|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Irreduceable Complexity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Isn't irreduceable complexity just a fabcy kind of
argument from incredulity ? Effectively it's saying that because no-one has imagineda step-wise progression that could lead to something-or-other then that something-or-other must have been designed. A mouse trap, if you remove one component won't function.That's true, but we can imagine a number of similar, yet less complex alternatives that could have lead to the spring trap design. So, is a mouse trap irreducably complex if we can show anevolution of thinking behind the eventual object. And that's even with an object that we KNOW in advance wasdesigned. So, is IC just an argument from incredulity, and can any claimedIC be refuted by any feasible sounding route ? If so, then it's not only about incredulity, but subjective too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Actually, you can remove the base of a mousetrap & nail it to the floor, & it still functions as a mousetrap (SLPx pointed this out, I believe). So the mousetrap isn't IC Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: To make things worse for IC, the various parts don't even have to work as mouse catching devises. The base could be a small door, for example. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Some creationists out there might want to force mainstreamers to accept ID for use in schools etc. Instead, I am quite happy to present ID/creation/flood and have you guys tear it to shreds if you want to.
If you can't see the folly of trying to argue that there isn't design evident in nature that strongly argues for God then that's just fine and dandy with me. It just saddens me, that's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Well, TB, then answer this : For which God does it argue? You see, TB, I made my way to my current beliefs not by asking does God exist but by asking WHICH god is the right one. Believing in the wrong God is surely as bad as believing in no God. I've spent most of my life on this quesstion. What I realized is that there is no way to chose between the options. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]
If you can't see the folly of trying to argue that there isn't design evident in nature that strongly argues for God then that's just fine and dandy with me. It just saddens me, that's all.[/B][/QUOTE]
Look, it might be evident to you, but where can we all see the actual physical evidence? What does this evidence look like? Doesn't it give you pause to realize that as science has gotten more and more sophisticated, the supposed evidence for ID/God has literally gotten smaller and smaller? For example, it used to be that evidence for the supernatural was in the mystery of childbirth, but now we understand that conception is purely naturalistic. It used to be understood that Apollo pulled the sun across the sky in his chariot, but now we know this isn't the case, and it happens by purely a natural, physical event. It used to be thought that demons visited people in their sleep and paralysed them by sitting on their chests, and now most people think that aliens are doing this...oh, wait, I mean that science knows that hypnogogic hallucinations are the cause of these experiences. Anyway, now the supposed "evidence" for ID has gotten so small that it's molecular! First YOU need to present this POSITIVE evidence, not a God of the Gaps argument or an Argument from Incredulity. Just saying, "Hey, everybody, I think that it's obvious that stuff in nature was designed! I don't have any positive evidence, but I think you are crazy if you don't just believe me coz, well, it's just so obvious!." is not terribly convincing from a scientific standpoint. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: How can you tell naturally occurring objects from supernaturally designed ones? If you can't tell the difference then you have no evidence of design! Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
I don't have a problem finding things I am sure God created. Pick any family of animals and I will say categorically God created it.
But I'm not going to be so silly as to say I can pick every created kind - I can't deconvolute the effects of hybridisaiton, microeveoltuion and creation for very organisms on earth! Give me the genomes and I'll give you an opinon though. My first paragraph stands. Just becasue God created a world where things can adapt you want to say there is no evidence for design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John
It argues for the one true God. OK but I understand your point. There are a host of options including some personal religion. My experince and belief is that that God is that of the Bible but I wont try and pretend I can prove that. Of course I think intellectually that Christianity is the best option. The flood is quite important to this religion and can potentially account for the geological column. But I have faith that God will do the revealing personally for everyone. Acts 17. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Schraf
I don't really think the evidence for ID has grown smaller. Mol Biol has shown us that the cell is made up of thousands of differnet nano-machines. It's not just fairy floss. For every anti-design revelation of modern science there is pretty much a pro-design example. I understand your frustration but try this one - some of your fustration could also be becasue you (like me) have become so 'sciencefied' that you can hardly see design staring you in the face! that is of course what Scripture tells us. If God is real do you think Rom 1:20 only applies pre-science? I wont go so far as the ID guys to say that IC is proof etc. It's just obvious to most of us. If you don't buy it - it saddens me, I think you are kidding yourself, but it's your life. So don't drag me too deep into this one becasue I'm not making a claim beyond that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: That's not what I asked. "How can you tell naturally occurring objects from supernaturally designed ones? If you can't tell the difference then you have no evidence of design!" Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: WHAT is obvious? What evidence for design is there? Can you tell me what it is? Show me a picture? It seems like you are simply asking me to take your word for it without any evidence. Sorry, that's religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Do you have an opinion on my suggestion that IC is justan argument from incredulity ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Kind of not the point I was trying to get across Whether ANYTHING can be considered IC is my problem. I used the mousetrap since I've seen it put forward as anexplanation of what IC means. You could balance a sledge hammer on a stick tied to some baitand call it a mouse trap ... and a pre-cursor of the modern spring loaded mousetrap ... so what I was saying is that taking part away from something as it is now, and braking it, doesn't mean it couldn't have developed from something a little different. My main quesiton was whether IC was an argument fromincredulity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
I don't think IC is an arguement from incredulity. Of course, from a scientific POV, I allow for a .000000001% chance that it all evolved by some all encompassing Kaufmann-like principle of order from chaos - but I put design way ahead of that.
Also: The sledge hammer cannot be incrementally changed to a mousetrap with a spring. As Behe puts it you have come up with an analogy not an homology. Also, it will only work at all (in a selection sense) after a certain efficiency - killing/stopping the mouse.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024