On the matters of faiths, beliefs, sciences and worldviews.

Apparently, Richard Dawkins’ website and discussion forum were hacked yesterday. The hackers used the site to send out spam to users, but everything was promptly restored and the hole was quickly plugged shut again. However, DLH on Uncommon Descent used this as an opportunity to argue for Intelligent Design. Apparently, since the website wasn’t perfectly and completely secure against all forms of attack, both past and future, it cannot be a product of human intelligent design.

Taking the opposite of Ferguson, I hold that Dawkin’s forum is hosted using computer systems, software systems, and communication systems, each of required utilize encoded design specifications, controlled energy systems, and controlled material processing systems to be assembled. Each person participating in Dawkins’ forum furthermore uses other software, computer, and energy systems to participate on that forum. Each of these in turn are only known to occur by the explicit cause and design of intelligent agents. There is no known process by which the four forces of nature has been scientifically proven to form any of these measures. Consequently, I hold that Dawkins’ forum evidences “Intelligent Design”.

Not only does this suggest that that which he argues is “creation” is, in all ways, perfect when it is clearly not (weak, soft bodies, prone to disease, suboptimal design of limbs and organs), but he uses the age-old argument that because humans can create things, someone must have created us in turn. However, what’s fun about this argument is that humans are simply intelligent enough to make more complicated tools. Certain apes and monkeys are perfectly capable of using simple tools as well, but they’re far from creating computers, cars or nuclear power plants. Is the fact that these apes and monkeys can not create complicated design evidence to the fact that there is no intelligent design of the world? I mean, if humans can be used as evidence for, then all other animals can be used as evidence against. Unless you’re also a religious Christian who believes that humans are special and apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, proving once again that religion and Intelligent Design are far too closely connected.

If you really want to present an argument to prove creation, then let me help you along:

1. Show evidence that God exists.
2. Show that our universe is, in fact, a creation
3. Show that it was, in fact, God who created it

It is imperative that you do these things in this particular order, lest you will fail to prove anything whatsoever. “Creation” is a description of something that can be shown to have been created by someone. You cannot simply call anything you like a “creation” and use that to prove the act of creating as well as the creator himself.