AboutAtheism.Net | Richard Dawkins: Only the 'Appearance' of 'Design for Purpose': Blind Physical Forces 'Mimic Conscious Design' to Create Complex Entities

Self-Evident Truths (Bayyinaat)
The knowledge that man did not create himself or create the means (reproduction) through which his creation and coming into being is enabled is a self-evident truth as every person knows he never brought his own self into being from non-being (19:67). This extends also to all living things, they did not originate themselves. And likewise the knowledge that he did not create the universe in which he resides is a self-evident truth (52:35), just as the knowledge that the universe did not create itself (without an external force) is a self-evident truth, and likewise the knowledge that multiple universes do not come into existence except with a force external to the sum of them is a self evident truth (52:36). All of this knowledge is innate, intuitive and necessary and not does require any empirical evidence. When all of that is established and cannot be challenged or denied, there are only three possibilities left. Either "nothing created something" or "something created itself" or "something created something else". This is what the matter ultimately reduces down to. So the ultimate question is: Is it sounder in innate intuition, sensory perception and reason to believe "nothing created something" or "something created itself" or "something created what is other than it"? All people of sound mind (even the atheists) will say the latter, that "something created something" (something can only be created by other than it). Once we have established that asserting "something created something" is sounder in reason, then knowledge of the something that created what is besides it is evident from the reality and nature of the something that was created by it. This is undeniable. Just like the particles and forces are asserted to exist through their observed effect (athar) (even though no one sees them directly or even understand how they work), then similarly, the heavens and earth are the effect (athar) through which the existence of the "something" that is behind can be said to be true and real. Up to this point there can be no real dispute, and it is here where the battle really begins. And all people of sound mind, honesty and integrity see design, order and purpose in the universe, on Earth, and in living things, in their interactions, their inter-dependence, the various faculties and features found within living things and the complex information systems underlying them that surpass all known computer systems and architecture. That is undeniable. It is first-hand direct evidence of the existence of an originator and the qualities necessary for such an originator (knowledge, will, power, wisdom). It is here where we start to see the haughtiness and arrogation of those who speak of only the "illusion" and "appearance" of design (in order to undermine the actual design that is so clearly evident). This is because once design, order and purpose is clearly established through observation (whether by the layman or the scientist) then the logical, rational conclusion necessarily follows and this cannot be undone. This is why it is said that belief in an originator is fitriyy (innate) and dhurooriyy (necessary), and this is why all the sent messengers said, (قَالَتْ رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِي اللّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ), "And their messengers said: Is there any doubt concerning Allaah, the originator of the heavens and the earth." (14:10). As such, the knowledge that the existence of the universe, earth and all life forms necessarily indicate an originator is a self-evident matter. This is a necessary conclusion through the sum of all human perception and experience. It is a matter so clear and is rooted in the innate disposition, in the human psyche. It is why no one, not even an atheist, can avoid using teleological language (which implies design) in the study of the universe, the phenomena therein and of all living things. The signature of design is blatant and evident and teleological language (even if unintended) is found in millions and millions of research papers written and published in the fields of physics, astronomy and biology. The rational investigability (the fact that the universe can be studied rationally at all) and the unavoidable teleological language used by atheists in describing what they see in their studies falsifies their naturalistic belief and indicates arrogance when they characterize what they study as an "illusion" and "appearance" of design. They would not have been able to logically and rationally study the universe and life therein had it not been designed. Thereafter, all of their arguments to the contrary (no matter how sophisticated or complicated) reduce down to a) "nothing created something" or b) "something created itself" or c) if they affirm "something created something" (which is unescapable) then that is explained with what is laughable: an already existing "law" of gravity created the universe or the blind forces of physics created the first living cell through pure chance which was then guided to the current diversity and homology of life by natural selection acting on random mutations in genetic material. In reality, this is affirmation of a creator on their behalf except that it is not an all-knowing, willing, purposeful creator but a blind, purposeless creator (a "blind watchmaker"), and really reduces back to "matter self-organizes and creates." All of this is revilement of intellect, pure conjecture and arrogance in the face of self-evident truth. These claims and explanations arise as a consequence of prior assertion of materialism, not because scientific observation, experimentation and data have proven that blind physical forces create complex living organisms (that is a matter of blind faith and a revilement upon reason).

أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بَل لَّا يُوقِنُونَ

Were they created by nothing. Or were they creators (of their own selves). Or did they create the heavens and earth? Nay, they have no real certainty. (52:35-36)
Thereafter, it is upon the atheist to prove that the universe, (in all its order, magnificence, balance and harmony) and life on Earth is not the handiwork of an all-knowing, willing, able creator, since that is the rational, axiomatic default, innate in human nature. The contrary explanations they bring are based upon a prior commitment to naturalism (materialism) which they have chosen due to psychological reasons, not rational ones. As such all of what they bring to invalidate this rational necessity such as multiverse theories, complex genetic reproduction systems arising miraculously from a primeval soup by blind forces of nature, mystical M-theories, imaginary time, natural selection acting on random mutations in genetic code (which actually require the prior existence of complex genetic reproduction systems that are more complex than the most purposefully designed computers and for whose origin they have no explanation) along with the variety of philosophical tricks and psychological word games - all of this is pure conjecture (and they know it).
Allah, the Most High, said, (قَالَتْ رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِي اللّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ), "Their respective Messengers said, 'Is there any doubt about Allaah, the Originator of the Heavens and Earth?'." (14:10) and He said, (فَلَمَّا جَاءتْهُمْ رُسُلُهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ فَرِحُوا بِمَا عِندَهُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ), "And when their messengers brought self-evident proofs, they exulted in the knowledge they possessed" (40:83) and He said (وَقَالُوا مَا هِيَ إِلَّا حَيَاتُنَا الدُّنْيَا نَمُوتُ وَنَحْيَا وَمَا يُهْلِكُنَا إِلَّا الدَّهْرُ وَمَا لَهُم بِذَلِكَ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَظُنُّونَ), "And they say, 'There is nothing but the life of this world, we live and we die and nothing destroys us but time.' But they have no knowledge of that (whatsoever). They do but conjecture." (45:24) and He said (إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ), "They do but conjecture (give opinions) and they do but guess" (6:116) and He said (ذَلِكَ مَبْلَغُهُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ), "That is their sum of knowledge" (53:30)
The true and real perspective of the atheist battleground is that they are trying to fight the sensory, intuitive and rational necessity because they have chosen materialism as the default for what are really psychological reasons (not rational ones). Their subsequent use of philosophy and science is to make their psychological denial appear to be rational, and hence what we have is circular logic that runs as follows: "In observation and study of the living things, the world and the universe, we will never observe God. We've studied living things, the world and the universe and never found any sign of God. God does not exist." And in another way, "Darwinian evolution must account for life otherwise the alternative is a purposeful designer and creator which is unacceptable because naturalism is the truth (prior assumption). Hence, in a naturalist, materialist world, the only possible explanation is evolution of inorganic matter to organic matter to living organisms, and since naturalism is the truth, then evolution has to be the truth and only explanation for life." This tautological, question-begging, circular reasoning is driven by a prior commitment to naturalism.

In his article, The Necessity of Darwinism. (New Scientist, vol. 94, 15 April 1982) Dawkins asserts (p. 130), emphasis is ours:

The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventually to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.

The underlined words are to indicate that neither Dawkins or any other atheist on the planet is able to escape teleological language in the description, study and analysis of life, the world and the universe. The rational intelligibility of all of that (the universe and life) is recognized innately (see here) and practically self-evident. On this basis is man able to observe, analogize, and infer and develop knowledge of the working order of the universe, rationally. This in itself makes it practically self-evident that the universe and life on Earth is designed to be as it is. However, the above quote is one of many showing a man like Dawkins who cannot trust his own physical senses is not a man to be trusted to explain the origins of life. This is because although his physical senses see actual design his arrogance sees only an illusion of design explained by blind, purposeless, forces acting on random events.

Comments

Dawkins begins by stating a truth, "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance." This means that we are only left with two other choices, a) necessity by which the physical forces such as gravity are intended, so for example, if you drop an apple, by necessity (of the law of gravity) it will fall to the ground, or b) a creator. Knowing that the innate disposition and sound reason can never attribute design (and purpose) except to an agent with knowledge, will and power, Dawkins begins his psychological trickery on his audience. "Superficially..." he says. Meaning it is superficial to attribute what is clearly observable design (which he also tries to negate through psychological trickery and word play) to a being with the qualities required for design (knowledge, will, power). This is despite the fact that the sum whole of human experience, their day-to-day activity, and their entire industrial and technological enterprise is built upon the non-superficial presupposition that only knowledge, will and creative power lead to design. Thus, knowing that he cannot attribute knowledge, will and creative power to "physical forces" or "physical laws" he then brings his red herring, "But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design..." Charles Darwin offered an explanation for life's diversity based upon blind physical forces acting on a primeval soup leading to replicable life leading (through mutations in genetic code) to the origin and diversity of species, and in this entire process, these "blind physical forces" "mimic the effects of conscious design." without there being actual design. You can see the play with words here. Neither Charles Darwin nor anyone else, has (or ever will) be able to provide empirical evidence for this assertion which actually underlies the entire naturalist religion. Think about that again, because in dismantling the naturalist religion, we have to really get to the core of it, and this is the actual core of it: Blind physical forces acting on a primeval soup leading to replicable life leading (through random mutations in genetic code) to the origin and diversity of species, all through undirected, purposeless processes. Naturalists play word games in that the word evolution is often presented with layers of meaning that are aimed at concealing the superstitious belief it is founded upon. We will elaborate upon this in more detail in a separate article. But to complete this point, there is no empirical evidence for the emergence of self-replication in the form of DNA or RNA through random undirected processes and all experimentation has miserably failed to produce anything remotely like the complex biological molecules found in living cells, even when generously supplied with many of the chemicals required for the formation of such molecules. This is taken as the only acceptable explanation because a philosophical assertion of naturalism allows no other explanation. Dawkins continues, "and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations," note the desperate attempts here through careful wording of trying to portray, but from afar, the mimicking of "conscious design" he mentioned earlier. He wants there to be design but can't, so he has to make cunning use of language: "operating", "cumulative", "filter" "mimics", "conscious", "design". These blind physical forces somehow are able to "operate" as a "cumulative filter" to filter out chance variations and thereby choose the ones that are going to lead to life. The pauper is all but wanting to attribute "design" to these blind forces but can't (otherwise the game is up and the fraud is clear) and he uses doublespeak to say it is not design but just undirected processes that mimic design. So it is both design and not design at the same time. It is design and non-design. This is doublespeak and sophistry. And then he says, "...to lead eventually to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers" so the end result is "organized", "adaptive", "complexity" in the form of "humans", "books", "computers" - which to him have clearly not been designed but only give the illusion of design!

It is crucial for you not to miss out the significant point alluded to in the paragraph above regarding the use of layers of definitions for "evolution" in order to hide the superstitious belief upon which the naturalist religion is founded. An example working definition is "descent with modification" which is no doubt an observed reality. By defining evolution in this way, it gives the naturalist believer an upper hand in debate in the sense that anyone opposing evolution (as so defined) is immediately considered to have lost his senses since modification of species through reproduction is a reality that every living person can see. Offspring are always modifications of the parents and are never exact replications of their parents. As generations continue, modification continues, although this modification is strictly within the species type. However these types of vague definitions for evolution aim to conceal and protect the superstitious belief and the real engine underlying the entire naturalist religion which we can refer to as the "blind-watchmaker thesis" (of Dawkins) which essentially says unfathomably complex design comes about through random, undirected, purposeless processes (selection acting upon random mutations in genetic code) in the absence of knowledge, will, intent and creative, power. This is pure superstition and rejected by the sum whole of human perception, experience and the entire body of industrial and technological enterprise. This superstitious belief arises because naturalism has already been chosen as a religion for psychological reasons and this philosophical assertion of naturalism can thereafter only be explained and justified with one proposition, that life was "designed" and "created" by non-knowledgeable, non-purposeful, completely blind forces. A matter known to be a superstitious fairy tale even to young children, let alone mature adults. But that is the sum of their knowledge (ذَلِكَ مَبْلَغُهُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ).

Lets summarize: Blind physical forces can mimic the effect of conscious design and direct chance occurrences in a certain way (by operating as a cumulative filter) leading eventually to "organized complexity." Or to put it another way, a totally blind and deaf man (Steve) can direct himself through the myriad of chance encounters (bumps and accidents) from John O Groats to Lands End through the operation of a cumulative filter (of which he is wholly unaware), thereby mimicking (unknowingly and without intent) the effect of conscious navigation through which Dave (who is hearing and seeing or who could be blind but receives instruction) also gets from John O Groats to Lands End. Finding a blind man at Lands End, it must be concluded that that's how he got there (through a random, blind process) and while that may be possible by a large stretch of the imagination, Dawkins is trying to insist that to think like this is rational and proposing anything else (such as a hearing and seeing man arriving at Lands End through conscious navigation or a blind man being directed and guided) is stupidity and make believe. To prove the likes of this, Richard Dawkins fills pages and writes books and launches diatribes. That's the sum of his knowledge. He tells us on the cover of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, wherein it is stated "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view..." yes, a bit like the blind man in our example, "...Yet the living results of Natural Selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Everything is an appearance and illusion of design. Why? Because affirming actual design necessitates a designer, through innate disposition, sensory perception and sound reason. That is a self-evident truth that cannot be argued against, it is ingrained in the human psyche (see here) Thus, Dawkins resigns to the world of appearances, illusions, blind watchmakers, mountains of improbability, word-play and doublespeak to make his case. Please follow up with this article "Understanding the Two Definitions of 'Science' in Operation" (see here) to see through the naturalist religion a bit more clearly.
Written by Abū ʿIyād on 07/12/1434H (12/10/2013CE)