Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 5:59 AM
18 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,246 Year: 5,283/19,786 Month: 1,405/873 Week: 301/460 Day: 1/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   Irreduceable Complexity
Peter
Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 1 of 94 (14128)
07-25-2002 8:05 AM


Isn't irreduceable complexity just a fabcy kind of
argument from incredulity ?

Effectively it's saying that because no-one has imagined
a 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 an
evolution of thinking behind the eventual object.

And that's even with an object that we KNOW in advance was
designed.

So, is IC just an argument from incredulity, and can any claimed
IC be refuted by any feasible sounding route ?

If so, then it's not only about incredulity, but subjective too.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 07-25-2002 9:20 AM Peter has responded
 Message 64 by Mozambu, posted 01-03-2003 11:36 PM Peter has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 94 (14135)
07-25-2002 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
07-25-2002 8:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Isn't irreduceable complexity just a fabcy kind of
argument from incredulity ?

Effectively it's saying that because no-one has imagined
a 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 an
evolution of thinking behind the eventual object.

And that's even with an object that we KNOW in advance was
designed.

So, is IC just an argument from incredulity, and can any claimed
IC be refuted by any feasible sounding route ?

If so, then it's not only about incredulity, but subjective too.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 07-25-2002 8:05 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by John, posted 07-25-2002 9:34 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 2:52 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 94 (14138)
07-25-2002 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
07-25-2002 9:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
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


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 07-25-2002 9:20 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 7:52 PM John has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 94 (14155)
07-25-2002 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John
07-25-2002 9:34 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John, posted 07-25-2002 9:34 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 07-25-2002 8:03 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 6 by nator, posted 07-25-2002 8:21 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 07-25-2002 8:47 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 94 (14159)
07-25-2002 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
07-25-2002 7:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 7:52 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 10:07 PM John has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 94 (14162)
07-25-2002 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
07-25-2002 7:52 PM


[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"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 7:52 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 10:18 PM nator has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 94 (14165)
07-25-2002 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
07-25-2002 7:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 7:52 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 9:31 PM mark24 has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 94 (14171)
07-25-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mark24
07-25-2002 8:47 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 07-25-2002 8:47 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 07-26-2002 5:08 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 94 (14178)
07-25-2002 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
07-25-2002 8:03 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 07-25-2002 8:03 PM John has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 94 (14179)
07-25-2002 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
07-25-2002 8:21 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 07-25-2002 8:21 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 07-26-2002 10:03 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 2:47 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 94 (14191)
07-26-2002 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
07-25-2002 9:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 9:31 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 94 (14201)
07-26-2002 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
07-25-2002 10:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]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.[/QUOTE]

You don't think that going from Apollo's chariot pulling the sun across the sky, conception being caused by fetility goddesses, or lightning bolts thrown down from the heavens by Thor to all of these things being understood to be purely natural processes arent cases of "evidence" for ID getting smaller?

Every unexplainable event was given a supernatural cause in pre-science times. It seems ridiculous to think that Apollo moves the sun today, but modern ID is exactly the same "God of the Gaps" argument. Because we do not understand how something happened at this time, God must have done it.

quote:
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?

Since I do not use the Bible as a source of scientific information, I wouldn't refer to it when dealing with scientific matters.

It would seem that being "sciencefied" would make it easier, not harder, to see design, if you are claiming that there is scientific evidence for design.

If you want to say that you believe in ID from a thological perspective, fine, but that's isn't scientific.

[QUOTE]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.[/b]


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 10:18 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 13 of 94 (14361)
07-29-2002 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
07-25-2002 10:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

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.

Do you have an opinion on my suggestion that IC is just
an argument from incredulity ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 10:18 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 4:12 AM Peter has responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 14 of 94 (14362)
07-29-2002 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
07-25-2002 9:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:

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

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 an
explanation of what IC means.

You could balance a sledge hammer on a stick tied to some bait
and 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 from
incredulity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 07-25-2002 9:20 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 94 (14369)
07-29-2002 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peter
07-29-2002 2:47 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 2:47 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 07-29-2002 6:58 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 17 by John, posted 07-29-2002 8:50 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 10:19 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019