On the Logic Behind God
Next in the order is trying to go from single-celled to multi-celled organisms. While it is true that single-celled organisms can form large colonies and travel together, that is a far cry from the complexity of a composite organism. A composite organism requires a series of incredibly complex structures in order to function, particularly animal life. The complexity of a composite organism is one of the most difficult logical problems for AET. Cells first have to be subordinated from independent living organisms into subordinate living organisms, which is unnatural as then the subordinated cells have to accept that they live or die on the whim of something else with no say in the matter. Either that, or some mindless single celled organism lacking any capacity for thought had to start creating additional cells to fill the requisite purposes that it could not possibly foresee. In the first case some cell or group of cells have to become – all on their own – the boss cells and form a rudimentary brain and then get the other cells to configure correctly … and get them to do as they are told, as well.
Now, the logical problem here is that some cell with no capacity for reason or imagination had to figure out how to generate a group of subordinate cells that could support a greater organism, and how to structure and order those cells to perform the requisite functions to sustain it; all without the ability to reason or imagine. Or, somehow they managed to subordinate or configure other independent single celled organisms into such things as nerves, blood, spleens, blood vessels, hearts, livers, lymph nodes, T-cells, white blood cells and such … and do it all without thinking or planning. It also had to figure out a whole new means of reproduction since composite organisms are too complex to simply divide. DNA is not a brain, it is a program that causes a cell to function in the prescribed manner; thus, DNA can not think, therefore it can not reason, therefore it can not imagine, therefore can not conceive and therefore can not plan and if it can not do any of those things it can not create; it can only function like a machine run by a program; a little wind-up toy. Think about this: how did this first composite organism anticipate the need to defend itself from foreign bodies seeking to prey on its component cells? Having no capacity to think, it could not anticipate the certainty of sickness. All life gets sick in their prepubescent youth multiple times, thus it follows that those first composite organisms would have all perished of disease long before they had the chance to reproduce. The technical term for that is “extinction”. Seriously, we are a sentient species and we have people who are so insanely stupid that they believe we should not carry any weapons for defense with us into the vast and unknown expanses of space on the absurd presumption that anyone we encountered out there would automatically be of peaceful intentions … simply because they wish it so. This being fact: AET proposes that something that could not think anticipated, when not all of those who can think anticipate?
Random mutation will not produce a composite organism in any amount of time. It is like the fallacy in the idea that by putting a million monkeys in front of a million typewriters you will eventually get War and Peace. In fact: No, you will not. Even after a million generations of a million monkeys working at those million typewriters all they will have managed is a pile of gibberish, broken typewriters and monkeys with fingers worn down to stubs. In that mass of gibberish the best you will ever find are random and accidental simple words like, “a”, “an”, “the”, “or” and such, but nowhere will you find even something as simple as a two word predicate phrase like “pretty bird.” This is because the monkeys, none of them, even know what the symbols on the keys mean. They do not know what a word is. A word is simple compared to even a simple sentence. That which can not understand what a word is will never understand grammar (which is hard enough for humans, who often have difficulty grasping the grammar of their own native languages). No matter how many millions of generations of millions of monkeys randomly striking keys pass you will never even get Doctor Seuss, let alone Leo Tolstoy.
Try to figure out how eyesight developed. If you do it honestly you will discover that it requires an abstract comprehension of the world. First, one has to understand that certain spectra of solar radiation can be used to form an image of the world around you. After that basic abstract concept is understood, you must then come to understand a means by which you can make use of that fact. You then have to generate three things to make it function:
1. You need an organ with a lens that can form the images;
2. You need to transmit the images detected by the lens to the brain;
3. You need a center in the brain that can process the images that allow the brain itself to understand them. Robot developers discovered early on that just plugging cameras into the computer brains of their robots did not allow the robots to see. It was because the computers did not have a means of processing the images. Thus: have lens, have brain, still blind.
After you have arrived at the initial basis abstract understanding, which includes such complex and abstract planning such as what is a lens? Can such a thing exist / is it possible? How do you make a lens?, etc., and then have managed those three things, you can see.
Problem: you are an organism with a very rudimentary brain: really, you are a complete, abject and utter moron … in fact, compared to you a moron is an intellectual giant … actually, beyond anything totally brainless there is nothing stupider than you; an earthworm or fly would crush you in a game of tic-tac-toe and not even need to think in the process. That sad, rudimentary, little brain lacks the facility to think. Lacking the facility to think, it also lacks the facility to imagine. Lacking the facility to imagine, it also lacks the facility to conceive. Lacking the facility to think, imagine or conceive it also lacks the facility to plan. How are you, lacking any of those capacities, going to manage even the basic abstract understanding of the possible uses of solar radiation, let alone creating the means that would allow you to make use of that understanding? You can not: you will remain blind for all eternity.
It is the proposition of AET that all this self-generated, but yet it cannot be demonstrated how. In fact, it cannot even be reasonably explained how. The self-generation proposition is an impossibility, and that impossibility is proven by the very complexity of life itself. The building blocks themselves are unimaginably complex mechanisms, and while the newer “RNA World” hypothesis might explain the basis of DNA, it does not explain the creation of RNA or how the RNA became structured into DNA, and thus still cannot explain even how life began. While RNA is simpler than DNA, it is still complex and still requires the specific structuring of four different nucleotides in a specific order (Only one of them different from the nucleotides that form DNA: Ribonucleic Acid replaces the pyrimidine Thymine with the pyrimidine Uracil, thus RNA is A+C/G+U, etc.), then put together in the correct order within a biopolymer strand. The whole idea is akin to someone standing before you and trying to quite reasonably explain how the Great Pyramids of Giza were brought about by a series of staggering geological processes of an entirely random nature.
I can only conclude that AET is quite possibly the most preposterous, yet amazingly complex and intricate, mythology purported as an explanation for life ever conceived by the minds of men. I must admit that I once almost fell for it myself. In the end what separates me from an atheist was Stoic training, since Stoicism is rooted in logic and teaches one logical thinking at all stages of instruction. By the time I read Analytika I found I had already been practicing its guidelines and techniques for years. It forces one to ask the correct questions and follow a logical pattern when contemplating and considering any argument, theory or text. In this case we are dealing with an issue of believability heavily influenced by probabilities in which every aspect is theoretical, since neither position can be demonstrated by empirical evidence. That which is most probable, therefore, is that which logic guides us to believe. The impossible is nonprobable, and in this examination we have already encountered two impossibles, and we are not through this yet.