I studied evolution for several years, beginning back when I was religious and thought Lawrence Kelemen had debunked the entire theory. In fact, it was in studying evolution to disprove it that I very slowly came to accept it, and that had a major effect in opening my eyes to the fallibility of rabbis and the “truths” I was told growing up. So arguments from design have some special significance for me.



Anyways, this should be fun. I take that back. Having just read through this incredibly inane article, I can honestly call the experience painfully exhausting. Rabbi Averick’s arguments are composed of little more than misunderstandings, hyperbole, quote-mining, semantics, straw-men, and idiocy.

Here’s the short of it: Hume makes a great point against the design argument, and evolution shows that design can occur naturally - as well as how weak {if not invalid} the design argument is since evolution is an example, amongst many, of how the AFD has failed miserably. That’s basically it. Those two alone crush the argument. But if you want to get into particulars, or simply are ready to battle some painfully deep ignorance, buckle your seatbelt and keep reading:

The Design Argument: Answers to Atheists’ Objections by [Rabbi] Moshe Averick [of aish hatorah]

The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design. The argument is remarkably simple. It goes as follows: The existence of a suit implies the existence of the tailor who made the suit. The existence of a poem on a piece of paper implies the existence of the poet who created that poem. In other words, the suit itself is the proof of the existence of the intelligent creator of the suit, no other evidence is necessary. There are levels of design, sophistication, and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could be accounted for by any undirected process. How to precisely define such levels is not our topic of discussion. It is clear, however, that a suit and poem by Robert Frost, and a living bacterium, are certainly well over that line. The entire plot of the classic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey is based on this obvious principle. At a dramatic moment in the film, when a rectangular monolith is discovered buried on the moon, it is clear to those who discover it (and accepted as absolutely logical and reasonable by everyone watching the movie) that this is unmistakable proof of alien life. After all, a precisely measured monolith couldn’t possibly have made itself or “evolved naturally.” The rest of the film is about the search for the aliens who constructed and buried the monolith in the first place.

1. Lots of folk { 1. Lots of folk { eg } talk about the ‘2001 principle’ so allow me take a moment more to debunk it. Firstly, it’s a movie. Movies are meant to lead viewers to certain reactions. They do this by the expressions on the actors’ faces and by the music playing, and even by sharing a bit about the plot before the audience sees the film{ x } etc. So, let’s not get too impressed over movie reactions.

2. People are dumb, especially when it’s about ascribing significance to something they don’t understand.{e.g. ancient thoughts on lightening.} People are also very quick to see significance where there is none, such as jesus’ face in a piece of toast. {And much of that is due to the many biases resulting from our biology and evolutionary heritage. e.g. x x } That some people might see a rock and think it is special is, frankly, not that special.

We have discovered monoliths in space! For instance, one was found on Mars not too long ago. {link} And it was interesting - see my next point - but the vast majority of people didn’t just start believing there were martians. Clearly it’s not very convincing. 3.

4. This is jumping the gun a bit to Hume’s point, but an essential point in any such discussion is whether the thing in question can occur naturally and our familiarity with how it occurs. As Averick notes, “After all, a precisely measured monolith couldn’t possibly have made itself or 'evolved naturally.’” In other words, we have a pretty good idea of how different types of rocks are formed and certain shapes, or certain rocks in particular areas, are unexpected. Finding such a rock or a rock in such a place would be interesting and perhaps indicative of other forces at work, but only bc we have experience and knowledge of how such things usually happen.

For instance, there are certain places filled with fields of tall, hexagonal rocks called columnar basalt. I’m sure the first people to find it thought it was amazing and perhaps indicative of unnatural causes {wiki}. But then we studied it and realized it’s just a natural occurrence. In fact, these guys found a way to make it with corn-starch!

The human body is an incredible piece of machinery; who put it together?

Note the assumption and framing of the question. A better way to ask would be “what” or simply “how was it” created. And btw, we know the answer! It’s called evolution! But Averick will drop that point to focus on cells later on.

It certainly required a great deal more sophistication to build a human being than to construct a rectangular monolith. The existence of highly sophisticated living organisms implies a highly sophisticated designer of these organisms.

Keep this in mind bc Averick’s gonna quote Dawkins later, making this same point, and totally misunderstand him in a very bizarre manner. Also, as mentioned before, the fact that evolution - a blind, natural process - can create “endless forms most beautiful,” itself destroys the assumptions behind the design argument.

Believers call this designer, the Creator or God. What could possibly be the flaw in such an argument?

Not sure why Averick or “believers” would conclude that it must be god - after all, it could be a demi-god, Not sure why Averick or “believers” would conclude that it must be god - after all, it could be a demi-god, aliens , time-travelers, natural causes or something else. I think this is an important philosophical point, but I won’t harp on it. As for what could possibly be wrong with Averick’s argument… well, everything!

Before we actually deal with the objections raised by atheists and skeptics, I want to stress: Nobody disagrees with the Argument from Design... In the debate between skeptics and believers the disagreement is not about the validity of the Argument from Design. The argument itself is undeniably true. The point of contention is the following: Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?

I like how Averick begins by proclaiming that everyone basically agrees with him. It’s a cute tactic. Anyways, many people actually disagree with it depending how it’s used. The question is not whether the argument from design applies to living organisms; the question is whether it applies to anything “unfamiliar”. Again, this is jumping the gun to Hume’s point, but as a quick example: If we stumbled on the aforementioned columnar basalt fields, would we conclude it’s designed? Averick would probably say yes. {After all, it’s at least as impressive as a monolith, if not moreso.} And he’d be wrong. And this is precisely because he’d be making assumptions about something he knows nothing about and has no experience with. The argument from design is really only strong {I won’t say valid, though perhaps that’s the case} when dealing with things of which we’re familiar with how they’re made. So yes, seeing a poem or a suit would imply a poet and a tailor, but seeing a monolith or strange hexagonal rocks shouldn’t lead to conclusions of aliens, giants, or metaphysical super-powers. So you could use the argument from design on things we are familiar with, that much most people would concede, but applying it to unfamiliar things or circumstances - like the creation of life or the universe - is not universally accepted in the least.

Skeptics raise two basic objections to applying the Argument from Design to the world of living systems:

1) ideas found in the writings of a highly influential 18th century Scottish philosopher by the name of David Hume, and

2) Darwinian Evolution. We will deal with both. David Hume and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Dr. Frank Sonleitner and Dr. Julian Baggini claim that Hume’s philosophy invalidates any attempt to apply the Argument from Design to the living world…: David Hume and Dialogues Concerning Natural ReligionDr. Frank Sonleitner and Dr. Julian Baggini claim that Hume’s philosophy invalidates any attempt to apply the Argument from Design to the living world…:

Furthermore, as David Hume points out, we can only hypothesize [a designer of a watch], because we know by experience what the cause of watches are. We have no experience of causes of the universe, so we are not justified in making any assumption about who or what they might be… ..I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person could seriously consider Hume’s argument as having any relevance to the matter at hand. We are not discussing the “causes of the universe” or the “origin of worlds,” i.e., things of which we have no experience.3 We are talking about highly complex living organisms that are meticulously studied, catalogued, and experimented on day and night by scientists all over the world…

This had me in stitches. Apparently Averick doesn’t see how the exact same logic as Hume’s would apply equally to the universe or any other thing of which we’re unfamiliar with it’s normal creation. As such, he goes on to list examples of scientists trying - unsuccessfully - to make artificial kidneys and hearts and concludes, “see, we do have familiarity with creating them!” Firstly, our {present} inability to make artificial organs would probably better fit the conclusion that intelligent design did not make them since, clearly, intelligent design still can’t. But that’s just a throw-away bc it’s an inane argument countering his inane version of it. More importantly, he’s comparing apples to oranges. His argument would be similar to concluding that waves are made by intelligent design since we can intelligently design a wave machine, or that sand-dunes are intelligently designed - and not just the product of wind - bc someone can build a sand-dune. Or that sculptures are a natural occurrence since some rocks look like they were chisselled into a design. He’s trying to compare human imitation of a design process with whatever design process actually made them, and it’s equally ridiculous whether comparing it to god’s alleged design process, evolution’s design process, or any other design process. You can only compare human design with human design.

…Eliminating Hume from the picture brings us to the second argument that skeptics use to claim that the Argument from Design does not apply to the world of living systems: Darwinian Evolution. I do not want to spend much time on this topic. For argument’s sake I would concede the fact of Neo-Darwinian Evolution. Done!

Not surprised he doesn’t want to spend too much time on it since it basically destroys his entire argument. But I’d like to point out that it seems clear that he doesn’t accept evolution. Just something worth noting.

…Christopher Hitchens begrudgingly concedes that before Darwin, the “default position” of a creator was reasonable…

Richard Dawkins also admits to the obvious truth of this point…. Dawkins tells us that Darwin made it possible to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist.” 7 However, we shall soon see that just as Hume is irrelevant to our question, so too Darwin is irrelevant to our question (regarding the existence of a Creator)…

So, yeah, pretty laughable that he assumes he crushed Hume and continues to steamroll onward with that assumption throughout the article. But I’d also like to point out that he states the question here is about “the existence of a creator”. Maybe I’m reading into this the wrong way, but I thought I’d mention it since his article seems to stray a bit from his original point of the Argument From Design later on. More importantly, if anything is irrelevant to this discussion, it’s the need to consider the argument from before Darwin’s time because, guess what, we now know about evolution so it really doesn’t matter how we would’ve understood the world beforehand! Same thing with our present understanding of how rain occurs or where maggots and other tiny creatures come from. Doesn’t matter that people used to assume it was god{s} or spontaneous generation. We know more now and we use what we know!



Darwinian Evolution simply begs the question For the truth-seeking individual, the very best that Darwinian evolution can tell us is the following: Once you have in place a fantastically complex piece of molecular machinery called a living cell… All varieties of life are possible – if, and only if – this amazing piece of machinery is in place. How did it get there?

Here is an interesting twist. Averick mentioned earlier that he wouldn’t argue about evolution. So here, instead, he focuses his attention on abiogenesis , or the origin of life itself - as opposed to particular species. And while abiogenesis is not, strictly speaking, part of evolutionary theory {since evolution kicks off once things start reproducing}, it is commonly discussed as part of the scientific and naturalistic explanation of reality.

Thus, Averick apparently concedes that evolution - i.e. natural forces - can explain the incredible diversity of “designs” throughout the living world, but he argues that since we do not yet know how the first cell{s} were created, that we probably never will, and can therefore assume they were designed and there must therefore be a creator which accounts, ultimately, for all life on earth.

However, of course, Hume’s counter-point is still completely valid. There is simply no way that Averick can demonstrate that the first cells must have been designed, let alone by an omniscient, omnipotent god. He has simply pulled those assumptions from nowhere. So, pardon me if I use Hitchen’s Razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” {Btw, I wouldn’t object to Averick saying, “hey, we don’t know how the first cell was created, and it seems difficult, so maybe it was designed.” That’d be fine. I’d disagree, but that’s fine. However, he’s insisting he knows how something must have been made as a result of ignorance. That’s something very different.}

Furthermore, while science has not settled on a single popular explanation for abiogenesis, it is misleading to suggest that they have no idea how it happened, as Averick does in fact suggest. The fact is that there are several competing theories with no clear winner just yet, and they are supported by various experimental facts.



For instance, we have found that amino-acids, the building blocks of life, can be formed quite naturally {See the For instance, we have found that amino-acids, the building blocks of life, can be formed quite naturally {See the Miller-Urey Experiment } and have even been found on meteors in outer space! { x } The building blocks of life are literally floating around the universe!

There’s also something called protobionts and microspheres. In short, the “skin” and “bubble” of a cell can also form naturally under the right conditions and function very similarly to a cell: “Abiotically produced molecules can spontaneously self-assemble into droplets that enclose a watery solution and maintain a chemical environment different from their surroundings. Scientists call these spheres 'protobionts’.” { x

Lastly, researchers are working on “synthetic biology” and have even produced faux-dna codes which evolve! { Lastly, researchers are working on “synthetic biology” and have even produced faux-dna codes which evolve! { x } This shows that evolution is just a part of nature and that there isn’t necessarily anything special about DNA. It’s all a matter of chemistry. And as our science improves, we’ll understand it more and be able to manipulate and emulate it more. In other words, it’s looking increasingly unlikely that you’d need a god {or alien or whatever} to design this from scratch.





And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are very many books on abiogenesis. There may not be a clear answer yet, but it’s misleading {or ignorant} of Averick to suggest there’s no evidence for it.



Lest anyone have the impression that the compelling and profoundly significant nature of this line of reasoning can only be appreciated by those with inclinations toward religion, here is distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel (who describes himself as being “just as much an outsider to religion as Richard Dawkins”)…

The fact that Averick can find a handful of intellectuals who sort-of agree with him {as he does later on as well} does little to bolster his point. This is especially so when he’s quoting philosophers for a discussion about science, and especially when the philosopher’s field of study doesn’t include science - as opposed to a philosopher of science like Daniel Dennett - and especially when that opinion is highly controversial {wiki}. It’d be like me quoting Francis Crick to demonstrate the probability of directed panspermia - that is, that life was seeded here by aliens - and it’s acceptance in the scientific community. In other words, not very persuasive in itself.

…As it turns out, Darwinian evolution is not, as the skeptic would have us believe, a testimony to what can emerge from undirected processes; it is a testimony to the unimaginably awesome capabilities and potential contained in the first living cell and its genetic code. A paradigm-shifting insight emerges from all this: Contrary to popular belief, not only is Darwinian evolution not the cause or explanation of the staggering complexity of life on this planet; Darwinian evolution itself is a process which is the result of the staggering complexity of life on this planet. Human beings who are seeking the truth about the existence of a Creator should stop wasting their time and energy arguing about Archaeopteryx and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is all beside the point. Darwinian evolution most definitely does not provide an escape hatch.. All existing life is nothing more than a variation on a theme. All the “organized complexity” of life is a variation on the “organized complexity” of the first living organism…

Right. So even though Averick concedes that evolution is true - “for argument’s sake” - he does not see that evolution is a testimony to what natural processes can create. Right. That makes about as much sense as eating thumbtacks. Instead, Averick argues that it shows the tremendous potential in that first cell. Now, of course, I wouldn’t argue with that per se, since we are descended from those first cells and have clearly gone rather far, but I would argue with the notion that all later biological innovations are merely “variations on a theme” as it’s obviously overly dismissive of the manifest diversity, design, and evolution which has and continues to occur. There are new genes which exist, genes which were not present in those first cells. There have been massive biological innovations, like multicellularity, photosynthesis, nerves/senses, mobility, sex, egg-laying, morality, flight, consciousness, and more. To look at a bacterium, pigeon, and a human and just consider them merely “variations on a theme” is misguided at best, and dishonest at worst. And again, just to be clear, Averick is placing his entire argument on the first life forms and the massive assumption that they must have been designed, an assumption humanity shared for the diversity of species for most of history until Darwin demonstrated quite natural explanations, and an assumption already under considerable attack from abiogenetic research. This is a true god-of-the-gaps argument.

…The only relevant question is: How did life begin? Darwin has nothing at all to say on the subject. Darwinian evolution does not even pretend to address the issue. Chance, as we’ve seen in a previous chapter, is not an answer. Science simply has no answer…

Ah, yes, bc Averick concedes evolution therefore abiogenesis is the “only relevant question.” Of course. Then he faults evolutionary theory for not including abiogenesis, despite their being distinct fields and despite the fact that books on evolution still do commonly discuss abiogenesis and the research going on with it anyways! Then he scoffs at science because it hasn’t yet figured out the answer, as if such questions as the origin of life billions of years ago are so easily answered. {Oh, and I’ll get to that “chance” article soon.}

He’s simply taking the old-world argument from design in the diversity of nature and retreating back in time, billions of years, to the first cells. A safe place from which to hedge one’s bets.

… In the final analysis, the atheist’s denial of God,12 despite his propagandist smokescreen {lol} to the contrary, has nothing to do with Science. We have shown clearly that the two giant battleships in the scientific arsenal of the atheist, Darwinian evolution and Origin of Life, are nothing more than floundering, leaky rowboats (if even that much). Evolution is irrelevant {to a discussion of design?! lol}, and Origin of Life clearly points to a creator. As it turns out, the ultimate battle between believer and non-believer will not be fought in the scientific arena at all. Stripped of the mighty sword of Darwinism and his Scientific Naturalism body armor {how was this stripped away exactly?}, the atheist retreats and barricades himself in his ideological version of the Alamo.

Wow, Averick is really eating up his own rhetoric. 1. I assume Averick meant Hume’s argument as the 'second weapon in our atheist arsenal’, as that was his focus and bc scientists don’t have a firm grip on abiogenesis yet. Still, scientists and atheists don’t usually shy away from discussing it, but the science isn’t strong enough yet for us to generally use it for as strong of a point as we do with other sciences. 2. R. Averick hasn’t shown that evolution, hume’s point, or even abiogenesis are invalid or even “leaky ships.” The only thing Rabbi Averick has done is concede to evolution, misunderstand Hume, make huge assumptions about the origin of life, ignore the evidence which does exist, and proceed to claim victory on all such points!

“Dawkins’ Last Stand” will be fought with the only weapon remaining: a philosophical argument that he calls “The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit.”… And now Dawkins: Actually the argument from improbability properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist. My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit … Hoyle said the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrap yard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747… However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the ultimate 747.

Dawkins further clarifies the idea: Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin… Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a Dutchman’s Pipe [a type of flower], would have to be even more improbable than a Dutchman’s Pipe … chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other regresses to it.15 (The God Delusion) There is an obvious flaw in the logic of the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit. Let’s rephrase…: …Any entity capable of designing something as improbable as a Texas Instruments business calculator would have to be even more improbable than the business calculator itself… There is an obvious flaw in the logic of the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit. Let’s rephrase…: Of course we know this is ridiculous. An intelligent entity purposefully and consciously designed and built the calculator. Applying the same logic to a bacterium is more absurd, in light of the fact that a bacterium is extraordinarily more functionally complex than a calculator. Only a willful designer could produce a digitally controlled self-replicating molecular machine like a bacterium.

So it’s pretty clear that Averick is completely misunderstanding Dawkins {or is writing incomprehensibly}, and apparently agreeing with Dawkins unknowingly! All Dawkins is saying is what Averick himself said earlier in the essay{!}, “The existence of highly sophisticated living organisms implies a highly sophisticated designer of these organisms.” Dawkins basically argues that if you think complexity implies a conscious creator, then that creator must be as complex as the result. And if the creator is complex, then using the same logic, it too must have a complex creator. Thus the question becomes, “what created god?” {I happen to disagree with Dawkins and Averick on this, but that’s besides the point for now. I’ll talk about it a bit more soon.} Averick seems to agree with Dawkins on this logic, yet phrases it to sound like he disagrees. Very odd. He continues though:

The confusion in Dawkins’ argument stems from his subtle, but significant misrepresentation of Hoyle’s analogy. Here is how Dawkins presents Hoyle’s words: “Hoyle said the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.” That is not what Hoyle said. Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on earth by chance is comparable to the probability of a hurricane assembling a 747 by chance. However, the probability of a 747 being assembled by design and the probability of life originating on earth by design is extremely high. If we keep that in mind the rest of Dawkins’ argument makes sense.

Firstly, it’s clearly Averick, not Dawkins, who is confused here. Secondly, Averick makes this inane and superflous point about semantics because Dawkins didn’t mimick Hoyle’s precise phrasing, though it makes not a lick of a difference to Dawkins’ point, and Dawkins did include the crucial “by luck” phrase anyways, keeping Hoyle’s point - if it wasn’t clear already - obviously in-tact! Lastly, I’d like to clarify something: There’s a huge difference between saying that life on earth, if designed, has a high probability of occurring and saying that there’s a high probably that life on earth was designed. It seems that Averick’s phrasing somewhat confuses that, probably unintentionally. because Dawkins didn’t mimick Hoyle’s precise phrasing, though it makes not a lick of a difference to Dawkins’ point, and Dawkins did include the crucial “by luck” phrase anyways, keeping Hoyle’s point - if it wasn’t clear already - obviously in-tact! Lastly, I’d like to clarify something: There’s a huge difference between saying that life on earth, if designed, has a high probability of occurring and saying that there’s a high probably that life on earth was designed. It seems that Averick’s phrasing somewhat confuses that, probably unintentionally.

In other words, if it is statistically improbable that a 747 could have originated by chance, then it is an even greater statistical improbability that the designer of the 747 originated by chance. I agree wholeheartedly. Both the 747 and the human creators of the 747 are here not by chance, but by design!… Just as there clearly exists a designer of the 747, and just as there clearly exists a designer of the calculator, so too, there clearly exists a designer of the first bacterium and its genetic code

[Edit: I didn’t initially understand Averick’s point with this paragraph bc he’s so wrong. I think he’s trying to extend the design argument from the 747 to its human designers. This would seem plainly idiotic since he conceded evolution, but I think Averick thinks it’s valid since he stresses “chance”. Evidently he’ll concede evolution but doesn’t understand that it’s not a product of chance. Evolution uses chance mutations for raw material but natural selection is precisely the opposite of chance. It’s a method for specifically winnowing out the less-fit. That’s not chance. But that common misunderstanding seems to underpin Averick’s rant here. And while that’s certainly the case with evolution, scientists speculate the same is likely the case with abiogenesis. It’s not believed by scientists that the first cell{s} arose fully formed, but that they too were the result of natural processes that gradually built up to a cell.] But just to be clear: Just as Averick would agree that the 747 needs a designer, and that it’s designer - teams of engineers - also need a designer {i.e. god}, Dawkins argues that god would also need a designer. Also, see the wiki page about “Hoyle’s Fallacy”, which basically says that Hoyle looked at modern, complete cells, apparently disregarding or overlooking how things evolve into their modern functions or states. {I swear, evolution’s biggest threat to religion isn’t its conflict with genesis, but how it opens people’s minds to thinking naturalistically. Post about that soon.}

…The philosophical problem that must be addressed is the following: How do we escape from the dilemma of the infinitely regressing series of creators (i.e., whoever created me would have to be at least as complex and sophisticated as I am, and therefore he would also need someone to create him, and so on.)? To state this dilemma in a slightly different way: Since all agree that at one time life did not exist and now it does exist, there must be an actual beginning to the process, it cannot go back infinitely.

Yet here he suddenly seems to get Dawkins’ point. I don’t understand what Averick was thinking when writing this.

Only Complex “Material” Configurations Need a Creator …That which demands and requires a preceding creator is a complex arrangement of physical matter… At some point in the progression, we are faced with the inescapable conclusion that there must be… A creator who is outside of the physical universe, not existing in time and space, and composed of neither matter nor energy, does not require a preceding creator. There is nothing that came before him. He created time, he does not exist in time; there is no “before”… The creator simply is.17

Firstly, I might ask how Averick knows whether fundamental physical forces need a creator. In other words, how does he know the universe and fundamental particles can’t simply exist or even create themselves. {Sounds strange, I know, but quantum physics is very strange.e.g. x x } Cause if he posits that god can simply exist, then why can’t other forces?

But let’s retrace Averick’s steps: After assuming that the first cell{s} must have a creator bc they’re so complex, Averick goes on to explain that God, however, does not need a complex creator. Why? Because god isn’t physical. And Averick apparently understands the workings of metaphysical supernatural realms. And over there, complexity doesn’t require complex origins. He also explains that since there must be a first cause, then we might as well make it god. {cause, yeah, why not conflate those two distinct ideas. And even though he also explains that time itself is meaningless in certain contexts. See footnote 17}

Of course, there’s no actual evidence for any of Averick’s claims.

Now’s a good time to explain why I don’t accept Dawkins’ and Averick’s point about creators and complexity: We know simple things can create complexity! Sand-dunes, the diversity of life, snowflakes, and even the solar system are all the result of relatively simple natural forces and laws. So, for me, none of this is very impressive. Dawkins’ basically argues that if using the design argument, then god needs a designer too; Averick argues that god doesn’t bc only physical things need designers, but metaphysical things don’t. Dawkins’ point isn’t too strong, imho, but I think Averick’s response is completely contrived. Moving on.

Dr. Robert Shapiro and I Are In Agreement about a Supernatural Creator

In fact, in 1986, a year before Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker was published, Dr. Robert Shapiro had already presented the same argument and reached the same conclusion as myself…:

Firstly, had to laugh at how Averick boasts his intellectual congruity with an actual intellectual. Anyways, some context for his quote would be good since Shapiro worked on abiogenesis - no, he was not a creationist or the like - and while he opposed the RNA-world hypothesis, he endorsed his own abiogenetic theories (wiki), much like Paul Davies and other scientists Averick quotes as 'having doubts’ about abiogenesis.

This is exactly what I stated above. The conclusion is that there must be a creator who is not part of the physical universe at all (i.e., a supernatural creator). Inasmuch as Dr. Shapiro is a self-declared agnostic, he obviously rejects this conclusion. Why?…

Well, one can only guess, but mine would be that he’s a scientist, that there’s no good evidence for god, and that, to quote Tim Minchin, “every mystery ever solved turned out to be not-magic!”

… All agree that the process which resulted in the formation of the first living organism required a beginning. There are two possible beginnings, A) a supernatural creator who is composed of neither matter nor energy, and does not exist in time and space, or B) a naturalistic process that started with non-life and ended with life…

So, there you go Dr. Shapiro and dear readers, it’s either a natural or a supernatural origin. One has precedent and preliminary evidence; the other has simple incredulity that natural forces are a better default explanation than supernatural ones. {And that Minchin quote would work here as well.}

..As it turns out, logic leads us to the conclusion that this creator must ultimately be supernatural, but a creator nonetheless. What plausible, empirical evidence can you offer for alternative?

roflmao. Well, there is the evidence of evolution designing the diversity of life, which itself throws a huge fucking monkey wrench into the design argument since it can be so obviously wrong. There’s also the abiogenetic evidence for the feasibility of a natural origin. {See, for instance, the abiogenesis wiki page.} But perhaps most importantly, what empirical evidence does Averick show?!! None! His entire argument is built on theoreticals, ignorance, and misunderstandings! Think about that. He’s a paper-tiger screaming about his house of cards built in the clouds.

…The Reality of a Creator Is Part of Our Inner Essence Not only is a supernatural creator the reasonable and logical solution to our question, I would suggest that we are “hard wired” to both understand and experience the reality of this concept…

It is neither reasonable nor logical. As for human hard-wired emotions, why would you assume they’re anything more than simply natural feelings, likely the result of our evolutionary heritage? It would make as much sense to say that Poseidon made watching the sea so hypnotic so we’d always have him in our hearts.



What Science has now achieved is an emancipation from that impulse to attribute these things to a creator… It was a supreme achievement of the human intellect to realize there is a better explanation … that these things can come about by purely natural causes … we understand essentially how life came into being.20 (from the Dawkins-Lennox debate) …What stops [Dawkins] from taking that step [to worshiping something]? In Dawkins’ own words: “We understand essentially how life came into being”?! – Who understands? Who is “we”? Is it Dr. Stuart Kauffman?.. Dr. Robert Shapiro?.. Dr. George Whitesides?… Dr. G. Cairns-Smith?.. Dr. Paul Davies?… Is it Dr. Richard Dawkins?… Nobody, including Professor Dawkins, has any idea “how life came into being!” It is only this self-deceiving view of reality that allows Dawkins to declare that science has emancipated him from the impulse to attribute the astounding wonders of the living world to a creator. There is no human intellect on the face of the earth that has achieved a “better explanation.”…

Firstly, as for “no better explanation”. I’d disagree. I’d say admitting ignorance is a better explanation than a ludicrous one, and certainly saying that god did it is no more grounded than saying aliens did it. At least admitted ignorance keeps the mind open to finding actually good explanations, while bad ideas require unlearning and thereby slow down actual progress. So I’d disagree with Averick: Admitted ignorance is better than an idiotic or completely unfounded explanation. Also, Averick picks on one line Dawkins said during a live debate and proceeds to quote-mine the hell out of it, trying to demonstrate a point which Dawkins himself concedes! Meanwhile, Dawkins, and other scientists, are happy to admit that we don’t know precisely how life initially arose. Again, this is something Dawkins himself has written about in many places and for a long time. I also highly encourage people to listen to Dawkin’s actual statements during that debate {and generally encourage looking up sources, esp those cited by religious apologists}. Specifically from minutes 19-23 {the quote is around minute 21}. To paraphrase: Humans are used to attributing things to conscious manufacturing and it was a huge step in our intellectual evolution to realize that objects and phenomena can have natural causes. We still don’t know everything, but we’ve already made great strides. We understand essentially how life came into being. We know we’re all cousins of all animals and plants; we know we’re descended from a comm ancestor which might have been something like bacteria; we know the process by which that came about {i.e. natural selection}. We don’t know the details, but we understand essentially how it came about. There are still gaps in our understanding. We still don’t understand how the cosmos came into existence in the first place - but we’re working on that. Science is about finding gaps in our knowledge and finding answers for it. And that’s a problem with religion: it teach people to be satisfied with not knowing. It’s pretty clear that Dawkins was not specifically talking about abiogenesis, as Averick’s quote context - and subsequent “rebuttal” - implies. Furthermore, Dawkins, as I said, is very upfront about the gaps in knowledge, and makes an excellent point about religion. Which brings us to Averick’s closing remarks…

Perhaps it is time for these scientists to express not awe, not admiration … but humility. To stand back from their lab tables, their beakers, pipettes, and Bunsen burners, and reflect on the words of the Psalmist: “My heart was not proud, and my eyes were not haughty, nor did I pursue matters too great and wondrous for me…” (Psalms 131) Excerpted from “Nonsense of the Highest Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist,” by Rabbi Moshe Averick. Visit the author’s site at www. rabbimaverick. com. Click here to purchase the book. {Amazon}

And, of course, the Rabbi Averick ends his article with a biblical “suggestion” for people not to be “too proud” nor try to delve into the mysteries of the universe, cause trying to get real answers - and being confident when one does - must mean one is terribly arrogant, and that’s obviously real bad. Frankly, not surprising to see that in the bible, but a bit surprising to see a modern person espouse such a closed-minded idea.

Note also the book that this is excerpted from his book, “Nonsense of the Highest Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist.”

What a jackass.

For more on the Argument from Design, see also: Wiki, Iron Chariots, Skeptics Dictionary, and Infidels.org.

(Source: jewishatheist)