Michael Behe at it again

You almost feel sorry for Michael Behe. All he can do is repeat the same tired old anti-evolution “Intelligent Design” (ID) arguments that have already been debunked, nothing new. He’s at it again, this time in The New York Times Op Ed last weekend. Since the NYT gave him a pulpit, I guess he should be debunked once more. Try not to fall asleep reading Behe’s lame excuses for an argument. Keep a sharp pin handy – stick it in your arm if you feel yourself falling asleep. Here goes…

In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.

Then let me clear up the confusion. This is what ID is not: ID is not a scientific theory. Got that? Good. Next.

Want more? OK, a scientific theory is an explanation for some observable fact; ID is just a series of criticisms of the theory of evolution. See the difference?  A scientific theory does not consist of a series of criticisms of another theory, even if those criticisms are valid (which they are not). For ID to be a theory, it would have to explain something about the designer. For example, who or what is the designer? Where are his (her?) designs and how did he produce them? How did he implement these designs? And most importantly, what does all the foregoing tell us about how the designer will behave in the future: what predictions can we make; what use can we make of the theory? ID tells us nothing, it’s an admission of defeat. That is not science. Even if Behe is a scientist as he claims, he is not doing science.

First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.

Slightly disingenuous. It’s certainly religiously inspired. But it is true that the IDiots have tried hard to conceal its religious roots. Anyway, it makes no difference. It’s still not a theory and it’s still wrong whether it is religiously based or not.

Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains.  Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.

Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.

Rather strangely he uses both the Mt.Rushmore analogy and the watch analogy and thinks these are two separate arguments. Surely they are the same argument: we know Mt Rushmore and the watch were designed (I presume he means the faces carved on Mt Rushmore, not the mountain itself), and so (by analogy), life was designed too. Both arguments suffer the same fatal flaw.

Here’s the problem. These are both examples of reasoning by analogy. Reasoning by analogy can seem compelling, since humans tend to look for patterns and similarities (analogs), in things, and give less credence to dissimilarities. To determine how good this argument it is, though, you need to look at the dissimilarities: where the analogy breaks down. And this analogy sure breaks down – it’s a false analogy.

Let’s analyze it. We know that Mt Rushmore/watch were designed because they have a purpose - Mt Rushmore’s purpose is to model the faces of the four presidents carved there; the watch’s purpose is to tell the time. If they have a purpose, they must have a designer, yes? But here’s where the analogy falls apart: life on Earth has no purpose. So it’s a false analogy and so you can’t draw the conclusion that life on Earth and Mt Rushmore/watch are analogous in any way. Thank you. Don’t mention it.

What’s that at the back? How do I know that life on Earth has no purpose? Aha, good question. Strictly speaking I don’t know. But here’s the thing. If life on Earth does have a purpose (as the analogy requires, to be valid), then it must have a designer. So for the analogy to be valid you must start from the premise that that life on Earth has a designer. The analogy is now valid. But “life on Earth has a designer” is also the conclusion of the analogy. And when the premise of the argument is the same as the conclusion, you have the definition of circular reasoning. It’s a logical fallacy for the good reason that if you allow the premise of your argument to assume your conclusion you can prove pretty much anything. Either way the argument is fatally flawed. False analogy or circular reasoning – pick your fallacy.

Reasoning by analogy is rarely a good argument. Better, is reasoning with facts and evidence. Unfortunately for Behe he doesn’t have any of these, so he has to use this flawed option again and again.

For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")

I just love how creationists or woo woos in general will quote a scientist (out of context), if they think the quote supports their position, and yet deride all the science that doesn’t fit their beliefs. Standard pseudoscience.

The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined. In the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules. There are little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard motors to push a cell through liquid.

In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.

This only demonstrates that science progresses, learns new things, and discards the old when it is found to be false. Of course, if Behe did this with his material, he would have nothing left. This is really just another flawed argument by analogy.

The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence.

Here Behe appears to confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis. The former explains how life evolved from simple forms to the complexity we see today.  The latter seeks to explain how the first life was formed. Evolution says nothing about how the first life was formed, although progress is being made in this area.

Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.

Nonsense, of course there are. Anyway, who are these “some scientists”? Here are some named Steve who disagree.

Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.

Here is another attempt to claim that many scientists disagree with evolution, with a red herring about complexity theory.

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation,

Except of course, there is no absence of such an explanation. Still, let’s pretend for now that there is such an absence. Just for fun…

we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life.

BZTTT, wrong answer. Thanks for playing. Here we have a fundamental error in thinking. Behe states that we have no explanation for the complexity of life we observe. In other words, we lack information of how it happened. He draws the conclusion that there must be a designer. Here is the problem with this: you can’t draw any conclusions from a lack of information. Isn’t that obvious? Richard Dawkins called it Argument From Personal Incredulity – “I don’t see how it happened so it couldn’t have happened that way”. It’s more formally known as Argument From Ignorance – “I am ignorant of how it happened so it was caused by _______” (and here you insert your preferred explanation: God, a designer, aliens, whatever). Whatever you call it, it’s a logical fallacy – you don’t reach the conclusion from the arguments presented.

To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

No, just Behe, not “everyone”, is attempting to explain the "appearance" of design. This is Behe’s attempt to frame the argument to his liking. Actually, what evolution explains is how the observed complexity of life came about. And it does explain that, very well. The “appearance of design” is just Behe’s flawed analogy again.

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

Except that we do have compelling evidence to the contrary. Quack quack.

Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.

A paragraph of drivel closing with an Appeal To Popularity – lots of people believe in it so it must be true. What a lame argument from a supposed scientist.

No new arguments, no new evidence. After all these years and this is the best ID has to offer? What more proof do we need that ID is bankrupt?

Comments

[Alan Watson]

Evolution is the only cogent and coherent explanation for the existence of life on earth. It is falsifiable and directly addresses questions that arise from observation of life forms and ties together different disciplines. Many predictions have been made based on evolution and have been shown over and over to be correct. To seriously question evolution is to willfully ignore facts.

That being said, ID is absolutely a theory. “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.” –www.dictionary.com

By this definition ID is a theory. However it doesn't meet the definition of scientific theory which I am sure is what you mean. Behe either doesn’t understand the distinction or is dishonest in his use of the word.

“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” –www.dictionary.com

I’m at a bit of a loss as to your “purpose” argument. This could simply be my ignorance though. It seems to me that if aliens from another planet came across the figures carved in Mount Rushmore they could deduce that the carvings were “intelligently designed” without deducing any purpose. Anthropologists studying carvings on rocks can deduce that they are intelligently designed without deducing any purpose. Perhaps the drawings were simply to amuse the artist, perhaps life is simply to amuse some supreme being.

It does not bother me at all that early people tried to fill in the gaps with god. Humans naturally desire to find meaning in life. It is one of our hallmarks (yes, I’m sure other primates and perhaps others in the animal world seek meaning but not to our degree).

The problem with ID, as you have already pointed out, is that while it might be a starting point for philosophical thought it is in all reality a non-starter. There is no where to go from there. There is nothing to test, no predictions to be made, no coherent explanation for differences between the same species living in different location except that some intelligent force wanted it that way. More importantly there IS a competing theory, one that is scientific and not simply conjecture.

[Skeptico]

Alan: thanks for your comments.

You are correct about the word “theory”. I should have said, ID is not a scientific theory. As you suggest, Behe is saying that ID is a scientific theory, since he presents it as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

Regarding “purpose”. How would aliens recognize Mt. Rushmore as being designed unless they knew it was a model of something? They don’t need to know exactly what it is a model of, to know it is a model.

We know Mt. Rushmore and the watch are both designed. Behe suggests they are complex, as is life, and by analogy life must be designed. But he is just assuming that all complex things must have been designed. The reason we know Mt. Rushmore and the watch were designed is not because they are complex, it is because we know they had a purpose.

The watchmaker had a purpose. The watch had to tell the time, have two hands, 12 numbers, a case to keep the dust out, a bracelet etc. So the watchmaker started with the purpose and worked backwards to what he needed to fulfill that purpose. Evolution has no purpose. That’s the key difference.

[Skeptico]

Note:

Following from the above discussion, I have edited the post to add the word "scientific". Paragraph two now reads, "ID is not a scientific theory". Thanks to Alan Watson for pointing out the mistake.

[Dana Hata]

Great site! I was poking around here and I got stuck on your watch-Rushmore-living organism analogy bit. You mentioned that "If something has a purpose, it must have a designer." That got me thinking really hard. You can't actually know if something has a purpose without already knowing the answer to the design question. We don't know that the watch was designed because it has a purpose, but rather because we know it was designed (we know where watches come from because we are told so). For this argument, you have to change the actors to uninformed ones, just as we are uniformed about the origin of the living organism. So the curious watch investigator has to be an alien or something. This alien would notice that the watch has the *appearance* of purpose (and therefore may *think* it was designed, but certainly would not *know*). However, if something has the appearance of purpose, it does not mean it must have a designer. The earth's magnetosphere appears to have the purpose of protecting the earth from radiation, though that doesn't mean it was designed to do so (creationists may disagree). The key message here is that you can't really talk about purpose in the way you have constructed your argument, but the appearance of purpose. Think about what you meant by the term "purpose" and reapply it to your two arguments for fallacies having been made, and you'll find, sadly, that neither work. Keep up the effort though, I'm sure other fallacies were made!

[Skeptico]

Dana Hata:

You posted

You can't actually know if something has a purpose without already knowing the answer to the design question.

Correct. That's why it would be circular reasoning to do so - ie you can't assume purpose so you can't assume design.

[Phoenix]

Re: Let’s analyze it. We know that Mt Rushmore/watch were designed because they have a purpose.

Really, I would think because no known natural, unguided force can produce them.

[Skeptico]

Yes, a lot of people would think that, but it’s fallacious reasoning. Specifically it’s argument from ignorance - no known natural, unguided force can do that. But just because you don’t know of one doesn’t mean there isn’t one. You are drawing a conclusion from a lack of knowledge, but you cannot draw any conclusions from a lack of knowledge.

Re: Specifically it’s argument from ignorance - no known natural, unguided force can do that.

In these two cases we can say that there are NO natural random forces that can produce these objects. This we are not ignorant about!

It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose.

Don’t say that they known there was an intelligent designer that is how they deduced the rock was designed. It is from finding the carved stone that the paleo-archeologist deduces that that it must have come from an intelligent designer. It is from the artifacts that are left behind by the designer, that the paleo-archeologist determines if the creature is intelligent.

[Skeptico]

Re: In these two cases we can say that there are NO natural random forces that can produce these objects. This we are not ignorant about!

Aha, now you’re saying no natural random forces.

First, this is a No True Scotsman logical fallacy – you have subtly changed your claim (adding “random”), while phrasing your reply in a way that implies you had meant this originally.

Secondly, it is also a Straw Man fallacy – EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.

Third, you can still only say no known natural forces can do that. It is only your own lack of knowledge that is making you say that, and (once again), you cannot draw any conclusions from a lack of knowledge.

Re: It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose.

Don’t say that they known there was an intelligent designer that is how they deduced the rock was designed. It is from finding the carved stone that the paleo-archeologist deduces that that it must have come from an intelligent designer. It is from the artifacts that are left behind by the designer, that the paleo-archeologist determines if the creature is intelligent.

They know the artifacts were designed because they know what they are – what their purpose was. How else would they know the artifacts were designed?

[Phoenix]

Re: They know the artifacts were designed because they know what they are – what their purpose was. How else would they know the artifacts were designed?

They know that they did not occur naturally; therefore they deduce they must have been designed for some purpose.

[Skeptico]

Re: They know that they did not occur naturally

How do they know that?

[Phoenix]

Re: How do they know that?

They know by studying rocks and how they fracture.

[Skeptico]

Please explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, with references, that shows how they would know that any of the following did not occur naturally:

• Flint spearheads or other weapons
• Cookery pots
• Decorative beads
• Cave drawings

[Phoenix]

Skeptico,

Hypothetical:

On one of Darwin’s visits to the Galapagos Islands he found an amplifier printed circuit board lying under some bushes. What conclusion can Darwin come to about the printed circuit board? Can he answer these questions: Does it have a purpose? Is it designed? Was there a designer? Was it formed by some yet undiscovered natural force?

[Skeptico]

Re: On one of Darwin’s visits to the Galapagos Islands he found an amplifier printed circuit board lying under some bushes. What conclusion can Darwin come to about the printed circuit board? Can he answer these questions: Does it have a purpose? Is it designed? Was there a designer? Was it formed by some yet undiscovered natural force?

If we found one now we would know what it was for and so we know it was designed, but amplifier PCBs were not in existence at Darwin’s time, so irrelevant and a non sequitur.

Now, please answer my question. Please explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, with references, that shows how they would know that any of the following did not occur naturally:

• Flint spearheads or other weapons
• Cookery pots
• Decorative beads
• Cave drawings

(Or choose another artifact that archeologists might discover – your choice.)

Stop evading the question. It was your claim, please justify it.

[Phoenix]

If we found one now we would know what it was for and so we know it was designed, but amplifier PCBs were not in existence at Darwin’s time, so irrelevant and a non sequitur.

You are evading the question. The principle here is the same as what Intelligent Design advocates are saying. Can Darwin reach any conclusion about the PC board with the knowledge he had at the time he found the board?

[BronzeDog]

He's not evading the question. You're just not seeing the fallacies inherent in it.

Even if he did answer it, I don't think it would mean anything. I've got a possible answer, but I'm not going to waste anyone's time with it.

[Rockstar]

Ah, an IDiot found Skeptico! Time for apologetics!

The ID textbook, in full. Free of charge!

Q: insert any who, what, when, why, how question here

A: God did it.

Did I leave anything out?

[Skeptico]

Phoenix/Albert:

No, YOU are the one who is evading the question.

This was YOUR claim:

It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose.

When I asked how they did this, you said:

They know by studying rocks and how they fracture.

So, answer the question I had relating to that claim:

Please explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, with references, that shows how they would know that any of the following did not occur naturally:

• Flint spearheads or other weapons
• Cookery pots
• Decorative beads
• Cave drawings

(Or choose another artifact that archeologists might discover – your choice.)

YOU are evading the question by asking me another question, and hoping to distract me from the fact that you cannot or will not answer the question. It won’t work and I am not going to stand for your evasion any more. Answer the question.

[Phoenix]

Skeptico,I did not say by “knowing how rocks fracture” that you could determine that those objects did not occur naturally. That is your conjecture. There are many types of artifacts left by man. Some which are no more than rock chips.

The hypothetical I gave you, illustrates the same thing as I was trying to get across to you as finding a fractured rock and knowing that it did not occur naturally without knowing if it had a purpose.

[Rockstar]

Seriously, Albert, are you fucking kidding me? If you forgot:

Re: They know that they did not occur naturally

How do they know that?

Posted by: Skeptico | September 04, 2005

Re: How do they know that?

They know by studying rocks and how they fracture.

Posted by: Phoenix | September 04, 2005

Unless your usage of the pronoun "they" differs from the rest of the English speaking world, it is not conjecture. You made a claim, now you're trying to get out of backing it up. So back it up or admit you're wrong like a big boy.

[Phoenix]

Re: It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose.

Don’t say that they known there was an intelligent designer that is how they deduced the rock was designed. It is from finding the carved stone that the paleo-archeologist deduces that that it must have come from an intelligent designer. It is from the artifacts that are left behind by the designer, that the paleo-archeologist determines if the creature is intelligent.

They know the artifacts were designed because they know what they are – what their purpose was. How else would they know the artifacts were designed?

Rockstar, unless I am missing something I am talking about stones and nothing else.

[Rockstar]

So is that like a reverse strawman? I'm confused.

artifact: An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool, weapon, or ornament of archaeological or historical interest.- from www.dictionary.com

[Phoenix]

Rockstar,
This is just quibbling.

[Rockstar]

Your claim dude.

This was YOUR claim:

It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose.
When I asked how they did this, you said:

They know by studying rocks and how they fracture.
So, answer the question I had relating to that claim:

Please explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, with references, that shows how they would know that any of the following did not occur naturally:

• Flint spearheads or other weapons
• Cookery pots
• Decorative beads

Can those not be made of stone? Or are you no longer supporting your claim?

[Phoenix]

Rockstar,

Show me were I make this claim.

[Skeptico]

Albert/Phoenix

Re: Skeptico,I did not say by “knowing how rocks fracture” that you could determine that those objects did not occur naturally.

Yes you did. You said exactly that. This was the exchange:

Albert/Phoenix: “They know that they did not occur naturally”

Skeptico: “How do they know that?”

Albert/Phoenix: “They know by studying rocks and how they fracture.”

You are intellectually dishonest Albert/Phoenix, and you’re beginning to piss me off.

Re: There are many types of artifacts left by man. Some which are no more than rock chips.

Correct. Which is why I said, please explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, with references, that shows how they would know that any of the following did not occur naturally:

• Flint spearheads or other weapons
• Cookery pots
• Decorative beads
• Cave drawings

(Or choose another artifact that archeologists might discover – your choice.)

So what is your problem?

Re: The hypothetical I gave you, illustrates the same thing as I was trying to get across to you as finding a fractured rock and knowing that it did not occur naturally without knowing if it had a purpose.

I know exactly what you were driving at. I can and will explain the error in your reasoning, but first you must answer my question:

HOW DO ARCHEOLOGISTS KNOW THAT THE ARTIFACTS THEY FIND WERE DESIGNED?

Last chance. Any more evasions of attempts to misdirect and I will simply ban your IP from making any more comments. I’m sick of this nonsense now – answer the question.

[Phoenix]

Re: It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose.
Don’t say that they known there was an intelligent designer that is how they deduced the rock was designed. It is from finding the carved stone that the paleo-archeologist deduces that that it must have come from an intelligent designer. It is from the artifacts that are left behind by the designer, that the paleo-archeologist determines if the creature is intelligent.

Skeptico, I think you are using one those creationist ploys. The above was the exchange we had before you asked the question: “How do they know that?” You are taking the last sentence and reading more into than what was intended. But I would say just as Darwin would know that the PC board was not of natural origin the paleo- archeologist would know the items you listed were not of natural origin.

I probably would be banned from the Creationist site to.

You need not banned me. I will banned myself. It was nice chatting with you.
Bye!

[Skeptico]

Albert/Phoenix:

I see you’ve chosen to play semantics and avoid the question. Up to you, but if you won’t answer the difficult questions about your beliefs, then (to coin a phrase), “full knowledge will never be gained” (by you, I mean).

Re: But I would say just as Darwin would know that the PC board was not of natural origin the paleo- archeologist would know the items you listed were not of natural origin.

Darwin would not know the PC board was designed – how would he “know” that? That is your fallacy – it “looks” designed, so it is. To Darwin it could be anything. By “looks” designed, you really mean that you know it is designed because you know what it is. Other things that you think “look designed” (such as DNA) are not. What you mean here is that they are complex and you don’t see how they could not have been designed, so they were. Also a fallacy.

Re: You need not banned me. I will banned myself. It was nice chatting with you.
Bye!

Oh go play victim somewhere else.

[BronzeDog]

And thus ends our efforts to bludgeon the obvious into someone's head. Oh well.

Since he won't be around to waste our time anymore, I'll contribute: The correct answer to the time-travelling circuit board or whatever, is that he wouldn't know. It wouldn't be completely unreasonable to infer design, but that might just be my knowledge of circuit boards speaking.

Until IDers come up with some positive way to test for design (claiming nature can't make X is a negative), ID will remain the useless non-science nonsense it is now.

[Rockstar]

Even with a verbal beatdown like that, he'll go on keeping the faith...

Almost sad to see him go. Ah, well. We'd probably never change his mind.

[Torbjorn Larsson]

"In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution,"

Bait and switch, works every time.

"the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed."

That's the US public. Is ID only meant to be applicable in US?

BTW, isn't repetitive Beheviour symptomatic for some problems? Just wondering.

[exarch]

Someone linked to this, and so I felt inclined to respond. Sorry to dredge this old cow up.

Dana Hata made a good point:
The earth's magnetosphere appears to have the purpose of protecting the earth from radiation, though that doesn't mean it was designed to do so (creationists may disagree).

The earth's magnetosphere is an excellent example of the appearance of design though. While it stops dangerous radiation that might kill most life on earth, that doesn't mean it was designed to do that. If the earth had a layer that stopped all sunlight from getting through to the surface, we might find life here that would die when exposed to direct sunlight. But that doesn't mean this hypothetical layer was designed to protect such life, just that life forms that die when exposed to direct sunlight are rare on this planet for the simple reason that most places on this planet get anywhere between 6 to 16 hours of direct sunlight a day, so they simply wouldn't survive here very long. If the earth had such a hypothetical layer, it could survive.

This is why the appearance of design is so misleading.