Ohhh, this book is pissing me off

[weaktwos]

Okay, I'm trying to give Lee Strobel a chance to make a good case for Intelligent Design. But it just can't happen.

His book is full of examples like this:

[anne's note: the biosphere story here is part of a previous example about astronauts landing on mars finding a biosphere on the planet.]

1. “Okay,” he replied. “Set aside the issue of how the biospherethere got there in the first place. Let’s say when you found it, there were twelve
dials that controlled the conditions inside the dome. Each dial had an
incredibly huge range of possible settings. When you departed, you left
the dials at random and as a result no life was possible in the biosphere.
“Then you come back a year later. When you look at the dials,
you’re amazed to find that each one of them has been carefully calibrated
to just the right setting so that life is flourishing in the dome.
Twelve dials, twelve different factors—all optimally set for life.
“Do you know what the headline would be in the newspaper the
next day? It would say: EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE EXISTS. We would take
that as proof that an intelligent being had landed and set those dials
precisely where they needed to be for life.
“And I’m saying that the dials for the fundamental properties of
the universe have been set like that. In fact, the precision is far
greater. This would be totally unexpected under the theory that random
chance was responsible. However, it’s not unexpected at all under
the hypothesis that there is a Grand Designer.”

Or this:
2. “I’ll give you another illustration,” he continued. “Let’s say I was
hiking in the mountains and came across rocks arranged in a pattern
that spelled out, WELCOME TO THE MOUNTAINS ROBIN COLLINS. One
hypothesis would be that the rocks just happened to be arranged in
that configuration, maybe as the result of an earthquake or rockslide.
You can’t totally rule that out. But an alternative hypothesis would be
that my brother, who was visiting the mountains before me, arranged
the rocks that way.
“Quite naturally, most people would accept the brother theory
over the chance theory. Why? Because it strikes us as supremely
improbable that the rocks would be arranged that way by chance, but
not at all improbable that my brother would place them in that pattern.
That’s a quite reasonable assumption.
“In a similar way, it’s supremely improbable that the fine-tuning
of the universe could have occurred at random, but it’s not at all
improbable if it were the work of an intelligent designer. So it’s quite
reasonable to choose the design theory over the chance theory. We
reason that way all the time. Were the defendant’s fingerprints on the
gun because of a chance formation of chemicals or because he
touched the weapon? Jurors don’t hesitate to confidently conclude that
he touched the gun if the odds against chance are so astronomical.”

So, let's look at number one: Has it ever happened? No. Lee, a word of advice. If you're going to give us an example that makes sense to us, try to ground it in reality. I know, I know, he's trying to show us that perfectly sensible people would, at such obvious signs of intelligence, would conclude that aliens lived on mars. Strobel forgets to add that one of those dials probably cues up a intergalactic porno movie.

Have we frickin' found the control room that controls our climate that allows us to live? No!

Okay, so Strobel reaches in his ass and pulls out another analogy: The Mischievous Brother analogy. This would be great, except, unlike God, we could find more tangible evidence that Collins' brother exists. What if the rock formation said, "Robin, this is God. Stop Masturbating so often." Would anyone buy that God left that rock formation? Probably not. Why? Because plenty of other people are capable of telling Robin to stop jerking off. Surely God in all his magnificence would not stoop to tell Robin to stop touching himself. Besides, some of that was probably covered in Leviticus.

As for juries ruling over whether the defendant's fingerprints were on the gun comment, at least the defendant would be present in a court of law to answer to the accusation. If the defendant's defense was that he was innocent, and that God made him touch the gun so that his prints would be on the gun, how would the Jury vote in that instance? I don't think so. In fact, I think the jury would find that highly improbable.

Comments

[doccross.livejournal.com]

See, that's why I don't read stuff like that. You can never win an argument with people whose minds are controlled by primitive superstitions and they ALWAYS use those freshly pulled outta their asses examples to try to prove that their creation myth is fact.

Better I should spend my time reading about straw bale construction or how to cook Thai food or growing native plants.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

I know, I know. But I like to know how these people think. Maybe one day they'll form a better case.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

smart thing to aim for, understandign that (if possible) helps to give you an edge

[imlac.livejournal.com]

It's just the strong anthropic principle, rehashed, nothing new. These people have no grasp of intellectual history. I will never read any such thinkers unless they can start by giving me a refutation of Hume. Don't waste your time, unless you're just curiorous what sort of whacky shit these people believe.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Yes. I'm on a wacky shit hunt. Especially since some people laud this as a valid case. I want to know what they are talking about so I can see just how screwed up their point of view is.

[lavenderjones.livejournal.com]

Strobel is a fuckwit.
I'm in a bitchy mood.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

he's also looking at one incident in a small scope, not taking into account that number of incidents will be higher in a huge universe. but then that whole theory is people who can't accept probabilities making up alternative reasons for them.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

oh yeah and all that masterbating stuff just makes me laugh thiking of the movie Real Genius, "stop playing with yourself Kent!" which is probably where you got it from and what it's supposed to make me think of :-)