Back to Plan A ...
... as apparently there is no plan B.
This is my attempt at deduction and you can blame kloroform for it.
Since it covers matters (evolution and intelligent design) which some people hold sacred it is behind a cut ...
So let as start with 'reductio ad absurdum'. It is a form of proof much beloved in mathematics and it goes along these lines -
Assume A is true
Deduce using A that something is impossible (0 equals 1, or the like).
Therefore A cannot be true
And while we are laying some ground-rules, a quick summary of evolution is also called for. The idea behind evolution is that life can vary, and that the variations can be passed to the next generation. What evolution asserts is that the pressures of survival will tend to limit the changes that are possible and which can therefore be passed on. Note that there is no control over what variations can occur, only a form of control over which variations will pass on. And it is here that we need to look carefully at the implications of this control.
There are whole classes of variations which, for a particular species, are either totally outside the pressure of survival, or which are only very slightly controlled. Take height for example. It may alter the chance of breeding for humans, but the effect is likely to be small. Now I know that you can argue about that, but let us take another class of cases. Any genetic variation that only has a biological effect which occurs after the normal breeding age is free from survival pressure. And since humans are a species that regularly live to well beyond breeding age then let me use humans as an example. For instance, type 2 diabetes almost certainly has a genetic as well as a lifestyle cause. But type 2 diabetes normally sets in late in life, and the genes which dispose for it have already taken residence in the next generation. Even if type 2 diabetes killed you stone dead in seconds, evolution could not eradicate it. Your children have the susceptibility to it, and they will have passed it on to their children before they drop stone dead in turn. There are many others, some cancers, osteoarthritis, macular degeneration, heart conditions. Nothing in evolution will filter out the 'bad' genetic variations.
So, on to Intelligent Design. As I understand it the principle here is that life is too complex to have occurred by the myriad chances of evolution, and that there must have been a 'guiding hand' to help it on its way. Blind watchmakers are one of the favourite analogies. Now, I freely admit that I am no expert on the precise details of how the 'guiding hand' is meant to do its job, but I am not going to let that bother me. Because I am going to assume that there is Intelligent Design. And I don't think I am going too wrong if I assume that the human species is a result of this intelligent design. I am prepared to say that the eye, and the brain, and the liver and the pancreas and everything else has been put together by something that knew what it was doing (I take it that that is what the Intelligent bit means).
My contention is that if we are designed, why do we fall apart in so many different ways? Why would the same design of pancreas cause type 2 diabetes in some of the population and not others, why do some eyes fail completely, while others last a lifetime, why do some joints wear out, and others never give a twinge. That is the absurdity in the argument. If we are designed, than we should age in a consistent way. Yes, I know lifestyle will add variation, but people with very similar lifestyles, husband and wife for instance, can age very differently.
And if I am allowed one further assumption, that the Intelligent Designer was not having a cosmic joke at our expense, why do our components wear out at different rates? If the likely lifespan is designed, then what was wrong with building components that will last?
Ageing and death are a given, but they can be slow, painful and tragic. We have all seen loved ones decline, all suffered from the guilt and upset that can go with watching it happen. If this is the Design of the Intelligent Designer then it sucks. Evolution has nothing to say on ageing. Anything goes, no possibility is filtered out. That is what we see in the world. We can believe in Intelligent Design is we want, but it leads to an absurdity. The Design is either not very intelligent, not fit for purpose, or if Intelligent then it is maliciously bad.
Therefore, by 'reductio ad absurdum', in my humble opinion, the way we age shows that Intelligent Design is false. QED.
This is my attempt at deduction and you can blame kloroform for it.
Since it covers matters (evolution and intelligent design) which some people hold sacred it is behind a cut ...
So let as start with 'reductio ad absurdum'. It is a form of proof much beloved in mathematics and it goes along these lines -
Assume A is true
Deduce using A that something is impossible (0 equals 1, or the like).
Therefore A cannot be true
And while we are laying some ground-rules, a quick summary of evolution is also called for. The idea behind evolution is that life can vary, and that the variations can be passed to the next generation. What evolution asserts is that the pressures of survival will tend to limit the changes that are possible and which can therefore be passed on. Note that there is no control over what variations can occur, only a form of control over which variations will pass on. And it is here that we need to look carefully at the implications of this control.
There are whole classes of variations which, for a particular species, are either totally outside the pressure of survival, or which are only very slightly controlled. Take height for example. It may alter the chance of breeding for humans, but the effect is likely to be small. Now I know that you can argue about that, but let us take another class of cases. Any genetic variation that only has a biological effect which occurs after the normal breeding age is free from survival pressure. And since humans are a species that regularly live to well beyond breeding age then let me use humans as an example. For instance, type 2 diabetes almost certainly has a genetic as well as a lifestyle cause. But type 2 diabetes normally sets in late in life, and the genes which dispose for it have already taken residence in the next generation. Even if type 2 diabetes killed you stone dead in seconds, evolution could not eradicate it. Your children have the susceptibility to it, and they will have passed it on to their children before they drop stone dead in turn. There are many others, some cancers, osteoarthritis, macular degeneration, heart conditions. Nothing in evolution will filter out the 'bad' genetic variations.
So, on to Intelligent Design. As I understand it the principle here is that life is too complex to have occurred by the myriad chances of evolution, and that there must have been a 'guiding hand' to help it on its way. Blind watchmakers are one of the favourite analogies. Now, I freely admit that I am no expert on the precise details of how the 'guiding hand' is meant to do its job, but I am not going to let that bother me. Because I am going to assume that there is Intelligent Design. And I don't think I am going too wrong if I assume that the human species is a result of this intelligent design. I am prepared to say that the eye, and the brain, and the liver and the pancreas and everything else has been put together by something that knew what it was doing (I take it that that is what the Intelligent bit means).
My contention is that if we are designed, why do we fall apart in so many different ways? Why would the same design of pancreas cause type 2 diabetes in some of the population and not others, why do some eyes fail completely, while others last a lifetime, why do some joints wear out, and others never give a twinge. That is the absurdity in the argument. If we are designed, than we should age in a consistent way. Yes, I know lifestyle will add variation, but people with very similar lifestyles, husband and wife for instance, can age very differently.
And if I am allowed one further assumption, that the Intelligent Designer was not having a cosmic joke at our expense, why do our components wear out at different rates? If the likely lifespan is designed, then what was wrong with building components that will last?
Ageing and death are a given, but they can be slow, painful and tragic. We have all seen loved ones decline, all suffered from the guilt and upset that can go with watching it happen. If this is the Design of the Intelligent Designer then it sucks. Evolution has nothing to say on ageing. Anything goes, no possibility is filtered out. That is what we see in the world. We can believe in Intelligent Design is we want, but it leads to an absurdity. The Design is either not very intelligent, not fit for purpose, or if Intelligent then it is maliciously bad.
Therefore, by 'reductio ad absurdum', in my humble opinion, the way we age shows that Intelligent Design is false. QED.