Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

An argument with an intelligent design advocate/anti-evolutionist

Rate this topic


Black Wolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why do you need to prove ID to disprove evolution and what would in your opinion prove that ID is real?

While Darwins ideas on how traits are inherited may have been proven wrong, that's besides the point. His two key ideas are supported by loads of evidence.

Not as much evidence as physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology. Evolution is the theory least supported by evidence.

Edited by Dániel Boros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not as much evidence as physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology. Evolution is the theory least supported by evidence.
Firstly, Physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology are not theories or laws, they're huge subjects. Secondly, trying to make a relative statement "not as much evidence" is the wrong way to approach knowledge. The question is not is there is "not as much" but whether that is "not much". The first is meaningless, the second is important. Darwin's two key ideas is supported by loads of evidence: that's all that matters as far as those two key ideas go. The amount of evidence for other ideas, whether from Physics or Astronomy has no bearing on this particular finding in Biology
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with evolution is that people simply assume that there are pathways that can be taken step by step without asking how likely the existence of such pathways really are.

Actually, statistics is the best argument for a natural account of the origin of life. You are right to claim that the odds of the evolutionary process are very small - Even infinitesimal. You could say the odds are .00000000001 or even greater if you wish.

But we also know from observable evidence that there are 10^21 stars in the sky so you have sextillion possible star systems available. The sheer magnitude of the known universe demonstrates that there have been literally millions of times life could have developed naturally by those odds. The universe is a very big place indeed.

In fact, the statistics involved in the known universe are so big that it automatically reduces the ID question to academics when you realize that if we are going to claim it is statistically impossible for life to evolve naturally then it is even more unlikely to have created a creator even smarter than us with the power to create life and that huge complex universe. Either you need a supernatural entity (magic) to explain why we are statistically impossible but someone superior is possible, or you have to admit that if the universe could naturally generate a superior designer of that power then it is certainly more probable that it could have naturally generated us – many times over.

Edited for clarification

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're changing the subject (again). First you deflected my original question with a question, then you deflected my response to your deflection with another question.

You asked (as part of your second deflection) if I would be open to rejecting evolution in favor of ID, and I said yes -- if there is evidence in support of ID. And I mean that.

Logically, your response should have been to provide me with that evidence. But this you did not do. Can you please provide me with the evidence? Or will you now create a third deflection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logically, your response should have been to provide me with that evidence. But this you did not do. Can you please provide me with the evidence? Or will you now create a third deflection?

You did not ask me anything so I'm not sure how not answering what you did not ask constitutes a deflection.

I can only repeat what I have already sad:

While it would necessarily have the property of specified complexity it would not necessarily be the product of design. ID is not philosophy it is science based on observation and the induction fallacy. Just because all known specified complex objects have been designed doesn't mean all specified complex objects have been designed especially if designed objects require the presence of a specified complex designer. It only means that a specified complex object was most likely designed. The same way not everyone charged with a crime is a criminal not everything that looks designed was designed. Maybe the designer always existed or maybe there is process (like evolution) that can create it. However the same way as not any kind of evidence will convince a judge not any kind of evidence should convince us regarding such a process.

In the case of criminals we call it the presumption of innocence in the case of ID we would call it the presumption of design. (There's also a presumption of atheism advocated by the late philosopher Anthony Flew).

Yes evolution or a different natural process can defeat the presumption of design the same way evidence can defeat the presumption of innocence, but evolution must be proven!

So why must one prove ID to disprove evolution and not the other way around?

Because Darwin is mainstream now? Aristotle was mainstream before him and for a lot longer time. Not that I believe it actually matters to reality who is currently considered mainstream.

Actually, statistics is the best argument for a natural account of the origin of life. You are right to claim that the odds of the evolutionary process are very small - Even infinitesimal. You could say the odds are .00000000001 or even greater if you wish.

But we also know from observable evidence that there are 10^21 stars in the sky so you have sextillion possible star systems available. The sheer magnitude of the known universe demonstrates that there have been literally millions of times life could have developed naturally by those odds. The universe is a very big place indeed.

In fact, the statistics involved in the known universe are so big that it automatically reduces the ID question to academics when you realize that if we are going to claim it is statistically impossible for life to evolve naturally then it is even more unlikely to have created a creator even smarter than us with the power to create life and that huge complex universe. Either you need a supernatural entity (magic) to explain why we are statistically impossible but someone superior is possible, or you have to admit that if the universe could naturally generate a superior designer of that power then it is certainly more probable that it could have naturally generated us – many times over.

I'm not sure an appeal to probability can be called a "best argument" for evolution. Or begging the question: since life exists the probability of nature creating it must be larger than zero. The same way life can arose by chance alone so could teddy bears and since there would be much more teddy bears that came about via a natural process due to the vastness of space if one would find one a teddy bear on Earth it would be more likely that it was the product of nature and not of design.

In statistics we compare numbers, but to do that we need to have numbers first. Every number that has been provided by evolutionary science regrading the probability of life or evolution was not based on evidence (literally) and any number based on evidence has been excluded since they did not converse with the current paradigm. So there are no numbers in this field of silence even though the process is supposedly algorithmic and predictable. It is pointless to argue about statistics under those conditions.

The difference between a miracle (magic) and a natural process is that you can realize how improbable a natural process is but not how improbable magic is. Saying that a natural process is the cause of a phenomena regardless how probable it is is equal to saying that evolution is true even if it is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure an appeal to probability can be called a "best argument" for evolution. Or begging the question: since life exists the probability of nature creating it must be larger than zero. The same way life can arose by chance alone so could teddy bears and since there would be much more teddy bears that came about via a natural process due to the vastness of space if one would find one a teddy bear on Earth it would be more likely that it was the product of nature and not of design.

All your analogies are way off because each of the designed objects you pick has an easily identifiable designer (us) operating through known causal processes, which is completely unlike your hypothetical and unidentified designer of biological structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All your analogies are way off because each of the designed objects you pick has an easily identifiable designer (us) operating through known causal processes, which is completely unlike your hypothetical and unidentified designer of biological structures.

And your claims are way off since your way of identifying designers (us) is not rooted in science but in tradition and since any complex entity without exception can be the product of nature (evolution) such claims cannot be justified at all.

Just because people tell you that a computer was designed doesn't mean it was yet you accept it like it is the most rational thing to do.

Anyway just because we don't know who designed life doesn't mean we will never discover the designer the same way just because we don't know how life began doesn't mean we won't find a natural explanation for it. As far as science goes there is absolutely no known natural process that could have created life. Does that disprove evolution? No. Does that prove evolution? No. (Yes I know it is called abiogenesis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure an appeal to probability can be called a "best argument" for evolution. Or begging the question: since life exists the probability of nature creating it must be larger than zero. The same way life can arose by chance alone so could teddy bears and since there would be much more teddy bears that came about via a natural process due to the vastness of space if one would find one a teddy bear on Earth it would be more likely that it was the product of nature and not of design.

I’ll clarify since I think I led you astray on the first part – I’m not claiming proof since it is scientifically possible by statistics. I was reacting to the text I quoted where you said those who claim evolutionary processes don't ask "how likely the existence of such pathways really are". Your quote claimed that those who support natural accounts of life never considered the odds that they are right. I'm simply pointing out that statistically it is very possible and moreso than the ID argument. There is a chance we might come to a different conclusion someday as to how life naturally evolved but statistically speaking the universe will support a natural reason for the origin of life. This is also important for a reason I'll return to.

In statistics we compare numbers, but to do that we need to have numbers first. Every number that has been provided by evolutionary science regrading the probability of life or evolution was not based on evidence (literally) and any number based on evidence has been excluded since they did not converse with the current paradigm. So there are no numbers in this field of silence even though the process is supposedly algorithmic and predictable. It is pointless to argue about statistics under those conditions.

Sorry, I'm missing something here. I honestly have no idea what this means.

The difference between a miracle (magic) and a natural process is that you can realize how improbable a natural process is but not how improbable magic is. Saying that a natural process is the cause of a phenomena regardless how probable it is is equal to saying that evolution is true even if it is not.

Yes - I can say with certainly how improbable magic is - It is impossible. Magic is a contradiction in the facts. Magic is the claim A does not equal A since magic can make a thing act against its nature. There has never been a demonstrable act where someone could change the laws of the universe and since we have the basic tools of logic we can demonstrate that A will never be anything other than A. A horse is a horse and will act like a horse. It cannot be turned into a cat, a rain cloud, or a lecture on monetary policy. A horse is a horse, of course.

You can feel free to dispute evolution as a fact and set about coming up with your own scientific reasons for how life naturally evolved. That is what science is supposed to do. But the bottom line is that it either happened naturally according to demonstrable laws of nature, which means you can explore the science involved, or you believe it was magic. And yes, a supreme designer is the claim of magic. If the designer was natural then you are begging the question where he came from, and whether he is natural or created by magic. And so forth ad infinity with the regress argument. At some point you are admitting that life originated naturally or it was magic. Then we are at the heart of the argument - What causes life to naturally develop. That is debatable. But if you’re going to answer the question it is magic then we are done. No debate is possible when someone sees the unknown in the universe and simply fills in the blanks with magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Anyway just because we don't know who designed life doesn't mean we will never discover the designer....."

This is the fundamental problem with your argument. Unlike ID, evolution does not postulate some "unknown" driver in it's attempt to understand the evidence it has been presented with. Is the theory of evolution complete? No. It it without flaws and gaps? No. But focusing on the holes in the theory does not strengthen your argument for ID. And this has been your entire debating tactic in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your claims are way off since your way of identifying designers (us) is not rooted in science but in tradition and since any complex entity without exception can be the product of nature (evolution) such claims cannot be justified at all.

Just because people tell you that a computer was designed doesn't mean it was yet you accept it like it is the most rational thing to do.

Are you kidding me right now? You really think the reason I accept that computers are designed is because 'that's what everyone tells me?' There's no evidence of such an obvious and banal claim that I could possibly be relying on instead? Like, say, the factories where they are made?

Rejecting speculation of entities ('designers' of DNA) which are completely unlike anything we've ever seen in nature isn't appealing to tradition, it's rejecting the arbitrary: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html. What you're calling 'tradition' is actually the accumulation of scientific knowledge of what is possible in nature, and if you're going to criticize me for 'appealing to' the scientific evidence, well okay then. You got me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll clarify since I think I led you astray on the first part – I’m not claiming proof since it is scientifically possible by statistics. I was reacting to the text I quoted where you said those who claim evolutionary processes don't ask "how likely the existence of such pathways really are". Your quote claimed that those who support natural accounts of life never considered the odds that they are right. I'm simply pointing out that statistically it is very possible and moreso than the ID argument. There is a chance we might come to a different conclusion someday as to how life naturally evolved but statistically speaking the universe will support a natural reason for the origin of life. This is also important for a reason I'll return to.

Sorry, I'm missing something here. I honestly have no idea what this means.

To say that an event is improbable you must have a numerical value based on measurement. How can you claim that something is improbable without giving exact numbers? The number you gave me was not based on evidence.

The only reason why that number is smaller than the number of stars in the Universe is because otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim anything.

I could claim that the chance of life arising by itself is one in six billion Universes. As long as I don't have to back it up with evidence that is..

Yes - I can say with certainly how improbable magic is - It is impossible. Magic is a contradiction in the facts. Magic is the claim A does not equal A since magic can make a thing act against its nature. There has never been a demonstrable act where someone could change the laws of the universe and since we have the basic tools of logic we can demonstrate that A will never be anything other than A. A horse is a horse and will act like a horse. It cannot be turned into a cat, a rain cloud, or a lecture on monetary policy. A horse is a horse, of course.

]

You can feel free to dispute evolution as a fact and set about coming up with your own scientific reasons for how life naturally evolved. That is what science is supposed to do. But the bottom line is that it either happened naturally according to demonstrable laws of nature, which means you can explore the science involved, or you believe it was magic. And yes, a supreme designer is the claim of magic. If the designer was natural then you are begging the question where he came from, and whether he is natural or created by magic. And so forth ad infinity with the regress argument. At some point you are admitting that life originated naturally or it was magic. Then we are at the heart of the argument - What causes life to naturally develop. That is debatable. But if you’re going to answer the question it is magic then we are done. No debate is possible when someone sees the unknown in the universe and simply fills in the blanks with magic.

The existence of Magic would only mean that the Universe is bigger than what we have originally thought. The same way intelligent beings can exist in the known Universe so can they exist in the unknown.

"Anyway just because we don't know who designed life doesn't mean we will never discover the designer....."

This is the fundamental problem with your argument. Unlike ID, evolution does not postulate some "unknown" driver in it's attempt to understand the evidence it has been presented with. Is the theory of evolution complete? No. It it without flaws and gaps? No. But focusing on the holes in the theory does not strengthen your argument for ID. And this has been your entire debating tactic in this thread.

My "faith" in ID is completely based on the invalidity of evolution. If evolution could work in theory or in practice I would have no reason to argue for ID.

Are you kidding me right now? You really think the reason I accept that computers are designed is because 'that's what everyone tells me?' There's no evidence of such an obvious and banal claim that I could possibly be relying on instead? Like, say, the factories where they are made?

Rejecting speculation of entities ('designers' of DNA) which are completely unlike anything we've ever seen in nature isn't appealing to tradition, it's rejecting the arbitrary: http://aynrandlexico.../arbitrary.html. What you're calling 'tradition' is actually the accumulation of scientific knowledge of what is possible in nature, and if you're going to criticize me for 'appealing to' the scientific evidence, well okay then. You got me.

I am not kidding. If we only look at natural processes as causes for any phenomena than it is methodologically impossible to arrive at design as a cause. That would mean that all our beliefs about design have been wrong because there's absolutely no way to arrive at them.

So what if there are factories? Every cell in existence is a factory.

Designers of DNA are completely unlike anything that isn't called human. Arbitrary? We look at objects (observation) and categorically divide them into two groups base on specified complexity. And the argument is that no specified complex object found in nature was the product of natural forces therefore a complex object was most likely designed. Far from arbitrary.

Do you know any method that can be used to identify designed objects in nature? It is common sense to think that a car or a computer was designed but few people who think so actually work in a factory so they simply take it on faith (or there is a method to identify designed objects without actually observing the production).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My "faith" in ID is completely based on the invalidity of evolution. If evolution could work in theory or in practice I would have no reason to argue for ID."

Evolution does seek to disprove ID. Evolution does not claim to explain HOW life began, but rather only seeks to describe how organisms change over time through various genetic and environmental mechanisms. What does disprove ID is the inability to provide a non-contradictory definition of ID which does not violate the law of identity.

You are ascribing far more explanatory power to the theory of evolution than it's most ardent supporters would ever dream of doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution does seek to disprove ID.

Why? If evolution was proven it would disprove ID, but that can't be the reason why we believe evolution is true.

Evolution does not claim to explain HOW life began, but rather only seeks to describe how organisms change over time through various genetic and environmental mechanisms.

That depends how you define evolution. If the organisms that could start evolving cannot come into being than ID wins or you are left with a contradiction.

Abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution. That is the causal process that supposedly made the first living being after all.

We have a name for it and that's pretty much all we have.

What does disprove ID is the inability to provide a non-contradictory definition of ID which does not violate the law of identity.

I do not see how ID has anything to do with the law of identity and of non contradiction.

If it contradicts anything it would be our naturalistic view of reality, that we can observe everything that exists which is not something we could prove anyway.

You are ascribing far more explanatory power to the theory of evolution than it's most ardent supporters would ever dream of doing.

I somehow get a different feeling when they tell me that "evolution is supported by loads of evidence" or "evolution is a fact" (Dawkins).

Unlike ID that cannot be observed directly evolution can be observed. That's the difference between the two. ID cannot be disproved by the evidence but evolution could be.

As Dawkins said evolution is happening right now not just in the past so why is it so radical to believe that we should be able to observe it?

If we have gaps in the theory why can't we ask why do those gaps exist? Is it because of lack of knowledge or because the theory is simply not true?

Is it because we don't know enough or is it because we know too much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, My line should have read "Evolution does NOT seek to disprove ID". Sorry for the confusion.

It is not necessary that Abiogenesis be part of the theory of evolution. The fact that we do not understand the origin of life does not preclude us from studying organisms -- including how they change over time.

The theory of evolution is enormous, covering multiple disciplines -- and there is no one carved-in-stone THEORY OF EVOLUTION. If you were to ask 10 scientists to define evolution, you would get 10 different answers. New ideas are constantly being raised, accepted, and/or discarded.

Your statement from above, "ID cannot be disproved by the evidence but evolution could be." This is not the strength of the ID hypothesis, but rather it's weakness.

And gaps exist in the theory because modern science is still very much in it's infancy. We have gaps in ALL the sciences. Can you name one single science without gaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that an event is improbable you must have a numerical value based on measurement. How can you claim that something is improbable without giving exact numbers? The number you gave me was not based on evidence.

The only reason why that number is smaller than the number of stars in the Universe is because otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim anything.

I could claim that the chance of life arising by itself is one in six billion Universes. As long as I don't have to back it up with evidence that is..

You seem to be arguing against this first part as if I that offered it as proof. Once again, I was disputing your claim that evolution proponents don't consider that their theories are unlikely. I disputed your claim by demonstrating that it was probable no matter how unlikely. If I wanted to get into real statistics I would talk about the fact early oceans are calculated at 10^34 liters, the amount of diluted peptide chains in that volume (can’t remember off the top of my head), and how many chances in a million years those could interact on a single planet. Then you can add the sextillion star systems to that. No matter what crazy number you come up with life could form.

But I’m not here to prove evolution or the theory of how life formed; I’m here to disprove the idea of ID. Thayt was the point. Evolution is a simply phenomenon that everyone partakes in every time they take their non-feral dog for a walk or they eat a stake from domesticated cattle. How life formed is an interesting discussion with the science being more arguable. ID however is not possible.

You are right about one thing – Statistics is only to show chance and not the whole story. Life occurring naturally however is not about chance - that is just a common straw man creationist’s use to dispute scientific theories of life. Life is anything but chance since it is about causal relationships. That drives the odds down quickly when you realize science demonstrates why certain reaction are more likely or for certain species to develop the way they do. An eye, for example, is not chance. It simply had to form that way as a reaction to light stimuli on sensory organs causing adaption over a period. That however is a different subject outside of the point.

My point was ID. The “proof” I did later offer up is a simple logic problem to destroy the idea of a designer. Simply put, a designer is statistically more improbable than you or I. I’ll reiterate it this way:

Person = A

Supreme Designer = B

B > A in power and intellect since B designed A and the universe A lives in

We can establish that the chance of A naturally evolving as X

If B>A with the chance of A being naturally formed is X, then we know that the chance of B naturally evolving is greater than X since B is greater than A.

Chance of universe generating B = X+

For the universe to have naturally generated B then it is even more likely that the universe would have naturally generated A since A is less complex than B. Or to put it bluntly, the idea that life could not naturally evolve simply ignores the elephant in the room – The designer would not have evolved either. An intelligent designer is the ultimate improbability since it is by its own definition more complex than everything else in the universe.

Math demonstrates the logic holes in believing in a supreme designer that can magically exist when life cannot despite that life being more probable. There is no argument against that fact, except one: Magic. This is where we get to the rub of this argument…

The existence of Magic would only mean that the Universe is bigger than what we have originally thought. The same way intelligent beings can exist in the known Universe so can they exist in the unknown.

Magic would not reveal a greater universe, it would render the universe meaningless since random people can arbitrarily choose to ignore facts and make things behave against their nature. Magic is the fantasy that A =/= A on demand. The “discovery” of magic would destroy everything known about the universe, and worse make knowledge of reality irrelevant. Someone who can make A =/= A renders reality arbitrary and life unintelligible since there is no way to identify facts. There are no facts, just the whims of a super being that can break the universe on demand. The idea that the edge of the universe holds superior beings that live with A =/= A makes a good Lovecraft tale but notice those tales are horror stories. For a good reason I might add.

You can claim to not accept evolution based upon science then set about coming up with your own scientific reason for life to naturally generate. That is the purpose of science. It’s also good to challenge the status quo. But you can’t claim magic. Magic is just the assertion that contradictions exist and that you can make anything work if you plug in a supernatural McGuffin into the holes.

Your intelligent designer either evolved naturally according to demonstrable laws of nature, which means we would have too, or it’s magic. The first makes ID irrelevant and the later makes the argument irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

And gaps exist in the theory because modern science is still very much in it's infancy. We have gaps in ALL the sciences. Can you name one single science without gaps?

Yes but no other field of science thinks that this excuse validates anything. If you don't know, than you don't know. And if you can't prove evolution than you can't prove evolution.

An argument from ignorance is not an argument...

probable no matter how unlikely

That's a self contradiction. It's like saying that a talking donkey is probable simply because there are a lot of donkeys in the World.

You seem to be arguing against this first part as if I that offered it as proof. Once again, I was disputing your claim that evolution proponents don't consider that their theories are unlikely. I disputed your claim by demonstrating that it was probable no matter how unlikely. If I wanted to get into real statistics I would talk about the fact early oceans are calculated at 10^34 liters, the amount of diluted peptide chains in that volume (can’t remember off the top of my head), and how many chances in a million years those could interact on a single planet. Then you can add the sextillion star systems to that. No matter what crazy number you come up with life could form.

Again you are appealing to probability. We do not know how likely life could arise here or anywhere in the Universe. End of story.

But I’m not here to prove evolution or the theory of how life formed; I’m here to disprove the idea of ID. Thayt was the point. Evolution is a simply phenomenon that everyone partakes in every time they take their non-feral dog for a walk or they eat a stake from domesticated cattle. How life formed is an interesting discussion with the science being more arguable. ID however is not possible.

You are right about one thing – Statistics is only to show chance and not the whole story. Life occurring naturally however is not about chance - that is just a common straw man creationist’s use to dispute scientific theories of life. Life is anything but chance since it is about causal relationships. That drives the odds down quickly when you realize science demonstrates why certain reaction are more likely or for certain species to develop the way they do. An eye, for example, is not chance. It simply had to form that way as a reaction to light stimuli on sensory organs causing adaption over a period. That however is a different subject outside of the point.

My point was ID. The “proof” I did later offer up is a simple logic problem to destroy the idea of a designer. Simply put, a designer is statistically more improbable than you or I. I’ll reiterate it this way:

Person = A

Supreme Designer = B

B > A in power and intellect since B designed A and the universe A lives in

We can establish that the chance of A naturally evolving as X

If B>A with the chance of A being naturally formed is X, then we know that the chance of B naturally evolving is greater than X since B is greater than A.

Chance of universe generating B = X+

For the universe to have naturally generated B then it is even more likely that the universe would have naturally generated A since A is less complex than B. Or to put it bluntly, the idea that life could not naturally evolve simply ignores the elephant in the room – The designer would not have evolved either. An intelligent designer is the ultimate improbability since it is by its own definition more complex than everything else in the universe.

Math demonstrates the logic holes in believing in a supreme designer that can magically exist when life cannot despite that life being more probable. There is no argument against that fact, except one: Magic. This is where we get to the rub of this argument…

You can ignore any and all data with that kind of argument. Sorry that's just not how science works.

What makes you think that whatever existed originally had to be simple? Where is the law that says that a theoretical Universe could only exist if it was simple and primitive?

Magic would not reveal a greater universe, it would render the universe meaningless since random people can arbitrarily choose to ignore facts and make things behave against their nature. Magic is the fantasy that A =/= A on demand. The “discovery” of magic would destroy everything known about the universe, and worse make knowledge of reality irrelevant. Someone who can make A =/= A renders reality arbitrary and life unintelligible since there is no way to identify facts. There are no facts, just the whims of a super being that can break the universe on demand. The idea that the edge of the universe holds superior beings that live with A =/= A makes a good Lovecraft tale but notice those tales are horror stories. For a good reason I might add.

You can claim to not accept evolution based upon science then set about coming up with your own scientific reason for life to naturally generate. That is the purpose of science. It’s also good to challenge the status quo. But you can’t claim magic. Magic is just the assertion that contradictions exist and that you can make anything work if you plug in a supernatural McGuffin into the holes.

Your intelligent designer either evolved naturally according to demonstrable laws of nature, which means we would have too, or it’s magic. The first makes ID irrelevant and the later makes the argument irrelevant.

Contradictions arise when our scientific model does not correctly align with the Universe. Magic is not a cause it is a sign that the current dogma cannot stand on its own feet any longer.

After all anything that is not considered valid by the current rules of science is by definition magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can ignore any and all data with that kind of argument. Sorry that's just not how science works.

The argument simply points out a contradiction in the design argument. If complexity implies design, and the designer is a complex sentient being, then he needs a designer himself, and so on. You don't need to go to the data when an argument is self-contradictory. That's how logic works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can ignore any and all data with that kind of argument. Sorry that's just not how science works.

What makes you think that whatever existed originally had to be simple? Where is the law that says that a theoretical Universe could only exist if it was simple and primitive?

Either you are ignoring what I am saying (again) or I am doing a really bad job of exaplining it. I'm NOT talking data. I'm simply proving how rediculously illogical it is to say the universe could evolve a complex being like a God in one breathe then claiming in the next breathe that it is impossible for the universe to have created a less complex races like us. I'm not ignoring data, because there is no data for any of the proposed 3000+ Gods that have been observed. Intelligent Design is the idea that people evolving is improbable but since there are minor similarities to machines someone even more powerful than us must have designed them. OK, prove it. Prove to me who this mystery designer(s) are and more importantly prove to me where they came from. Because any universe capable of creating an Intelligent Designer would also be capable of creating us - Rendering this argument moot.

Contradictions arise when our scientific model does not correctly align with the Universe. Magic is not a cause it is a sign that the current dogma cannot stand on its own feet any longer.

After all anything that is not considered valid by the current rules of science is by definition magic.

I've answered this before. What science has not identifed yet is called "magic" by some becaue they don't understand it but they could if they use the Laws of Logic to identify it. Someday they will understand the technology involved. I'm calling God "magic" because the contradicitons violate the Laws of Logic. We will never understand God by admission of his own worshipers. He is impossible by violating axiomatic truths. An infinite omniscient omnipotent unidentifiable disembodied consciousness that exists in a universe incapable of creating anything except Him is a contradiction of Lovecraftain levels.

Except Lovecraft did it better and with a lower body count.

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument simply points out a contradiction in the design argument. If complexity implies design, and the designer is a complex sentient being, then he needs a designer himself, and so on. You don't need to go to the data when an argument is self-contradictory. That's how logic works.

It must have been me since you put it better. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument simply points out a contradiction in the design argument. If complexity implies design, and the designer is a complex sentient being, then he needs a designer himself, and so on. You don't need to go to the data when an argument is self-contradictory. That's how logic works.

Complexity implies a complex algorithm not necessarily a complex designer. In the absence of such an algorithm the latter becomes more likely.

I am not claiming that any kind of being is too complex to come about through natural processes, because that would imply that I am aware of all natural processes in existence. I am only claiming that this life that we can observe is too complex to come about through the known natural processes in the known natural World.

It is obvious that if simplicity was a requirement of the Universe than there would be nothing at all since there can be nothing that is more simple than nothing. The complexity required for the creation of the known Universe and life might have been there all along. How could the Universe possibly create life if the Universe was not complex enough to create life?

You can't deny ID based on philosophy alone. Are the known physical laws complex enough to create life? That is not something philosophy can answer.

It should be measured how much complexity evolution can create and if it's not enough than something else is responsible for life or life simply does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complexity implies a complex algorithm not necessarily a complex designer. In the absence of such an algorithm the latter becomes more likely.

...

You can't deny ID based on philosophy alone. Are the known physical laws complex enough to create life? That is not something philosophy can answer.

It should be measured how much complexity evolution can create and if it's not enough than something else is responsible for life or life simply does not exist.

It is a mistake to think that simple fundamental laws and principles are incapable of producing complex outcomes. We observe this both with evolution and with things like spontaneous order, a major component in a free market society. You have not offered any way to either a.) measure complexity, or b.) determine "how much" complexity a process like evolution could create. Since this is in fact a futile task, the argument for ID inevitably reduces to hand-waving, as it has here.

Edited by Dante
Fixed b.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. I have no idea where this simplicity or complexity in the universe is coming from but it is a straw man. If ID is to be believed, you have to accept the simple contradiction that the universe can naturally create/form/pop into existence an unproven supernatural entity of unlimited power so incomprehensible it is way beyond our understanding, but yet that same universe cannot naturally form a single celled ameba that is so simple you can explain it to schoolchildren in biology class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...