Christian Colligation of Apologetics Debate Research & Evangelism |
Trimming the Wrong Hedge A Response to Kyle J. Gerkin's “A Counterclockwise Paley” By William Kesatie, J.D. A recent television commercial features a man trying to obtain authentic NFL gear by performing an unsolicited “favor” for NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb. This man spends the night trimming a hedge he believes is on McNabb’s front lawn into the shape of a football quarterback. When McNabb comes out onto of his house the next morning, he informs the man that, unfortunately, the hedge isn’t on his front lawn—it’s on McNabb’s neighbor’s lawn. I was reminded of this commercial when I read Kyle J. Gerkin’s “A Counterclockwise Paley” which is posted at the Secular Web (www.infidels.org). The Secular Web’s link touts that Gerkin has taken William Paley’s famous argument from design and reformulated it “as an argument for atheism.” (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/index.shtml) Being a student of the debate between evolution and intelligent design, I was interested to read Gerkin’s argument to see if he really had created a good proof for atheism based upon design. However, after reading the essay, I concluded that Gerkin had trimmed the wrong tree. He had developed a proof against a god, but it was not the God of the Bible—the God he specially identifies as having disproven as a possible cause of the creation. THE CONTEXT OF HIS PROOF To understand why the argument fails requires an examination of the context. Mr. Gerkin begins by setting forth Paley’s famous argument from design, and proceeds to parrot Richard Dawkins’ inadequately supported assertion that Paley's argument “is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong.” Having dismissed the continuing arguments that Paley might be right (after all, in Gerkin’s world, the only people who would still accept Paley’s argument would be those who are ignorant of “the findings of science since the 18th century”), he then notes that “creationists” have taken one of two approaches in response to modern studies promoting evolution: they have denied that natural selection occurs, or they have agreed with the process of evolution, but have used God as the initial cause of the process. He then states: Since God is completely unnecessary in this view, it has always offended my sense of parsimony, but I could not discount the compatibilist view as a theoretical possibility--until now. (Emphasis added.) Gerkin then presents his own argument that is, to use Gerkin’s own words, “a powerful argument for atheism.” (Emphasis added.) His concluding paragraph states that “my argument precludes the existence of the Christian God.” (Emphasis added.) The context shows that Gerkin is making three claims about his argument: (1) it is a case against the belief that God started the evolutionary process, Thus, it is clear that Gerkin is presenting his syllogism as a proof against the Christian concept of God. These are vast claims, so we should look carefully to see how his proof fares. GERKIN’S PROOF I set forth Mr. Gerkin’s logical proof here, in its entirety, so there is no question about whether I have misrepresented his argument. 1. Organized complexity is the product of conscious design or natural selection. Grouping these arguments into syllogisms, we see that the argument is composed of four separate syllogisms: Syllogism 1 (hereinafter “S1”)— Syllogism 2 (hereinafter “S2”)— Syllogism 3 (hereinafter “S3”)— Syllogism 4 (hereinafter “S4”)— THE FAILURE OF SYLLOGISM 1 (S1) TO DEFINE “ORGANIZED COMPLEXITY” The first and most obvious question arises in S1’s major premise: what exactly is “organized complexity?” How can I know that “organized complexity” is the product of either conscious design or natural selection without a clear understanding of the meaning of “organized complexity”? Until that term is adequately defined, the premise cannot be fully critiqued. This is not an irrelevant question, but goes to the very heart of Gerkin’s argument “for atheism.” If “organized complexity” is limited to material objects or beings, the argument will necessarily fail as a proof for atheism. Yet the term is left undefined. Now, although no definition of “organized complexity” has been given, Gerkin asserts in the minor premise that intelligence is an example of “organized complexity” but does not provide any reasoning for that assertion. Thus, Gerkin’s premises in S1 may as well say: Major Premise: Pphremmph is the product of conscious design or natural selection. Now, it may be that intelligence is an example of “organized complexity” but without a definition there’s no way to know for certain. Being charitable, I could assume that Gerken is attempting to use an ostensive definition by pointing to “intelligence” as an example of “organized complexity.” But if that is his intent, then the minor premise is simply a restatement of the major premise because it simply clarifies the meaning of “organized complexity.” Hence, S1 would read as follows: Major Premise: Organized complexity, such as intelligence, is the product of conscious design or natural selection. As is obvious, the syllogism breaks down because the major premise says substantially the same thing as the minor premise, in which case, we have a circular argument. Thus, the argument cannot be saved by assuming that Gerkin uses an ostensive definition at (2). Now, Gerkin may be using the term “complexity” in the same manner as Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker, where he defines the term as follows: “[C]omplicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is, in some sense, ‘proficiency’; either proficiency in a particular ability such as flying, as an aero-engineer might admire it; or proficiency in something more general, such as the ability to stave off death, or the ability to propagate genes in reproduction.” The problem with this definition is that Dawkins, by the very nature of his use of the phrase, is speaking of complexity that is found in nature—in material things. Dawkins is talking about biological complexity. Thus, if Gerkin is using the term in the same sense as Dawkins, he is presuming that all “complexity” (and hence, all intelligence) is biological or material. As will be made clear, this limitation to material complexity will be very significant to the argument made in S2. For the time being, it needs to be noted only that “organized complexity” is probably limited to material entities, and it shall be understood as such for the remainder of the essay. “THE PRODUCT OF”? While much can be said of the other syllogisms, the heart of the argument is S2. Gerkin himself identifies the fifth line of his argument (the second minor premise of S2) as the linchpin of his argument. I agree that the argument rises and falls based upon the veracity of S2. S2 begins with the conclusion of S1, which has been shown to be somewhat problematic. Minor Premise 1 is largely unremarkable. While I could comment that it is not been proven that science will ever be able to create true intelligence, for the sake of argument I will accept this premise as uncontroversial. Minor Premise 2 is where the real action lies. To his credit, Gerkin notes that there are potential objections to this premise based upon objections to the first major premise of S1. In fact, he notes two: Creationists will . . . object to the phrase "or natural selection" in (1) and (3), asserting that natural selection cannot account for the production of intelligence (if they even recognize the existence of natural selection!). * * * While I believe he too easily dismisses the two objections, Gerkin completely overlooks a third possibility, to wit, that the intelligence may not be “the product of” anything. The intelligence that could be in existence may have been the “uncaused cause” or “uncreated creator” that has been parts of theistic thinking for centuries. You see, with all due respect to Gerkin, a person who has been identified by J.P. Holding as “smarter than the average atheist,” he, like most atheists, is thinking “naturalistically.” He has adopted (and his argument requires everyone reading it to adopt) the belief that the universe is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be. His first premise of S1 appears to assume that worldview, and fails to take into account the possibility that an intelligence need not to be “the product of” anything. Now, for the sake of argument, I will agree his first premise is correct if we are limited to the question of how “organizational complexity” could arise in a material universe. Thus, if we are limiting our arguments to the material, even though I don’t agree that his statement is necessarily correct, I will grant for the sake of argument his belief that “unless another mechanism actually is discovered, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that one does not exist.” (Of course, I expect Gerkin and other naturalists would scream and shout if a theist made this same argument about the glaring lack of a theory for the beginning of life.) However, Gerkin’s argument makes the a priori assumption that intelligence only exists in a material being. This is the critical failure of the argument. WHO HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE GOD EXISTS? Now, before anyone jumps up and screams that I haven’t proven the existence that an intelligent immaterial being, keep in mind that Gerkin stated that his syllogism was conceived while he was pondering the view that God guided evolution, and that it makes a “powerful argument for atheism.” (Emphasis added.) He then says “my argument precludes the existence of the Christian God.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, if his syllogism will have the probative value he claims, it bears the burden of proving that God doesn’t exist, or at least demonstrate that he necessarily could not have had a hand in creation. Therefore, it is appropriate and fair for me to object to his argument on the basis that it does not take into account the attributes of the very God that he is claiming that his argument demonstrates does not exist. Let’s make this clear: I am not saying that his argument fails to cover some new, novel, or innovative view of God that I, or others, have had to dream up in response to Gerkin’s argument. The belief in God as the unmoved mover is at least as old as Aristotle (a non-Christian theist). The belief in God as the “uncaused cause” is at least as old as St. Thomas Aquinas (a Christian). The belief that God is the “uncreated creator” comes from the John 1:1-3 in the Bible itself: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:1-3). Thus, if Gerkin’s arguments fails to take into account a God who is the “unmoved mover,” “uncaused cause” and the “uncreated creator”, if his argument fails to preclude the existence of a God with these long-held philosophical presuppositions, then his argument fails to address a major view about God held by virtually every theist. In such a case, it is hardly a good, let alone “powerful”, case for atheism. So, the question is: Is Gerkin’s argument too limited? Does it fail to take into account these possibilities? The answer is a resounding “absolutely.” THE PRESUMPTION OF A CREATED GOD As noted above, the major premise of S1 is either based on Dawkins’ definition of “complexity” or it is undefined and meaningless. Assuming that Gerkin did not intend to make a meaningless statement, the “complexity” of S1 is almost certainly limited to material entities that exhibit intelligence. Thus, S2 should read: Major Premise: Material entities that exhibit intelligence are the product of conscious design or natural selection. This proof obviously fails to prove the conclusion because it fails to take into account the theist’s argument that God is not a material being and need not be “the product of” anything. Nothing in S2 precludes an intelligent entity from being a pre-existing, non-corporeal being, and Gerkin’s original language for Minor Premise 1 certainly seems to accept the proposition that intelligence can design intelligence. Thus, even if Gerkin’s argument may be correct (and I don’t believe it is) for a God who came into existence, it falls far short of precluding the existence of the Christian God. THE OTHER PREMISES ALSO ASSUME A CREATED GOD S3 fails for the same reason as S2. It reasons that the first intelligence (which is a euphemism for God because in Gerkin’s reasoning God is simply another intelligence that had to be the product of conscious design or evolution) had to evolve because evolution requires certain conditions that didn’t exist prior to the existence of the universe. But if the first intelligence did not evolve because, as a pre-existing entity, it was not the product of anything, the argument fails. S4 is just silly. Assuming that a case has been made that the first intelligence has to evolve and that such evolution can occur only after the creation of the universe, it concludes that the universe did not have an intelligent creator. Of course, if you see the flaw in the arguments S1, S2 and S3, the conclusion reached here is equally unsupportable. CONCLUSION Like the gentleman in the NFL commercial, Gerkin spent time crafting his hedge into an argument against the existence of the Christian God only to find that he had trimmed the wrong hedge. Gerkin trimmed his hedge on the lawn of a god who is himself a created being, a belief that fits no modern Christian. No Christian of whom I am aware would accept his proposition that God is “the product of” anything, let alone evolution. Thus, a heralded “powerful argument for atheism” fails because the author trimmed the wrong hedge.
©2003 William J. Kesatie |