet because he goes on with these numerous citings ad infinitum.  Hey, lets grant him all the above pronouncements.  If all those very minute intervals are necessary for life on our planet or any other, it doesn’t argue for a God.  Let me try to illustrate this with an example from my own life.  It’s a recent example mind you, and one that is on a smaller scale, but similar.

 

 

My Personal Example

 

I wanted to move from a locality in the city I’m living in now, to my present address, but had many, many obstacles in my path to achieve this goal.  But, as I reflected on my accomplishment of this move, I am struck with the extraordinary degree of seemingly unlikely events and subsequent probabilities attendant to them that I (like Dr Ross) might be moved to believe some Intelligent Designer had a hand in making my move happen at all.

 

In the beginning of the year 2004, I hadn’t the money or wherewithal to move from the declining neighborhood and apartment in which I resided.  I desperately wished however, to get out of that building and location.  A series of events and well… how shall I put this…I will say factors helped to contribute to my being able to move within 5 months in 2005.  Here is a list of 6:

 

 

1. I had in the previous year (2004) began a saving account to able to visit my home town and also have a romantic interlude with a woman I’d met on the Net.  I had accumulated about a $7,000 in January of 2005 to this end.

 

2. The owner of the building I lived in sold it to a management firm, that unbeknownst to me, had several other properties that were available to rent.

 

 

3. The property I rented was marginally renovated and the rent was then slightly raised ($35) at the beginning of 2005. I didn’t like this it goes without saying.

 

4. The renovation involved the destruction of a concrete garage abutting an open field and repaving the parking lot with an asphalt deck.  The operation also upset the ecology balance in the area and field mice began to infiltrate my apartment building and eventually my unit.  This so angered and repulsed me, I didn’t want to live in the unit anymore

 

5. The new management firm scheduled random inspections to comply with city ordinances regarding living conditions in the building to allow them some type of municipal tax credit. They actually inspected to find out if you were living sanitarily.  Another jaw-tightening insult to my pride.

 

6. During these inspections a notice showing other locations they managed was posted on each tenant’s door. I inquired of the inspecting person if I could possibly move to one of their other properties, and they gladly welcomed the interest.

 

These series events happened in the exactly order I described, and this is what lead to my moving to my present location.

 

With the above list I would like to estimate probabilities that might lead to me find a way to exploit circumstances to move to my present location.  I must admit this is NOT easy, but it is possible, if we accept some projection of probabilities I put forth (which is not much different from what Ross does). 

 

Lets take 1.

 

How could I ever predict the probability that I would use the $7,000 savings to accomplish my moving to another address, rather than traveling as planned, realizing that this change of heart was contingent on future events that I had no knowledge of?—

Whew!  Well, we first begin by recognizing that the probability of using $7,000 for a given purpose is nothing more that ratio of that purpose to all other possible purposes.  This ratio is small (but not infinite which would be undefined) if the other purposes are large.  And they ARE. Just think, and you don’t have to think hard. I could’ve lost say just a $5000 of the $7,000 and then not been able to arrange things to pay the security deposit and 1^st month’s rent and not been able to move.  I could add that possibility up for every possible decrement up to the $7,000 itself.  This procedure would involve counting the number of ways one can arrive at 7000 by the operation of addition, with addends 1-9. It's not hard to see there are a LOT of ways of arriving at 7000 with this procedure. Remember, every possible combinations or decrement of the 7000 is a reality that could have been actualized. I could say, spend 4000 gambling, leaving 3000, then bought things with 1500 dollars. Or I could have had a large variety of other combinations occur. This is called a partition of the number 7000 and it would add up to a number well over a trillion. So, the ratio is at least 1:1,000,000,000,000 ways that could have lead to my NOT moving due to just not having a enough money to make the move. But it is likely even smaller, because there are some many other ways this money (or portion of it) could have been used rather than to move.  But, even if we accept that 1:1,000,000,000,000 is the probability of my moving, it still must be taken into consideration other events that were yet to happen.  These events serve to change my mind and lead to my actualizing a desire to move. 

 

Lets put 2 through 6 in and we have the following:

 

The transpiration of my moving then becomes a combinatorics problem in probability theory rather than just a straight probability.  That is, we must ask: what are the different arrangements of events that are possible within the 6 I listed above?  This question has a simple answer.  The possible combinations are 6!—that is 6*5*4*3*2*1*(0)!=720 (where (0)!=1).  720 different orders of events for those 6 listed above is not so large. No it isn’t. But the probability of the order of event occurring in the exact order I described out of the 720 is 1/720th.  So, events 1 through 6 occurring out of 720 is 1/720th.  But remember I said that event 1 alone had a probability of at least 1/1,000,000,000,000.  This already small probability is compounded because combinatorically probabilities are multiplicative.  Now we have the probability that I would move as described, being 1/720 * 1/1,000,000,000,000= 1/720,000,000,000,000.  Now, I must say that this is an exceedingly small probability of my moving AS I DESCRIBED it. It is important to understand that there could be a near infinite number of ways I could have done other things: I could’ve moved elsewhere or done partially the things listed, moved to another unit in the same building, played the lottery and won a 100,000,000 etc.  But for it to go-down (to use the vernacular), just the way I described is so small, as to make one wonder: Damn, did some unseen intelligent designer have a hand in making me move ?  And it’s so seductive too.  I mean with all that mysterious stuff about how this I.D. (Intelligent Designer) could be contriving things right before us without our ever being aware of it.  I mean the I.D. could have arranged events so that I would move without my EVEN knowing, He, no--- I mean the I.D. did it.  See?  Doesn’t this closely follow the heuristic argument that Dr. Ross is proposing? You see, these guy don't whack us over the head with explicit pronouncements about God's grace and his eternal will conjuring up this or that world. Oh no, they're too slick for that sort of travelling roadshow approach. They simply put a lot of scientific facts and figures out there, and then ask slyly I might add--Now come on, you and I both know that all these unlikely events couldn't have occurred without well you know who? (winking an eye)  

 

I must add he even goes further than small probabilities and narrow parameters in his non-argument. He uses the admission by other physicists, that there is a lack of knowledge about the universe beyond the Planck length to support his conclusion.  He asserts this admission is itself a breakdown in theory that requires his conjectured Boogey-man  I won’t deign to address that issue. Oh non-existent God I can't help myself. Look, if scientific theory can't explain the origins of Universe at an extremely small scale, then we can just jump in and say: GAME OVER God did it! I win. Is this valid logical implication I ask?

 

 

Statistics and Probability can’t help Religionists.

 

From the simplified analysis above, it should be clear that small probabilities or combinatorial methods don’t allow us to posit some dreamed-up being doing the magic, BECAUSE of the events being unlikely.  It doesn’t follow; it’s a non sequitur.  For once I can use the cliché phrase you hear misused correctly: do the math, it’s doesn’t add up.  For me to explain my move to where I’m writing this from at this moment by some God in an immaterial realm manipulating probabilities within fine ranges is as absurd as saying Santa Claus helped me moved.  I hope any reader can see that the same applies to the variegated examples that Dr. Hugh Ross proffers to convince us a God made the universe and all that flows from it. 

 

Ken Wais 11/29/06