Irreducible Complexity - If you believe this, what's your main example?

[shinbits]

But a complex designer is precisely what is being proposed, because the designer is proposed as having super-human intellect.

again, ID is being perveted by creationists, who want the God of the Bible, who's supposed to have infinite knowledge, to be promoted by ID. Thus, the creationists impose the Christian God's traits onto the Designer.

But if the designer is an "intelligent" being so often used in the field called "Intelligent Design" it must be complex to have intelligence.

well, we don't know what this being is made of, for one. We don't even know if this being is physical, or even of this demention (sp?). The designer might not be "complex", but simply difficult to understand. Complex and difficult is not necessarily the same thing. Like climbing a mounting has a simple goal: get to the top. But that doesn't mean it's an easy goal.

Furthermore, we have examples of life that create structures far more complex then themselves. Ants, for example, have nests with complex tunnels. Also, they have a complex system of communication, as with army ants, which allows hundreds of thousands of ants to move as one unit to attack prey, bring the kill back to the nest, and distribute it among the different types of ants. The complexity of ant colonies, which include thier complex nests, thier organization and method of communicating, is something still not fully understood by scientists. The life which ants have developed over time is incomparably more complex than the ants themselves.

Thus, a designer need not be very complex in order to create vastly complex design and structures.

 

[shinbits]

But back on track, op asks for something, you respond without evidence. You claim that something along the lines to be providing truth, fact, evidence, whatever, I show you that a statement opposite to yours holds as much weight, because you are simply making an assertion. You now wish me to come up with evidence for this. I'm sorry, but you made the claim that ID is valid and true in some way.

1) Most scientists agree that ID is not scientific. How then can the OP be shown scientific evidence? Use your head.

2) I'm not making mere "assertions". Mere assertions are not backed by logical reasoning. I've offered extensive logical reasons as to why things in nature are designed, such as water.

If i entered a thread that asked for evidence of the universe forming naturally, and i wished to defend this, i would be responsible for the evidence, NOT the person who showed me that all i was making was an assertive statement without anything else. That would be me shifting the burden of proof, which is what your doing this moment.

see point number one.

I don't think so. Geocentrism was an idea that came from religion, as ID comes from religion.

just as astronomy was being hindered by religion back then, likewise, religion is hindering a philosophy, first pioneered by minds like Aristotle. We can hope that one day, those hinderences will be thrown off, allowing ID to continue as a pure and legitimate study.

 

[Chalnoth]

again, ID is being perveted by creationists, who want the God of the Bible, who's supposed to have infinite knowledge, to be promoted by ID. Thus, the creationists impose the Christian God's traits onto the Designer.

Infinite knowledge is not necessary, however. Knowledge enough to intentionally create is enough to make a creator massively complex.

 

[Chalnoth]

1) Most scientists agree that ID is not scientific. How then can the OP be shown scientific evidence? Use your head.

Then why do you think it holds any merit whatsoever as a means to determine the nature of reality?

2) I'm not making mere "assertions". Mere assertions are not backed by logical reasoning. I've offered extensive logical reasons as to why things in nature are designed, such as water.

And I've shown why your logic is faulty.

 

[mpok1519]

The Dover Board of Education debate all over again. Wow, these adults, who are supposed to be in charge of our kids' education, turned into a bunch of little superstitious children who actually thought that "Of Pandas and People" was a real scientic text when it was absolutely the worst biology text anyone could have chosen for the schools science cirricula. The proved in court that their motivations were entirely religious, andtherefore violated sep. of church and state.

Irreducable complexity does not exist; complex and simple are subjective trms, and therefore are rendered meaningless when objectivity is thrown out of the window. IC is false because nothing can be reduced to something simple; even a single hydrogen atom is anintensely complicated thing even though its one of the smallest things in the known universe. Complexity is enirely subjective.

take a mousetrap for example; if you take even one part from the trap it is no longer a functional mousetrap trap. This is an argument for irreducible complexity, as they used a bacterium's flegellum as an example of IC. Yet, they were able to find the same complexitie in things that were reduced.

The mousetrap can be reduced, and though it may not be a mousetrap, it can still function as something else, a tie-clip for example.

IC doesn't exist.

 

[MoonLancer]

lets not forget, the judge at the Dover trial was a pointed by gorge bush and had the rick santorum seal of approval.

 

[mpok1519]

the judge from what I understand was very objective, and ade his decision based on evidence rather than belief.

People are willing to sacrafice truth for belief which scares me....

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

From what I recall, the judge had some scathing remarks directed toward Beheand ID in his closing remarks.

 

[mpok1519]

im surprised there even was a trial. it was obvously a gambit by members of a church to manipulate the education standards to their preferences. It was just a sick display of man's desire for power and control where they have none. I mean, these guys are in control OF OUR KIDS' EDUCATION! that scares me when old, ignorant, STUPID men are in charge of things they do not even understand, or care to understand.

 

[Ectezus]

Doing research and experiments is great! The thing however is that you do this research BEFORE MAKING CONCLUSIONS!

Actually, this isn't really necessary. In fact, it can actually be helpful to make conclusions before doing the research. [...]

Chalnoth, scientists do this but it's called a hypothesis instead of a conclusion.
Everything you said in your reply makes perfect sense if you replace the word conclusion with hypothesis. I'm guessing this is what you meant?

The main difference is that scientists know a hypothesis isn't yet proven to be correct even when they are using the assumption that it is.
Scientists don't always just try to prove their hypothesis though. Disproving a hypothesis also yields important data.


Oh and by the way, since some are on the subject on the Dover trial.
There is an amazing 'documentary' made about it.
For anyone who wants to see them, Just search for "Intelligent Design on Trial" on Youtube. (I tried posting the link but the video shows up on the forum directly)

I highly recommend the video's for as it is an important ruling. If the outcome would have been different I honestly believe it would mean the end of America's scientic position.

- Ectezus

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, well, when we try in earnest, we've always been able to find the answers. Or, at the very least, plausible explanations that may or may not be correct. Sometimes it's a bit more difficult to nail it down to which one is correct. And a plausible explanation is all we need to blow irreducible complexity out of the water:

Because the idea of inferring ID through irreducible complexity means that the supposition is that physical system X cannot be explained through evolution, so merely presenting a plausible explanation demonstrates this assertion false.

So anyone can make up a plausible story to explain anything.
What a world of reducible complexity. That is why people do not believe.

 

[juvenissun]

Doing research and experiments is great! The thing however is that you do this research BEFORE MAKING CONCLUSIONS!

Scientists start with evidence and come up with a theory to explain the evidence.
Creationists on the other hand start with the conclusion (god excists) and try to come up with evidence for it.
The complete contradiction between this and that some people actually consider this normal is mindboggling.

As for my question Juvenissun, you still didn't answer it.
If you want to redefine the definition of unknown to: "We tried really hard to explain but couldn't yet" I'm okey with that.
Now, using that definition, do you honestly think that the unknown is good evidence for a theory?

I await your reply.

- Ectezus

ID is not a theory. It is a simple recognition. So your question is not a valid one.

 

[mpok1519]

IC = does not exist.

Nothing can be reduced to nothingness; everything can be infinitely divided. There is no such thing as irreducable complexity; anything can be reduced, forever, and ever, no matter how 'complex' or 'simple'.

Score more for evolution.

Evolution isnt a belief; it is a real biological process. You cannot choose to believe, or not believe in something that is true; dibelief in truth is a disease on the beauty of free-will independet thought and observation in the natural world.

So, anyone can make up a plusible story to explain something.

And people can make up totally idiotic and impossible story in order to spread their religious beliefs for god-only-knows what reasons other than self-centered selfish validation.

ID is not a theory OR recognition of anything; it implants anthropomorphised characteristics of man into nature to fill in the blanks where we do not fully understand how it works YET based upon our fears and insecurities concerning the finite nature of life itself.

 

[ke1985]

Exactly how all the plant and animal came to be from random acts is beyond me. I dont have enough faith to be an atheist!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

IC = does not exist.

Nothing can be reduced to nothingness; everything can be infinitely divided. There is no such thing as irreducable complexity; anything can be reduced, forever, and ever, no matter how 'complex' or 'simple'.

Except for leptons, quarks, and bosons .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Exactly how all the plant and animal came to be from random acts is beyond me. I dont have enough faith to be an atheist!

... poe?

 

[Ectezus]

Doing research and experiments is great! The thing however is that you do this research BEFORE MAKING CONCLUSIONS!

Scientists start with evidence and come up with a theory to explain the evidence.
Creationists on the other hand start with the conclusion (god excists) and try to come up with evidence for it.
The complete contradiction between this and that some people actually consider this normal is mindboggling.

As for my question Juvenissun, you still didn't answer it.
If you want to redefine the definition of unknown to: "We tried really hard to explain but couldn't yet" I'm okey with that.
Now, using that definition, do you honestly think that the unknown is good evidence for a theory?

I await your reply.

- Ectezus

ID is not a theory. It is a simple recognition. So your question is not a valid one.

Haha, the fact that your reluctant to answer even such a simple question tells me all I wanted to know.

I could rephrase the question to "do you honestly think that the unknown is good evidence for anything" but you'll probably just dodge the question again because you know it will contradict with your belief.

Thank you for playing Juvenissun.

- Ectezus

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Exactly how all the plant and animal came to be from random acts is beyond me. I dont have enough faith to be an atheist!

The neat thing is, it doesn't take faith to be an atheist. All it takes is to put aside silly worn out world views and actually educate one's self on how things exist in this natural universe.

As Einstein said (paraphrasing here) "god does not play dice with the universe." Not that Einstein was a theist by any means, what he meant was the randomness did not lie at the heart of natural causes.

As for a comprehensive understanding of how "all plant and animal came to be from random acts," you should read Dawkins book "Climbing Mt. Improbable."

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth, scientists do this but it's called a hypothesis instead of a conclusion.
Everything you said in your reply makes perfect sense if you replace the word conclusion with hypothesis. I'm guessing this is what you meant?

Not quite. What I mean is that actual working and productive scientists will often genuinely and firmly believe their hypotheses before they are demonstrated true (or false). The important distinction is that they're willing to be proven wrong (and the honesty to admit that they don't really have a strong reason to believe it's true when pressed). Unlike the people pushing irreducible complexity.

 

[Chalnoth]

So anyone can make up a plausible story to explain anything.
What a world of reducible complexity. That is why people do not believe.

Which is precisely why it's basically impossible to demonstrate irreducible complexity: to demonstrate irreducible complexity, you not only have to eliminate all plausible explanations that people have come up with as likely, but you also have to eliminate all plausible explanations that people haven't come up with. There always remains the possibility, after all, that we simply weren't creative enough.

This is why negative arguments are such a bad thing. The ID crowd, if they were actually interested in doing something useful, would be pursuing positive arguments, arguments that wouldn't simply be, "Well, evolution can't explain this!"