Undeniable Evidence for Intelligent Design

At the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute we found a new post that will not only shake your Darwinist world to its foundations, it will then send that world toppling into the abyss. It’s titled Sewell: Top Five Evidences for Intelligent Design, and it was written by Brian Miller, described at the end as the Discoveroids’ Research Coordinator. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Mathematician Granville Sewell recently released a new video presenting a very helpful summary of the evidence for intelligent design in nature. It is separated into five sections:

• The Fine-Tuning of Conditions on Earth
• The Fine-Tuning of the Physical Laws of our Universe
• The Origin of Life
• The Origin of Intelligent Humans
• The Origin of Human Consciousness

An interesting list. But wait — some of you are asking: Who is Granville Sewell? We’ve written about him a few times before because he’s one of the Discoveroids’ major intellects. See, e.g.: The Legend of Granville Sewell, and then Granville Sewell Demolishes Materialism, and then Granville Sewell and the Second Law, Again. Okay, let’s return to the Discoveroids’ blog post, which then says:

The video includes several particularly insightful points. Sewell illuminates the deep irony of how atheists have responded to the evidence for fine-tuning by appealing to the existence of a vast number of other universes [ah yes, the “multiverse”], a conjecture not supported by any empirical evidence:

[We assume this is a quote from Granville’s video:] It is interesting that those who for many years have ridiculed religious believers for imagining that there is another universe, another dimension, out there with better conditions awaiting us [Heaven & hell?] have now been reduced, by the evidence for fine-tuning, to inventing not one but “countless” other universes with different conditions.

Your Curmudgeon doesn’t know anyone who’s serious about the multiverse, but the Discoveroids claim we all are. Anyway, after that they tell us:

He also lists several leading scholars [Hee hee!] who have argued that the laws of physics and the conditions of our planet are not only fine-tuned for the survival of intelligent beings, but they are also fine-tuned for the development of technology and for scientific discovery (here, here, here). [Three links omitted!]

Those links to “leading scholars” are to items like The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez. You can click over there and hunt down the work of those “leading scholars” if you like. The Discoveroid blog post continues:

Consequently, critics [Like you, dear reader!] cannot use the argument that “the conditions were just right because otherwise we would not be here to wonder about it.” We could have just as easily appeared on a planet that supported life but not science and technology. The only explanation is that they are gifts from our designer to challenge, entertain, and inspire us.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, that’s the “only explanation.” But what about a planet where there’s no animal life other than, say, jellyfish? Was the designer — blessed be he! — angry with them and therefore denied them the ability to develop technology? We couldn’t have appeared there. We’re here because conditions were right for something like us, and that’s all there is to it. Anyway, after skipping a bit they say:

He describes how atheists [The hell-bound fools!] often argue that scientists cannot appeal to design since they cannot explain the origin of the designer. Yet, they also have to appeal to an uncaused cause for the universe, which now appears particularly problematic: [Quote from Granville omitted.]

Hey — good point! If you can’t explain the origin of the universe, then you can’t use the “origin” argument for the Discoveroids’ designer. Their post goes on a bit longer, and finally ends with this:

This video [They never link to it!] provides a quick and easy introduction to intelligent design that I would recommend to anyone new to the topic.

Granville’s arguments are so powerful, so devastating, that there’s nothing you can do, dear reader, except sink to your knees and beg for mercy from the Discoveroids’ designer. So do it now.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

16 responses to “Undeniable Evidence for Intelligent Design

  1. chris schilling

    The same old confusion between naturalism vs supernaturalism that plagues orthodox creationism applies here: materialism is to be railed against when invoked sans god; but somehow applauded when a presumed god resorts to these same material conditions to bring about a “fine-tuned” universe. In other words: naturalism is really just “supernaturalism”, but incognito.

    TomS has repeatedly pointed out: why the need for naturalistic “fine-tuning” at all, when any supernatural agent unconstrained by physical laws could just make life appear anywhere, under any physical conditions, no matter how unlikely?

    If the universe is fine-tuned or “designed” for life — as Sewell and Miller, following Gonzalez, suggest — then life should be relatively common. Supposing this be the case, then, how does that make the Earth and its inhabitants so “exceptional”?

    Or was the universe fine-tuned for life (but otherwise devoid of any!) solely for our benefit?

  2. There are many problems with arguments for Intelligent Design, but this essay presents a particular complex of problems. The five points enumerated are pairwise conflicting.
    For example, if the laws of physics are fine tuned for life, then there is no point to fine tuning the conditions of Earth.

  3. For those who’ve never seen the intelligent designer here he is

  4. Charley Horse X

    To hell with all this fine tuning. Tell us what proof there is this design entity still exists and what it is doing today. Tell us why the DI like young Earth creationists organizations continue to deny humans are causing rapid global warming. That along with the inability of humans around the world being unable to resolve issues without wars are the major problems. Throw in the worldwide pandemic and it makes these IDers so irrelevant except for their interference in finding solutions and enacting solutions for really big threats to all life on this planet.
    Insisting that some intelligent entity / force exists that can create a universe and life serves no purpose in solving the big problems. Especially when it so obvious that this entity could not care less that humans are destroying life including those that worship it.

  5. Mile high buildings have been designed, but they don’t exist. Flying horses, schmoos, nuclear powered airplanes have been designed.
    Being designed is not enough to exist.
    What does being designed tell us, if it doesn’t even tell us that it exists?

  6. Chimps use small branches to dig out termites or ants for food. Other amonkeys use tools (Rocks) to crack open nuts for food. Crows can readily solve multi-part problems to get a reward. Ants set up farms inside their ant hills. They also use aphids in a mutual process for existence. So many species communicate within their groups. Evolution is not limited. Learned skills are not limited.

  7. Evolution is limited by the laws of physics. It can only do what the conservation or removal of traits from the population, can do. That is a very large scope, given enough generations, but it’s not unlimited.

    But the other side to that is that not only can evolution do whatever is allowed by the laws of physics, it will do it, sooner or later.

    I suspect – it’s no more than a conjecture – that we will find that any environment that has the necessary elements (and we don’t know what that might include) and a sufficient but not excessive constant energy bath, will eventually produce self-replicating molecules and hence, life. That is, the Earth is “fine-tuned” for our kind of life because we are evolved to be “fine-tuned” for it. Who would expect anything else? Of course we are “fine-tuned” for Earth. Evolution makes certain of that.

    We evolved intelligence because an enhanced ability to manipulate our environment is an advantage. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be an advantage in any environment that could be manipulated, whatever its characteristics. That is, I would expect intelligence to emerge in any such environment.

    He seems to think such environments are vanishingly rare in the Universe. I don’t know how he came to that conclusion, given the paucity of the data, but “vanishingly rare” would allow at least a couple of dozen other intelligent species to evolve in this galaxy alone.

  8. @Dave Luckett
    If it is vanishingly rare, then it is not fine tuned for.

  9. Very true.

  10. Let me be charitable and assume (incorrectly) that those five points are evidence for an Intelligent Designer (blessed be MOFO!). No single one of them is a priori incompatible with any naturalistic explanation and particularly with evolution theory. None of them contribute anything to, I quote from the infamous Wedge Document, “the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies”.
    So besides presenting a nice summary of many, if not all fallacies the IDiots from Seattle keep on promoting this also demonstrates how void the thinking of that think tank is.

  11. Eddie Janssen

    There have been many comparisons of the finetuning argument(s) like legs are just long enough to reach the ground but the following is nice to:
    Consider the rock on top of Mount St. Helens. It is obvious that the whole universe and all the fundamental forces have been finetuned to get it where it is now.
    It must feel very special and if it has no sense of modesty, very proud. It is in the center of the thoughts of the Intelligent Designer.

  12. There is an essay of Mark Twain, “Was the World Made for Man?”. In the last paragraph, he considers of the Eiffel Tower. “the skin of paint on the pinnacle knob at its summit” that “anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for.”

  13. @EddieJ: my favourite version stems from Herman Philipse, God in the Age of Science. A fly lands on the White House, looks around and notices that it’s a nice, cozy resting place. The only possible conclusion is that it has been especially designed for the insect.
    Or not.

    @TomS: that’s a good one too.

  14. The “fine tuning argument” is bogus, on its face and because before you can argue that the universe would be different if any of those constants were different, you’d have to establish that they can be different. To do that, you’d have to find a zone in the universe where they were different (we looked, haven’t found any yet) or show that they can be changed in an experiment (so far, that hasn’t happened either).

    The problem is, as I see it, these arguments are being made by people who don’t have the foggiest notion of what they are talking about. Our Icon of Apologetics, Willian Craig, keeps insisting that the Big Bang originated from nothing, a state that has never been shown to exist. Talk about a straw man argument, describe the BB incorrectly and then lambaste it for violating physical laws.

  15. Another problem with fine-tuning that it assumes a goal to conclude that someone had a goal in mind.
    Another problem is that the hypothesis of the multiverse was not formulated to address fine-tuning, but to explain some experimental data that otherwise may not be explained.
    Another problem is that the multiverse actually doesn’t contradict a supernatural finetuner.

    Sewer Granny’s thinking has too many problems to mention them all.

  16. Correction: not experimental data but observed data.
    Had Sewer Granny taken the effort to google “reasons for a multiverse” he would have found them. But Discoveroids are not very good at discovering things on their own.