Author Topic: The complexity argument is all backwards...  (Read 1728 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6607
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2012, 01:13:11 AM »

Of course, I guess folks who can get lost in a desert for 40 years probably shouldn't have that many options...

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....you owe me a new monitor.

 :o

Always at your service, sir.

Find out what a good 15" CRT would cost you and send me the bill    ;D
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2012, 07:12:21 AM »

Always at your service, sir.

Find out what a good 15" CRT would cost you and send me the bill    ;D

But, but...but those are big, and hot, and....really cheap?  Wait a minute...I see what's going on here...

Offline Noman Peopled

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1904
  • Darwins +24/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • [insert wittycism]
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2012, 11:06:38 AM »
However, I think the argument is backwards. I think that complexity suggests no designer because it would not make sense for an all powerful god to make it that complex. We wouldnt need lungs to breath air IF we had been designed, we would just exist without needing oxygen.
Dan Dennet raises the same point somewhere. The hallmark of good design is simplicity, in the sense that everything unneeded for the purpose of the design is cut. In that sense, a breathing apparatus makes perfect sense in an environment where there's enough air to breathe very nearly all the time. What does not make sense is having four teeth too many or a backwards optic nerve - both work to an extent (obviously), but neither makes sense if we postulate a competent and benevolent designer.[1]

The key here is imo that we actually can compare good and bad "designs" so we do have a point of comparison (no point of comparison being the reason why, say, Leibniz's "ours is the best of all possible worlds" crap was even listened to) - not only do some animals have better eyes[2] but some get better eyes for investing the exact same ressources.
It's like talking about a car engineer who places motors on some of his cars' roof - when we know for a fact that he[3] knows better.

I guess multiple designers explain it better. Polytheism anyone?




Yeah, didn't think so.
 1. The question of how much miracle glue we could expect from a creator is a somewhat different one.
 2. which we could "explain" by different design goals
 3. Definitely not she. This is the christian god we're talking about, no matter what Behe stammers.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 11:08:36 AM by Noman Peopled »
"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.
-xphobe

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6866
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2012, 11:32:59 AM »
^^^^That's gotta be it. If the universe was designed, it had to be by committee:
 
"I like beetles. Can we have lots of beetles?"
"Can we focus on the human teeth here, please? I think there are too many for the jaw."
"Beetles!"
"We can have all the beetles you want. But only if you let me have my viruses."
"Wokay."
"WHAT ABOUT THE EFFIN' TEETH?"
"It looks like these penguins are homosexual. Is that all right?"
"Teeth?"
"I love all the fabulous colors you have made the humans."
"Are you responsible for all the homosexuality?"
"Isn't it super?"

And so on...
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2012, 11:52:46 AM »
Maybe a creator did make it this complex because he/she/it has a strange sense of humor? Maybe a creator made humanity like this because it thinks humanity deserves it? If there is a creator there might be a good reason for existence to be like this.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5058
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2012, 11:59:16 AM »
Maybe a creator did make it this complex because he/she/it has a strange sense of humor? Maybe a creator made humanity like this because it thinks humanity deserves it? If there is a creator there might be a good reason for existence to be like this.
More likely, any such creator would be much more interested in stellar objects - planets, asteroids, stars.  Perhaps even those are too small a scale for an extra-universal creator.  Imagine an artist worrying about the bacteria living on a painting, in a gallery with thousands upon thousands of paintings, and you'll have an idea of what I'm talking about.  Once you get to the really macro scale, then you might be able to make an argument about "divine simplicity".  Of course, that strongly suggests that any such creator couldn't care less about the lives of the ephemeral creatures on various planets, if it's concerned with the scale of galaxies or superclusters.

Offline theFLEW

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Ron Paul for President
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2012, 07:11:05 PM »
I find the complexity argument in need of re-working.  That being said, I must caution against falling into the "if I were God" mentality.  It's OK to speak hypothetically, but it doesn't lend credence to any argument for or against your presented matter of question, namely, God's rationale for creating complexity.  Related to this, it must be pointed out that "complexity" is truly a relative term.  What is complex to man may not be so complex to God.  Just some thoughts....
"...and how much naivety, venerable, childlike and boundlessly stupid naivety there is in the scholar's belief in his superiority, in the good conscience of his tolerance, in the simply unsuspecting certainty with which his instinct treats the religious man as an inferior..." - F. Nietzsche

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2012, 08:12:15 PM »
I find the complexity argument in need of re-working.

For what purpose would it need to be re-worked?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2012, 12:03:03 AM »
Maybe a creator did make it this complex because he/she/it has a strange sense of humor? Maybe a creator made humanity like this because it thinks humanity deserves it? If there is a creator there might be a good reason for existence to be like this.
This is the fundamental problem with creationism, isn't it? It can be easily adapted for ANY evidence, thus it has no predictive value, and no testability. Similarity of DNA suggests common descent. But that's no problem for creationism, it's just the creator exhibiting some consistency of style. Were this similarity not present, that too would be no problem for creationism. It would just give testament to God's individual attention to every creation. Thanks to its dependence on the whims of an unfathomable being, "God did it" is the universal answer to everything. It doesn't matter what is real or true. If the comfort of having AN answer is more important to you than the pursuit of real knowledge, then "God did it" is the perfect tool for pretending away your ignorance, even while maintaining it.

Edit:  Just to be clear, by "you" and "your" in that last sentence, I don't mean you, Samuelxcs. I haven't mistaken you for a creationist. I'm just agreeing with and expanding on the point you were making.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 12:22:06 AM by Willie »

Offline theFLEW

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Ron Paul for President
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2012, 02:16:41 AM »
@Azdgari

I really don't know when (or if) this is going to show up because I am currently moderated, but I suppose what I mean is the difficulty I have with the framing of the argument.  Without getting into a long debate (I'm avoiding those like the plague from now on), I would clarify for you.

So lets say we put the whole "complexity" argument to the test.  You and I (sometime in the distant future of course) get in a spacecraft and fly to a nearby solar system in the habitable zone, landing on a as of yet undiscovered planet.  When we get out of the spacecraft..."Wait, don't open that, it's an alien planet, is there air?!?!?!  You don't know...." (ok, I hope you've seen Galaxy Quest...) So we get off the spacecraft and are immediately met by a vast field full of perfectly formed rocks in the shape of tiny pyramids.

"Hey!", says Azdgari, "this looks promising, do you think there might be intelligent life on this plant?"

"Hmmm," says theFLEW, "I'm not sure, what makes you think there is?"

"Ummm, earth to Flew, look around you," says Azdgari, "these tiny pyramids?  All perfectly symmetrical?  Oooohhh, maybe they like some kind of alien alter, or a portal!"

"Someone needs to stop watching scifi re-runs," theFLEW says under his breath, "look Azdgari, this could just be a coincidence, you understand that right, I mean, couldn't the wind of just made these rocks appear to be in a complex pattern...?"

"Hardly," says Azdgari, "we need to scope this out."

So theFLEW and Azdgari search the entire field, and through the advanced equipment on their spacecraft, the entire planet for any signs of life, and do you know what they found.......(cliffhanger).......NOTHING!!!  Absolutely nothing that could possibly be misconstrued as ever even hinting that the planet supported life in any capacity.

Dejected, Azdgari returns to the ship, and theFLEW realizes the important reality that the natural world can, at times, have the appearance of intelligent meddling, but in the end, without solid evidence, there's just as much a chance that it was chance all along.

So, moving on from narrative, that's the classic argument for design/complexity/whatever that many theists present, and guess what?  It's flawed, as I hope I proved.

But what was this about re-working the whole thing?  Lets revisit the scenario, but this time, when we exit the spacecraft on the alien planet, we don't find a field of perfectly formed pyramids, but instead a vast barren field.  As we walk across the field in our spacesuits, we are absolutely shocked to see a tiny piece of paper lying next to a rock.  theFLEW picks it up and reads:

"Hello, theFLEW, I've been expecting you, your hair is brown and your eyes are blue."

Shocked at the fact that this note so was entirely accurate (and that the unknown author had a flare for rhyme), theFLEW looks at Azdgari and says, "There's intelligent life somewhere on this planet, no one could have written something so exact as this who didn't know me first."

Azdgari nods in agreement, and both men set out to find the author of the note.

That's the difference between the two arguments.  That's a reworking of the former flawed approach.  However, you may ask, what does the note in the narrative represent?  In my humble opinion, our own DNA is a testament of authorship of the deep, deep complexity within ourselves.  Now, I recognize that many people on this board will not agree with me on this one, but if you see the difference in the narrative, you see the difference in the bigger narrative that may be presented to you.  There is a difference to say something is complex, but replicable without intervention, than to say that something is complex in such a way that it demands intervention.  Now, is that intervention God?  I haven't made that argument; judge it as you like.  But know that DNA truly is a profound chemical complex, and just as much as ink and paper exist without written words, so too does a necessary consideration of care become a prerequisite when ink and paper begat an intelligent sentence.

This is where I stand on the matter at any rate.  Hope you enjoyed the read..... ;)
"...and how much naivety, venerable, childlike and boundlessly stupid naivety there is in the scholar's belief in his superiority, in the good conscience of his tolerance, in the simply unsuspecting certainty with which his instinct treats the religious man as an inferior..." - F. Nietzsche

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #39 on: February 12, 2012, 11:12:53 AM »
If notes were self replicating with occasional mutations and their content affected their ability to survive and reproduce, then you'd have a valid analogy for DNA, but you'd still be left without a valid argument.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 11:16:04 AM by Willie »

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6607
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2012, 11:46:54 AM »
theFLEW,

First of all, a note would prove intelligence, perhaps. But not the source. So as analogies go, perhaps this is not the best one.

Intelligent design guys either have to use the methods of science to prove they have a legitimate point, or replace science with something equally impressive that uses a process to provide proof or at least good arguments for said intelligent design. Right now they appear to use two tactics: bad science and made up stuff. Neither of which impresses us.

If ID is indeed valid, some method of demonstrating it should exist. This is not a case of invisible gods, but of observable phenomena that can be experimented on. Scientists who you think are very wrong have found a way to observe, dissect, experiment with, predict with and improve the world with the very genetics that you think are anything but accidental.

First of all, any god worth his salt would use a method that couldn't be toyed with. Secondly, if he requires faith, he isn't going to leave evidence lying around in the form of helixes, or anything else. Third, genetics and the reproduction of living things via that process are not prefect. Tens of thousands of human birth defects annually attest to that. Surely your god is better than that. And forth, why do all the millions of variations make all the sense in the world if arbitrary genetic changes are taking place and little sense if it was planned?

We have fungi that attack innocent little ants, cause them to climb to the top of a nearby plant and die, so that little mushrooms can grow out of their head and torso and deliver spores to other innocent little ants. We are humans, supposedly made by your god, but without our multitudinous accompanying bacteria, we can't survive. You and I have more bacteria cells on and in our body that human cells. Either we and the bacteria evolved that way, or your god isn't very good at making humans and he had to do a McGyver to help us digest food.

You are sitting there staring at the DNA code in awe and concluding that it must be an intelligently designed sequence when the actual code users are a mess. Why are naked mole rats living in underground burrows with a respiratory system that lets them not only live, but flourish, in an atmosphere low on oxygen and high on the nitrogen of their own farts? And also high in the CO2 of their own exhalations? (And how did they survive the ark? Did god tell Noah to shove them up elephant butts?)

There are single celled organisms living a mile under the ground in rocks that split into two at the rate of once per 600-1000 years. That would mean that there are little tiny cells that are only six generations removed from the garden of eden if the bible story is true and it happened only 6,000 years ago. Why would a god make such a cell? It is far easier to explain that among the variety of life forms that have come to exist via evolution there are these single celled organisms that live a mile below the earth's surface in 130° temperatures.

Of course, last year they discovered little tiny nematodes (200th of an inch long) that eat these tiny little single celled organisms, so it looks like evolution filled yet another niche. Or your god decided to confound us more.

And in a earlier post, you cautioned against using the "If I were a god" approach. So you won't be able to explain why god did the deep in the earth ecosystem thingy. Drats.

Evolution makes enough sense that every new organism we find fits into the process. ID offers no such consistency. Science has found that the same genes that break down sugars in yeast do the same thing in human cells. An apparently useful trait that has survived the evolutionary process. Our need to make bread rise? Not so much.



Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2012, 12:42:59 PM »
I see that in all his long message (which PP responded to in depth), theFLEW never actually answered my question.

Some argument is being constructed for a purpose.  It then fails at that purpose.  Someone wants to re-tool the argument.  My question is, why?  What makes the person think that the argument had a valid point to begin with, in light of the fact that it just failed?  What would convince that person that the argument is simply wrong, rather than in need of "re-tooling"?  Will that person refuse to ever consider that he or she might be wrong, and instead simply "re-tool" his or her argument over and over as it fails?

That wouldn't be especially honest.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6607
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2012, 12:51:45 PM »
Excellent point Adz, but there are people who spend their time hoping that the truth matches what they want it to be. And hence they are not open to responses that don't match the world they insist exists.

They should be suspicious of their own explanations when they don't actually explain anything. But I guess they see that as positive feedback.

Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2012, 12:53:04 PM »
Azdgari - it is the classic problem of one side making absolutely no attempt at understanding, at a minimum, what the other side is saying.

Whenever these ID vs Evo discussions get going, it becomes clear almost right away, that the person asserting that ID has merit spends the vast majority of their argument attacking the ToE.  And when those attacks are broken down, the truth is revealed that they really do not understand the ToE.  This kind of pisses me off.  I don't care how much a person despises the ToE, that is simply no excuse for not even attempting to understand its premise.

For all of the ID/Creationist/Complexity/Creator people we get to talk to, have we ever seen any one of them demonstrate that they understand the ToE?  One clue is that even people who look at it carefully, and read about it, and study it, sometimes have trouble getting their heads around some of the concepts, such as speciation.  On the surface, it makes a lot of sense in the light of the ToE.  But as you dig deeper, it's tougher to get your brain around the concept of one species becoming another, and then on to being something that looks nothing like the original it started from.


Offline theFLEW

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Ron Paul for President
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2012, 05:36:31 PM »
I'm not about to come marching to the "rescue" of ID on these boards.  It would be a waste of everyone's time, ultimately.  All I'm trying to do is show that the classic argument from complexity/design/whatever fails, because it may be misguided in the implications of what it is seeing.  However, if it is re-worked, based on ones understanding of the natural work, it follows from the analogy given.  I guess the big question here is not whether you or I see the natural world for what it is, or that I am somehow "under-handing" science; it is simply the conclusions we draw from our observation of the natural order that have led us to different ways of approaching reality.  I see God, you see chance.  I completely understand that there is disagreement, and quite frankly, you're welcome to your opinion.  Apart from preconceived notions, I am completely on board with the idea of natural selection occurring in species.  Furthermore, I agree that mutation occurs in the DNA of single-celled organisms, thus bearing ramifications on those organisms that are made up of them.  I would agree that these mutations are strictly random, and are not influenced by the environment, yet can subsequently be effected by the environment.  I agree with common ancestry in the animal kingdom, and that the gene pool was instrumental in the diversity we see.  However, I see origins differently.  I see DNA as not a matter up to the ides of complexity (complex as it is), but instead bound to a bigger question of coding, words, or the "language of life" if you will.  Yes, snowflakes and crystals are immensely complex in form, but their functionality is rather stunted i.e. they can't "give orders" to a host.  The playing field of complexity has changed to a degree that the questions seems no longer of complexity at all, but of directed action.  For me, I see the "reading" done by a protein, which has been encoded for a specific task by a gene, and I no longer see complexity as much as directed action.  I mean, look at the ryanodine receptor protein on cardiac muscles.  Though it's purpose is grander than this, I can't help but wonder with awe at it's crucial job of "calcium sparking" the first heartbeat.  With the overall delicacy of fetal development, it is stunning that a spontaneous action can be so synchronized and directed so perfectly.  Yes, with time, all things degrade and tend towards disorder, as we see with DNA, specifically in diseases and such, but as God has "subjected creation to futility", we are left to think how it must have been at the origin.  Incidentally, it must be reaffirmed that the idea of "divine design" in nature is not a new phenomenon, specifically in the realm of greater "thinkers" (I couldn't think of a better term, but this would include philosophers, scientists, politicians, etc.).  This isn't meant to patronize the vast history of society and cultures that deemed a "creator god" as status quo, but to reaffirm the tendency to see this directed action in the natural world.  In other words, God has not fully blinded men to His work.  When the lawmaker Zaleucus, a pupil of the philosopher Pythagoras, wrote his treatise to the people of his city on a system of law, he remarked "as their [the citizens] minds survey the heavens and its orderly scheme and arrangement, they should judge that these creations are not the result of Chance or the work of men's hands."  Notice his word "judge" begats reasoned inquiry into the subject.  Or perhaps we agree with the great Stoic philosopher Epictecus when he writes "how it is possible that things so wonderful and like the contrivances of art should exist by chance and from their own proper motion."  After praising the inner workings of the human body (or as much as he knew at the time), the great orator Cicero writes, "Again, he who does not perceive the soul and mind of man, his reason, prudence, and discernment, to be the work of a divine providence, seems himself to be destitute of those faculties."  Obviously this is a miniscule sampling which could extent to the present day, but whose point is not to stack the examples to make a taller mound, but to show that this mindset was consistent, is consistent, and will be consistent to the end of time, and not simply in the "thinkers", but in the hearts and minds of mankind.  Why?  Because God has chosen to reveal Himself as thus.  Anyways, the greater purpose here was, again, not to rescue intelligent design, but to get people to think bigger about the whole complexity argument.  Again, my goal is not to start a debate, but simple relay to you how I see things.

Lastly, be careful with the statement "Evolution makes enough sense that every new organism we find fits into the process."  Remember, the theory must never dictate the findings, the findings must dictate the theory.  That's good science.

NOTE:  I am modifying this to say that you may never see this posting because some of my postings are getting withheld from the general board, while some are apparently getting through, which makes it immensely confusing to see understand how to respond to people.  I have yet to discern a rhyme or reason to what gets through and what doesn't, so we'll see what happens.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 05:40:50 PM by theFLEW »
"...and how much naivety, venerable, childlike and boundlessly stupid naivety there is in the scholar's belief in his superiority, in the good conscience of his tolerance, in the simply unsuspecting certainty with which his instinct treats the religious man as an inferior..." - F. Nietzsche

Offline Noman Peopled

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1904
  • Darwins +24/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • [insert wittycism]
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2012, 12:17:37 PM »
For all of the ID/Creationist/Complexity/Creator people we get to talk to, have we ever seen any one of them demonstrate that they understand the ToE?
We do often get YECs who don't understand ID either. Does that cancel out?
"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.
-xphobe

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2012, 07:32:50 PM »
Dear theFlew,

There is a key on your keyboard called "return".  For the love of Zeus, please use it!

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2012, 08:50:55 PM »
It's not always called that jetson.  Sometimes it's called "Enter", and other times, it's only represented by a symbol.  Here's a guide for those who might be confused:

I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2012, 08:54:52 PM »
It's not always called that jetson.  Sometimes it's called "Enter", and other times, it's only represented by a symbol. 

Damn you Azdgari - I was referring specifically to the time of Zeus!  The ENTER key did not appear until Bill Gates replaced Jesus as the new Messiah.  Of course, I could be confusing my BC's and AD's...who knows.

 ;D

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2012, 12:55:17 AM »
Azdgari - it is the classic problem of one side making absolutely no attempt at understanding, at a minimum, what the other side is saying.

Whenever these ID vs Evo discussions get going, it becomes clear almost right away, that the person asserting that ID has merit spends the vast majority of their argument attacking the ToE.  And when those attacks are broken down, the truth is revealed that they really do not understand the ToE.  This kind of pisses me off.  I don't care how much a person despises the ToE, that is simply no excuse for not even attempting to understand its premise.

For all of the ID/Creationist/Complexity/Creator people we get to talk to, have we ever seen any one of them demonstrate that they understand the ToE?  One clue is that even people who look at it carefully, and read about it, and study it, sometimes have trouble getting their heads around some of the concepts, such as speciation.  On the surface, it makes a lot of sense in the light of the ToE.  But as you dig deeper, it's tougher to get your brain around the concept of one species becoming another, and then on to being something that looks nothing like the original it started from.

It's the magic of cognitive dissonance. The fact that great minds would even entertain a concept that contradicts literal biblical interpretation, let alone thoroughly accept it in all the relevant fields from genetics to paleontology, threatens their core beliefs. Rather than risking confrontation with their worldview by examining the evidence and considering the logic of the conclusions drawn cognitive dissonance reduction kicks in. They know that their beliefs are true so obviously evolution must be false! Thus begin the rationalizations:
- It's the secular agenda at work, pushing evolution only because they support its godlessness!
- It's just a theory!
- There's nothing to investigate because it's all made-up anyway!
- No papers disproving evolution are ever published in peer-reviewed scientific literature because they're biased!
- So many people reject evolution, they can't all be ignorant!

At this point confirmation bias is now in play:
- This engineer says that evolution can't be true, see?! Even a scientist can tell what a load of hooey this "theory" is!
- Here's a quote from an evilolutionist pointing out a major problem for evolution! The context doesn't matter!
- This here creationism website presents many lengthy arguments against evolution that are so convoluted even I have no idea what they're on about, but that's okay because that's how you can tell they were written by smart people!
- Evolutionists thought Piltdown Man was genuine, but it turned out to be a hoax! This proves that they will claim anything supports evolution!
- Look at this YouTube video where this Christian totally wipes the floor with an evolutionist in live-action debate!

Next comes the use of personal incredulity and ignorance as justification for remaining ignorant:
- If humans came from monkeys then why aren't they pouring out of the zoos? Why are there even still monkeys?
- Evolution completely fails to explain the origin of life!
- That's not a transitional form, it's just a lizard with feathers! There are no transitional fossils!
- This is way too complex to have arisen naturally! They can't explain that!
- I don't see a crocoduck, do you?
- Carbon dating just isn't accurate!
- Look at all these missing links! Without a 100% complete road map from start to finish of every speciation event in history you can't prove evolution!
- Mutations are always, always deleterious! Any effort to reproduce beneficial mutations in a lab just proves that they can't happen naturally!

If they still aren't sufficiently secure the emotional pleas take the stand:
- The Bible can't be wrong - all those Christians wouldn't have died for a lie!
- Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed!
- If it's proven that we're nothing but monkeys' uncles then society will break out into chaos!
- Hitler was inspired by Darwin!
- Evolution leads to communism! COMMUNISM!

And finally, projection:
- Evolutionists are just too close-minded! They don't want to be convinced!
« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 01:24:09 AM by Aspie »

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6607
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2012, 01:24:49 AM »
Aspie, you deserve a point today. Good job.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2012, 07:19:51 AM »
This engineer says that evolution can't be true, see?! Even a scientist can tell what a load of hooey this "theory" is!

...or lawyer.  Strange as it may seem I've seen a couple creationists intentionally cite a lawyer, noting that a lawyer "is trained in what constitutes sound evidence".

« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 07:24:02 AM by Historicity »

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6866
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2012, 04:50:34 PM »
We should number Aspies' list. Like a Type I or Type II error, or one of the fallacies.

Then, when anti-T'OE people present one of those numbered statements we can just say, "Right. That's a number two. And it's number two. Here's why."

We can give points for people who come up with a T'OE objection that is not on the list, and subtract points for list repeaters.  :D
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2012, 07:07:50 PM »
Aspie, you deserve a point today. Good job.

Thank you, sir!

...or lawyer.  Strange as it may seem I've seen a couple creationists intentionally cite a lawyer, noting that a lawyer "is trained in what constitutes sound evidence".

And who better to approach the evidence objectively?  :laugh:
« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 07:19:33 PM by Aspie »

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: The complexity argument is all backwards...
« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2012, 08:16:20 PM »
We should number Aspies' list. Like a Type I or Type II error, or one of the fallacies.

Then, when anti-T'OE people present one of those numbered statements we can just say, "Right. That's a number two. And it's number two. Here's why."

We can give points for people who come up with a T'OE objection that is not on the list, and subtract points for list repeaters.  :D

Honestly, I'm surprised something like this hasn't been done already; not just for this site, but for anyone's copy/paste pleasure across the internet. The fallacy-ridden platitudes and Dunning-Kruger sprees are rife with entertainment possibilities for those situations where a creationist will only make unsupported assertions, quote from creationist websites, and claim their arguments aren't being addressed while ignoring replies. There should at least be Bingo cards for them!