Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[Speedwell]

Gene2memE disagrees with you.

That's his privilege. I notice that you did not respond to my previous post. If you want to assert that science does not deal adequately with the subject of complexity, you'll have to show us the math.

Here is an introductory treatment of the subject I came across the other day. Please show us how it fails to deal with complexity in an adequate way.
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/papers/info.pdf

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

If the answers of science are so simple, why do creationists misunderstand them so frequently?

 

[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."

That Goddidit doesn't deny the veracity of the science (science is the study of creation), it's just a conclusion reached when all such diagrams are presented in their 'connectedness' at once and the observer is overwhelmed by the sheer impossibility that the whole thing constructed itself for no purpose other than simple survival.

 

[Speedwell]

That Goddidit doesn't deny the veracity of the science (science is the study of creation), it's just a conclusion reached when all such diagrams are presented in their 'connectedness' at once and the observer is overwhelmed by the sheer impossibility that the whole thing constructed itself for no purpose other than simple survival.

Now that is the argument from incredulity. "Sheer impossibility," but no math at all.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's his privilege. I notice that you did not respond to my previous post. If you want to assert that science does not deal adequately with the subject of complexity, you'll have to show us the math.

Here is an introductory treatment of the subject I came across the other day. Please show us how it fails to deal with complexity in an adequate way.
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/papers/info.pdf

The paper alludes to 'design'. How do you explain that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now that is the argument from incredulity. "Sheer impossibility," but no math at all.

I love this pic:

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Now that is the argument from incredulity. "Sheer impossibility," but no math at all.

There's not a blackboard big enough for the 'equation'. Remember that all the math about everything must be combined.

 

[Speedwell]

The paper alludes to 'design'. How do you explain that?

Why should it not? IT was originally developed to analyze designed systems even though it also applies to molecular biology--which we don't know whether it is also one or not.
Be careful you don't make this into one of those bootless "evolution or God" discussions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why should it not? IT was originally developed to analyze designed systems even though it also applies to molecular biology--which we don't know whether it is also one or not.
Be careful you don't make this into one of those bootless "evolution or God" discussions.

It's heading in that direction via the 'design' controversy. It is claimed that 'design' doesn't exist in nature, but the term, along with it's true meaning, is used all the time by science. Whyzat?

 

[Speedwell]

It's heading in that direction via the 'design' controversy. It is claimed that 'design' doesn't exist in nature, but the term, along with it's true meaning, is used all the time by science. Whyzat?

It depends on what you mean by "design." If you mean something like "orderly and functional arrangement of components" then yes, design appears in nature and can be fully explained by natural causes. If, on the other hand, you mean anything like "purposeful" or in "intentional" then you have gone beyond the scientific usage of the term.

 

[AirPo]

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

Do creationists understand the stupidness of things?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's heading in that direction via the 'design' controversy. It is claimed that 'design' doesn't exist in nature, but the term, along with it's true meaning, is used all the time by science. Whyzat?

Plenty of scientists and philosophers are comfortable with using 'design' for natural phenomena - for example, having evolution as the designer. But their usage doesn't imply agency or intelligence, it's just a convenient term for the aesthetically appealing or functional result of natural forces, i.e. a human interpretation.

E.T.A. Oops, scooped by Speedwell...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It depends on what you mean by "design." If you mean something like "orderly and functional arrangement of components" then yes, design appears in nature and can be fully explained by natural causes. If, on the other hand, you mean anything like "purposeful" or in "intentional" then you have gone beyond the scientific usage of the term.

I understand that, thus our difference of opinion.

 

[Speedwell]

I understand that, thus our difference of opinion.

Yes, but the two meanings of "design" are not mutually exclusive. The only people I know of who are trying to make them so are acting from political motives, which is why "Intelligent Design" is disparaged.

 

[RickG]

The paper alludes to 'design'. How do you explain that?

Alluding is one thing, showing the data supporting the alluding is another thing. Is there design in nature? Absolutely, which is a function of how atoms react with one another as well as chemical reactions of compounds and physical inertia .

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Alluding is one thing, showing the data supporting the alluding is another thing. Is there design in nature? Absolutely, which is a function of how atoms react with one another as well as chemical reactions of compounds and physical inertia .

The question remains. Which 'force' does the designing, natural selection (force within) or God (force without) if neither can be observed?

Evolution, it seems to me, is as mysterious as special creation. It also seems to me that science is trying to make 'sense' out of it from a material point of view, which must be frustrating for them. Creation believers have no such frustration as we believe the material universe has a spiritual purpose in the end, thus our 'ignorance' concerning scientific explanations.

 

[Speedwell]

The question remains. Which 'force' does the designing, natural selection (force within) or God (force without) if neither can be observed?

Evolution, it seems to me, is as mysterious as special creation.

Taking the "design" as order and function, the "force" is natural causes. It can be observed. The source of "design" as purpose or intention is a separate question.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Taking the "design" as order and function, the "force" is natural causes. It can be observed. The source of "design" as purpose or intention is a separate question.

Only if one believes your first statement.

 

[RickG]

The question remains. Which 'force' does the designing, natural selection (force within) or God (force without) if neither can be observed?

The forces are natural.

Evolution, it seems to me, is as mysterious as special creation. It also seems to me that science is trying to make 'sense' out of it from a material point of view, which must be frustrating for them. Creation believers have no such frustration as we believe the material universe has a spiritual purpose in the end, thus our 'ignorance' concerning scientific explanations.

My position is for those who wish to believe in a literal Genesis and creation, they need to do so entirely on that concept. Conversely, trying to reconcile a literal Genesis with science leads exclusively to "confirmation bias". Thus, I choose the science I have a background and experience in, and view the creation account as a creation story fitting the knowledge of the people of the times.

 

[Speedwell]

Only if one believes your first statement.

Then the question becomes, why are you conflating the two meanings of "design?"

Do you really believe that attributing order and function to natural causes rules out divine purpose and intention?

Or are you pursuing a political agenda?