Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it. When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities. Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

 

[durangodawood]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it. When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities. Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

Not buying it.

We have learned an incredible amount of useful and durable knowledge about the biological world.

We may be in the early days of systems-knowledge right now. But every solid body of knowledge had it "early days".

 

[HitchSlap]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it. When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities. Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

Idunno. Every time I look into any particular aspect of our natural world, I'm always amazed at how much we do know. And our understanding of the natural world is increasing at exponential rates.

Glass half full, I guess.

 

[Gene2memE]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it.

That's plainly ridiculous. We can, and do, ask and answer questions about life all the time. I'm tangentially engaged in research at the moment about why one particular type of cancer is so prevalent in Tasmania. A friend is researching the venom of the platypus. Another is investigating the effects of elevation on the micron of sheep's wool. All of these ask questions about the living world and seek to answer them.

When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities.

Not quite. The scientific method requires only addressing one problem at a time. It doesn't deal in complexities, it deals in breaking down high level intricate problems into hundreds or thousands of simpler and more direct problems and answering them. When it has enough weight of evidence, then it recombines all those simple answers to answer the complex problem.

Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

Perhaps the only answer is that the first living being was P’an Ku, who grew for 18,000 years inside a cosmic egg. Certainly, there is as much evidence for this assertion as there is for the Biblical claim.

I think that you've given up on pursuing intellectual answers about the natural world and are just willing to settle for 'Goddidit'.

I also think that I am very grateful that millions of others that came before us, and millions of others that are alive now, are not satisfied with throwing theirs hands up and declaring "its all too complicated clearly we cant address it".

 

[Speedwell]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it. When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities. Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

We are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made. But complexity as it applies to molecular biology is a mathematical concept, not merely an expression of incredulity. It is a rare creationist who attempts to criticize evolution from a mathematical standpoint and those who have tried--notably William Dembski and Werner Gitt--have failed.

 

[Kylie]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it. When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities. Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

Yeah, here's one of those simplisitc scientific explanations. This is the explanation for photosynthesis. How child-like it is. Looks like a toddler's scribbles...

On the other hand, here's the wonderfully detailed religious explanation, which answers any and all questions and provides a complete and perfect understanding:

"Goddidit."

 

[SteveB28]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it. When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities. Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

Argument from Incredulity.

Not very impressive or helpful.......

 

[MasonP]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it. When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities. Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

That's the mantra of ignorance, I can't understand how it all came about therefor a God must have done it.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the mantra of ignorance, I can't understand how it all came about therefor a God must have done it.

You guys work hard not to understand.

Even if you have to pluto critical terminology to keep yourselves ignorant.

Example: "miracle" to "magic" and "created" to "poofed."

You want the Bible out of school, the Ten Commandments off the lawn, and MERRY CHRISTMAS plutoed to SEASONS GREETINGS and/or HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

Then you claim you don't understand anything.

You work hard to find natural causes for the weather; then when someone suggests a particular storm might have been sent from God, you guys go 404.

You pluto "child" to "fetus," then wonder why people believe in the sanctity of life.

Just another day at the lab, eh?

All in a day's work.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah, here's one of those simplisitc scientific explanations. This is the explanation for photosynthesis. How child-like it is. Looks like a toddler's scribbles...

On the other hand, here's the wonderfully detailed religious explanation, which answers any and all questions and provides a complete and perfect understanding:

"Goddidit."

Both are (may be) true.

Your diagram, maybe.
Goddidit, definitely.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's the mantra of ignorance, I can't understand how it all came about therefor a God must have done it.

Point out anything I said that isn't true (not anything you don't believe).

 

[Speedwell]

Point out anything I said that isn't true (not anything you don't believe).

"When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The scientific method requires only addressing one problem at a time. It doesn't deal in complexities,.....

Thanks, that makes my case.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Both are (may be) true.

Your diagram, maybe.
Goddidit, definitely.

You are not doing a good job at showing that you argument is purely an argument from incredulity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities."

Gene2memE disagrees with you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are not doing a good job at showing that you argument is purely an argument from incredulity.

Read the OP again. I didn't present an argument, just an observation, and of course an opinion.

I love science and all that it does. I jump ship when they conclude that this incredible living apparatus constructed itself by trial and error. I believe it was carefully planned and brought into being for a purpose by an outside force, aka God. So I agree with all the valid science that has ever been done. It's the 'causal' element that I disagree with.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Read the OP again. I didn't present an argument, just an observation, and of course an opinion.

And your opinion is still an argument from incredulity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Gene2memE disagrees with you.

What Speedwell quoted was what you said. YOU said that, not him.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And your opinion is still an argument from incredulity.

Kinda, but I never believed otherwise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What Speedwell quoted was what you said. YOU said that, not him.

Speedwell knows what I mean.