Evolutionary thinking smashes through the IF-THEN log jam by instead using the IF-AND-ONLY-IF-THEN statement. Here’s an example: If and only if it is Friday, then evolutionists play poker. In this example, if we observe evolutionists playing poker then it must be Friday. There is no other possibility. Unlike the IF-THEN statement, the IF-AND-ONLY-IF-THEN statement allows you to establish truths.

Yes, Hunter’s hypothetical example is all well and true, but does it have anything to do with Coyne or the actual theory of evolution? No, not much.

The part of Coyne’s paragraph that Hunter really has a problem with is the following: “Lanugo can be explained only as a remnant of our primate ancestry“. There’s more, but seeing as Hunter doesn’t really care about the context of this statement anyway, then neither do I.

When you look at that statement, you might initially feel that, yes, that is an IF-AND-ONLY-IF-THEN statement. However, if you do, then you obviously don’t know much about the evolution/ID dichotomy. Intelligent Design is definitely a possible answer to the existence of life. It’s one of many. However, what it’s not is an explanation of where lanugo comes from, or why it exists. Actually, ID doesn’t say anything at all about where anything comes from, or why it exists. It just states that it was “designed” by “someone” (yeah, you try finding an IDist that actually uses the word something instead of someone), and leaves it at that. As evidence, they basically go “just look at that flower! You think it made itself?”, and think that settles it. So what if ID is the answer to the questions in nature, what does it tell us? What could knowing that do for us? What’s the practical application of knowing that “someone designed” that flower, or that Zebra, or that mountain?

I won’t claim to know exactly what Coyne meant, and to be quite honest, I haven’t even read his book yet (I’m going to, though). However, I’ve seen and heard enough of debates and statements of this kind to be quite certain that Coyne didn’t actually mean what Hunter tells us he meant. The key word in the quote Hunter uses is “explained”, and not “only”. Using Hunter’s own idea of the IF-AND-ONLY-IF-THEN statement, it would actually read as follows:

IF-AND-ONLY-IF a theory actually explains the existence of a phenomenon, THEN it is a valid explanation.

That means that should any ID advocate come up with a reasonable and evidence-supported theory that explains lanugo, then it too is a valid explanation. Simply stating that “someone” made lanugo happen isn’t an explanation, and it’s even more useless if you have no evidence to show for it.

Lastly, can someone please tell me what part of lanugo is supposed to be intelligently designed anyway? Anyone?

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.

Believer: I can give you irrefutable scientific proof for the existence of God!

Skeptic: I’m listening.

Believer: First, if you will indulge me, a small preamble (Trust me, this argument is going to knock your socks off).

Skeptic: Go on.

Believer: Your house… do you believe that someone built it?

Skeptic: Well, I met the contractor, observed some of the construction process -

Believer: So you do believe there was a builder?

Skeptic: I don’t think “believe” is the right word…

Believer: Excellent! On to my next question; Your car… do you believe someone built that?

Skeptic: Ah, judging from the manufacturer’s information… Okay, I think I can see where this is going. With your ham-fisted Socratic Method you seem to be reaffirming Paley’s “watchmaker” design argument. I’m sure this was much more convincing two hundred years ago, but it hasn’t aged well.

Believer: Paley? No no no, you don’t understand. You see, in the same way that houses and cars have builders…

Skeptic: I understand perfectly. Homes have builders, paintings have painters, blogs have bloggers. All this succeeds to prove is that human artifacts are made by humans. I knew this already. If you wish to conclude that things that appear designed were designed by some other intelligence (namely God), then that is purely conjecture and does not constitute proof.

Believer: But a creation must have a creator! That is scientific proof of God’s existence!

Skeptic: Now you are just playing word games. The universe was only called a “creation” on the presupposition that God created it. You can’t use that fact as proof of God’s existence. You may as well rename the universe “God’s House”, and conclude that God must live there. It’s just semantics.

Believer: [pause] Why do you love sin so much?

Skeptic: [exasperation]

This is exactly how I perceive every single “creation proves a creator”-type argument. “Creation” is a word of one of the many human languages, not an objective property of the universe. Without the human mind existing, no one would be calling it a “creation” to begin with, and thus it wouldn’t be one. Therefore, “creation” only “proves a creator” under the circumstance that you’ve first proved that there is, in fact, a “creation”, to begin with. Since no one has ever managed to do that, this particular argument is immediately rendered moot.

This second one is just as good, hitting at exactly what I feel every time I speak with a True Christian™:

For your amusement, I have distilled a typical dialogue between opposing viewpoints:

Believer: Why do you doubt God?

Skeptic: I have no good reason to believe such a being exists.

Believer: But God is the creator of all that is good, he is the source of all righteousness!

Skeptic: That’s funny, because the way you have previously described him, he seems like kind of a jerk.

Believer: Well, it only seems that way to you because you have no concept of divine justice. God’s wrath is necessary punishment for our sins.

Skeptic: Justice? Your God creates a moral code so rigorous that no human can possibly follow it, then awards eternal condemnation for the slightest infractions. Sounds more like despotism to me.

Believer: Ah, but that’s where you’re wrong. For you see, God will commute your sentence if you only believe and follow Him.

Skeptic: So God disregards justice in favor of the abject devotion of his subjects? I would call that corrupt.

Believer: What? No, well… Hey, if you don’t believe God exists, why should you care about what kind of God he is? Aha! Now I’ve gotcha!

Skeptic: I could make the same observations about Emperor Palpatine, but I don’t see millions of people devoted to worshipping him. There’s nothing inconsistent about a hypothetical judgement of a fictional character.

Believer: Right… Well look man, you better cast aside your pride and put your trust in Jesus. Otherwise death and unending torture await you!

Skeptic: [sigh]

Sigh, indeed. Circular and/or fallacious reasoning won’t work with us, no matter how many times you repeat it. If Christians understood this, that would be a great first step towards further enlightenment and understanding. Unfortunately for us, True Christians™ aren’t interested in enlightenment, nor understanding. They are blissfully ignorant by choice.

On that note, I’ll end this post with another quote, but not from Prestor John this time…

You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

- Author Unknown

faith
• noun 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief.
— ORIGIN Old French feid, from Latin fides.

Granted, in a general sense it is possible to have a “complete trust of confidence” in the belief that there are no gods. However, this isn’t what is usually being claimed. The word ‘faith’ is used by theists to describe atheists’ use of science, and the scientific method of evidence and reason. In this context, the word ‘faith’ is probably the worst choice imaginable. One of the corner stones of the scientific method, and science itself, is that knowledge is never absolute or final. It’s constantly at a relative value towards the evidence provided. A scientist will not have ‘faith’ in anything that lacks evidence, and should also have no problem disregarding previous beliefs should evidence to the contrary arrise.

While a theist might have faith in the existence of his god, or gods, even when evidence is presented to the contrary, an atheist will most likely change his beliefs according to the evidence at hand. Note, for example, how even though atheism only means disbelief in gods, you will rarely meet an atheist who believes in other supernatural phenomena without any evidence to support them. Atheism is a result of the inability to have ‘blind faith’ in things that are not supported by logic, reason, evidence or otherwise.

Maybe, though, it isn’t so strange that those that do not believe according to logic and reason, will claim things about others that are contrary to both.