Monday, June 26, 2006
Wright Wrong
The other day on my way into work, I heard a radio spot sponsored by a local church. I'd heard these spots before. Whatever the topic, it's usually in one ear and out the other. Its typically the usual Christian, altruistic bromides about helping your neighbors.
This particular morning though, the good reverend Wright, speaking "Wright from his Heart" (his slogan, which is appropriate, because its obvious he's not using his brain when he speaks), spews the most laughable attack on evolutionary theory.
He claims that one question never answered by evolutionists is "What put evolution in motion?". His proposition: If you don't know all the answers, then it MUST be God! But If God set things in motion Mr. Bryant Wright, who set God in motion ... hunh? No answer? Blank out? That's what I thought. No answer from Mr. Wright.
He totally ignores his own premise. He says "there must be a designer for something as complex as a human being" but then does not apply that very premise to God. Who designed God? Its not good enough to say "Uh ... no one. He's just always existed." Talk about begging the question - give me a break. When you graduate from Logic 101 and re-examine your premises, give me a call.
Then he goes on to say that there is so much "evidence" for intelligent design it can't be ignored. He tries to make the case that if someone was walking along in the forest and found a personal computer lying on the ground, then by the logic used by evolutionists one should conclude that the computer evolved from lower forms. Wright says, since we all know that the computer was designed by an intelligent being (humans) and that because humans are complex too, humans must have been designed by an intelligent being as well. Any guess who that being would be? Well God, of course!
This line of "logic" is so full of holes, Darwin himself could swim through it along with a few hundred of his favorite species. The biggest fallacy is his conclusion that if man is intelligent and designs complex things, then since man himself (and the rest of nature of course) is complex, he too must have been designed by an intelligent being and that being must be God.
The fact that man is intelligent and can design complex machines in no way implies that since man is complex too, he must have been designed by an intelligent being as well. Quite the contrary, we observe very complexes processes in nature all the time and find no evidence (nor need) to stipulate a god to create them.
Systems that are very complex can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated steps (see Richard Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker). Scientists have shown this over and over. There is simply no need to introduce the concept of God. And speaking of simply, ever heard of Occam's Razor? The best explanation is the simplest. Inventing a supreme being to explain those things we don't understand just isn't simple - it adds more complexity. There must be a supreme supreme being to have created the supreme being. And a more supreme one after that, ad infinitum. A little too much for me.
Even if scientists can't (yet) trace every step from simple photo-receptive cells to the human eye, any *plausible* exlanation (even with gaps in knowledge) shows that stipulation of a God is unnecessary.
Wright says he "just doesn't have that much faith" in the ability of some non-intelligent process (evolution) to produce such complex entities. Hey Bryant - trying applying some of that skepticism to your Bible!
Mr. Wright needs to put aside his "feelings" (irrational "feelings" to be more precise) and speak "Wright from his Brain" instead. There is not now nor has there ever been any empirical (or otherwise) proof of the existence of a supreme being. No reason to stipulate it.
Can we all stop believing in ghosts and the Easter bunny and Santa Clause now?
