I’ve been studying the logic of the atheistic scientists who scoff at Intelligent Design. If they are right, and you can’t infer a designer simply because something seems to have a design, then how can we so easily accept that Stonehenge was formed by some ancient civilization. There’s certainly nothing to point to that. There is no history, no evidence of the civilization, and it seems that to infer it was formed by humans is all based on the fact that it aligns with the sun at the solstice. Isn’t that an argument based on design? Why not just be strictly scientific and theorize natural causes such as movement by glaciers during the Ice Age, or that specific types of rocks arose in certain places during earth upheavals? Why go to the extreme of theorizing about how men moved the rocks, etc, and were knowledgeable about astronomy? Isn’t that delving into irrational belief, based on the evidence we have?
Michelle
Tags: belief, Intelligent Design, science, stonehenge
Michellespagefornonni's Weblog 
March 29, 2008 at 9:12 pm |
I have not accepted mean spirited comments to this post. I have studied Stonehenge extensively, lived near it for several years, and there is so very much controversy regarding it, it would boggle the mind. Someone suggested I read a book on the topic. Mind you, I have read many books and articles, heard talks and toured it. There is a theory that glaciers moved the stones, as well as theories that neolithic people could possibly have moved them with the tools available to them. Archaeology shows there was human activity in the area, and other circles exist in England and Ireland, but there is far more conjecture than consensus about it, which is why it’s a mystery still. This is why I used it as an example of inferring a designer from what appears to be a design. Not a problem for most people, since it doesn’t involve the possibility of God. Involve the idea of God, and you hear that you can’t infer a designer from what appears to be a design.
Michelle
March 29, 2008 at 11:18 pm |
Thank you, Michelle, for that simple but well thought defense of Intelligent Design.
March 30, 2008 at 12:27 am |
Amazing. Simply amazing. How about the pyramids? Glaciers?
March 30, 2008 at 12:59 am |
What about arctic stone circles? But that isn’t the point. The point is we can’t prove Stonehenge, but are inclined to look for a designer. Why don’t we look for a designer for a single cell, which is infinitely more complex than Stonehenge?
March 30, 2008 at 3:20 am |
Howdy, Michelle —
Thanks for the post, and while I am not an evolutionist and do believe that an intelligent God created all things, I think I can answer your question from the point of view of at least some of them — and without being mean spirited! 🙂
Speaking from their point of view and not my own, I would suggest that some of them would say that in the case of life they have a reasonable, naturalistic explanation (again, their point of view) for the origins of life on earth as we know it today that does not involve any sort of God, yet there is no similar reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the origin of monuments such as Stonehenge. In the case of life, some of them would argue that they have identified plausible chemical processes that would, in an undirected process over billions of years produce life as we have it today from non-living chemicals in a step-wise fashion. On the other hand, no such step-by-step, plausible natural processes have been identified that would create such monuments.
Again, I have stated that from what I would take as their point of view and not my own, but I find it helpful to think of things from an opposing view point from time to time to help understand the strength and weaknesses of my own positions and arguments.
And (though I am rambling on, now, and I apologize), I really think you are on to something. I have often wondered about a hypothetical scenario… If we were to grant that life is spread out throughout the universe (I do not believe this, but grant it for now) and in the future we wanted to design artificially intelligent probes that — on their own, using the programs that we were to give them — could identify not just signs of life on other planets but signs of intelligent life, what would they look for? What programmed reasoning could they use to distinguish between, say, natural formations and the ruins of an ancient civilization? Or between complex, microscopic configurations of elements that have formed naturally and, say, the remnants of nanotechnology left behind by some an advanced alien race that became extinct long ago?
I think that pondering such questions could teach us a lot about how to recognize intelligence in even it’s most potentially unearthly expressions, but I’m afraid it is a question bigger than I can answer.
Anyway, sorry for being so long winded, and thanks for your post!
March 30, 2008 at 7:07 am |
You don’t need to know which civilization built Stonehenge or to solve the mysteries to understand that it was built by humans. The human remains, the tools, the trenches and postholes that were dug out, etc — all this aside, that it was designed is clear because for it to happen by chance would violate the laws of science, reason, and just plain old common sense, and would certainly be “unscientific.”
Now, Stonehenge is not a living organism. It doesn’t have genes and alleles and offspring. There is no known process that would have allowed it to develop into its form on its own, and the probability that natural forces would have randomly created this lifeless pattern with such nicely hewn, unnatural stones is nil. However, there does exist a very well-known and extensively researched process by which populations of organisms can develop via changes in genetic composition over generations. And this amazing process can work all on its own — because we’re talking living organisms here.
Lastly, God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, and there are plenty of intelligent people who firmly accept both, usually believing that God designed the process — http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html.
March 30, 2008 at 8:57 pm |
Yes, there were tools and postholes–doesn’t explain the stones. The big stones would have required 600 men a year to move one stone from where they are supposed to have come from. It would have required ships large enough to transport the tonnage. There was a bronze age civilization in the region, but nothing left to point to a large enough, rich enough civilization (you have to support all these people for years) to complete this feat. This is in contrast to the pyramids where there is plenty of evidence for the civilization involved. Oh yes, I believe Stonehenge was designed, but I also believe design points to a designer whether its Stonehenge or a cell. The last time I studied biology, the step-by step process of the evolution of a cell was not mapped out. Its accepted that it happened, but the probability of it happening is astronomical. Still, the atheists won’t accept design required a designer.
Michelle