This conversation has done nothing but strengthen my belief that these people deserve the worst we as a society have to offer.
Rip Fiser
I've known Kris for a while. He and I rarely agree, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy hashing it out.
October 10 at 4:53pm
Nathan Shore
Oh, and Dawkins was well known before writing "The God Delusion." He's been a very popular science writer since the 1970s when he published "The Selfish Gene." He's portrayed by the media to be more of a rabid atheist than he actually is. For example, he is having a book tour for his new book on evolution and most of his interviewers are asking him about atheism instead. It's quite annoying, since you can be a theist and accept evolution as a scientific fact.
October 10 at 6:04pm
Dan Eisenhauer
To be fair, he probably is the least likeable of the popular rationalists out there.
October 10 at 6:12pm · Delete
Kris Wampler
"I've tried to hash this stuff out with Kris before. Don't bother. You will be profoundly disappointed."
Dan and I discussed this a while back. He admitted he couldn't explain the big bang singularity. Whereas people like me say "God did it," Dan says, "We don't know, but we have faith science will figure it out."
And that's fine - but it's a faith, nonetheless. You can't prove God exists, but you can't prove he doesn't exist. I have faith in God, Dan has faith in science/reason/progress/whatever. But don't pretend it's not a faith.... Read More
Dan even said, in fact, "Is it possible that some being we refer to as god is the creator of the universe? Absolutely." His only major beef is that I side with that possibility, and not his.
Dan and I discussed this a while back. He admitted he couldn't explain the big bang singularity. Whereas people like me say "God did it," Dan says, "We don't know, but we have faith science will figure it out."
And that's fine - but it's a faith, nonetheless. You can't prove God exists, but you can't prove he doesn't exist. I have faith in God, Dan has faith in science/reason/progress/wh
Dan even said, in fact, "Is it possible that some being we refer to as god is the creator of the universe? Absolutely." His only major beef is that I side with that possibility, and not his.
October 10 at 9:08pm
Kris Wampler
The last thing I'll say is that if you disagree with me, that's fine, let's have a discussion. But if you continue equating me with someone who believes Elvis is still alive, or (as your buddy is wont to do) a Holocaust denier, or something equally absurd, I'll ask you to please quit posting. I know you think theists are idiots, brutes, retards, ... Read Moremorons, and everything else. I get it already. So I don't need to be reminded what your personal impressions of me are.
So let's act like we're adults here.
So let's act like we're adults here.
October 10 at 9:10pm
Nathan Shore
"And that's fine - but it's a faith, nonetheless. You can't prove God exists, but you can't prove he doesn't exist. I have faith in God, Dan has faith in science/reason/progress/whatever. But don't pretend it's not a faith."
Kris, this seems like an equivocation to me. On the one hand you have supernatural faith and on the other you have natural faith. To equate the two as the same is an equivocation, because it's using the same word (faith) for two very different things. Even you have natural faith: you have to because you exist in the material, natural universe. It's the supernatural faith that's problematic.
It seems you're advocating the God of the gaps. ... Read More
Are you a presuppositionalist or an evidentialist?
Kris, this seems like an equivocation to me. On the one hand you have supernatural faith and on the other you have natural faith. To equate the two as the same is an equivocation, because it's using the same word (faith) for two very different things. Even you have natural faith: you have to because you exist in the material, natural universe. It's the supernatural faith that's problematic.
It seems you're advocating the God of the gaps. ... Read More
Are you a presuppositionalist or an evidentialist?
October 10 at 10:17pm
Dan Eisenhauer
I have faith that big foot does not exist. I am so dogmatic.
October 10 at 10:26pm · Delete
Kris Wampler
Dan, please don't post anymore on here.
October 11 at 6:14pm
Kris Wampler
"Are you a presuppositionalist or an evidentialist?"
Who knows. Explain the difference.
And you haven't explained why supernatural faith is "problematic," you just made a conclusory statement about it.
Who knows. Explain the difference.
And you haven't explained why supernatural faith is "problematic," you just made a conclusory statement about it.
October 11 at 6:15pm
Dan Eisenhauer
You meanie face.
Srsly though, I'll stop being an ass for a second to respond seriously. My response is this: I need not assert any 'faith' in science. My answer to the so called 'big questions' is, and always has been, doubt. And it is not reasonable to claim that my doubt and your answer of 'god did it' are equivalent faith claims.
If that's not obvious, then seriously, we need to get Websters on the horn immediately. ... Read More
Srsly.
Srsly though, I'll stop being an ass for a second to respond seriously. My response is this: I need not assert any 'faith' in science. My answer to the so called 'big questions' is, and always has been, doubt. And it is not reasonable to claim that my doubt and your answer of 'god did it' are equivalent faith claims.
If that's not obvious, then seriously, we need to get Websters on the horn immediately. ... Read More
Srsly.
October 11 at 8:26pm · Delete
Nathan Shore
Simply put, an evidentialist bases belief in God based on the evidence for said being. A presuppositionalist bases belief in God on divine revelation, as evidence would at best be secondary.
I meant supernatural faith is problematic in the sense of lumping it in with natural faith, which everyone who exists in the natural, material universe has.
... Read MoreAs an aside, I think supernaturalism is problematic in general because it's never been empirically demonstrated, and it makes no sense based on what we know in modern science. For instance, we know based on modern neuroscience that all of human experience can be traced to the physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. To claim God exists is to say he somehow manipulates the natural processes of the brain to communicate/interact with his subjects. There's no evidence this happens or even can happen.
I meant supernatural faith is problematic in the sense of lumping it in with natural faith, which everyone who exists in the natural, material universe has.
... Read MoreAs an aside, I think supernaturalism is problematic in general because it's never been empirically demonstrated, and it makes no sense based on what we know in modern science. For instance, we know based on modern neuroscience that all of human experience can be traced to the physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. To claim God exists is to say he somehow manipulates the natural processes of the brain to communicate/interact with his subjects. There's no evidence this happens or even can happen.
October 11 at 9:25pm
Kris Wampler
"My answer to the so called 'big questions' is, and always has been, doubt."
Doubt? Then you sound less like an atheist and more like a skeptic or agnostic. Dawkins would ridicule you for not having more conviction. I mean, come on Dan, who really DOUBTS that Big Foot doesn't exist?
"I think supernaturalism is problematic in general because it's never been empirically demonstrated, and it makes no sense based on what we know in modern science."... Read More
I would strongly disagree with this. Modern science tells us the universe had a beginning. Not that there was a crunch or some oscillating universe or many of the other theories that have failed, but that the universe literally began. If the universe is finite, it makes supernaturalism not only possible but much more likely than the infinite, eternal universe.
One way or the other, something is eternal - God or the universe. And that's simply a logical fact. You can trace back "caused" entities until you reach one that is uncaused. I happen to think the eternal entity is not the material universe - and science agrees with me here - but the God who made it.
Doubt? Then you sound less like an atheist and more like a skeptic or agnostic. Dawkins would ridicule you for not having more conviction. I mean, come on Dan, who really DOUBTS that Big Foot doesn't exist?
"I think supernaturalism is problematic in general because it's never been empirically demonstrated, and it makes no sense based on what we know in modern science."... Read More
I would strongly disagree with this. Modern science tells us the universe had a beginning. Not that there was a crunch or some oscillating universe or many of the other theories that have failed, but that the universe literally began. If the universe is finite, it makes supernaturalism not only possible but much more likely than the infinite, eternal universe.
One way or the other, something is eternal - God or the universe. And that's simply a logical fact. You can trace back "caused" entities until you reach one that is uncaused. I happen to think the eternal entity is not the material universe - and science agrees with me here - but the God who made it.
October 11 at 10:18pm
Rip Fiser
Kris, to rely on science to support the existence of a finite universe, and then ignore that same science by saying the universe is only 10,000 years old seems contradictory to me.
October 11 at 10:34pm
Kris Wampler
I think I said this earlier, but there is scientific evidence for a young universe.
October 11 at 10:38pm
Rip Fiser
Reading up on the evidence for Young Earth Creationism...
October 11 at 11:58pm
Nathan Shore
The universe in its present form began with the inflation of the big bang, but we know pretty much nothing about the universe once it reaches down beyond planck time. This means the universe could have existed in some other form beyond that point. Also, I think quantum physics shows that some things don't have a cause. I will admit that I don't ... Read Moreknow, at least when it comes to where the universe came from. We don't have enough evidence to say what was going on beyond planck time. We may never know.
Assuming the universe did have a cause, why ascribe the cause to God? Why not the square root of 7, the concept of triangulation, multiple gods working in unison, or an eternal multiverse (which seems plausible to me)? After all, apologists like William Lane Craig admit they aren't speaking of physical causation but metaphysical causation when describing how God brought the universe into existence.
I also don't see how supernaturalism becomes likely just because the universe began. We can speak about the relative probabilities of natural events because that's comparing like with like. To compare the probability of a natural event with a supernatural one is fallacious, because we have no idea what the likelihood is of the supernatural occurring.
Assuming the universe did have a cause, why ascribe the cause to God? Why not the square root of 7, the concept of triangulation, multiple gods working in unison, or an eternal multiverse (which seems plausible to me)? After all, apologists like William Lane Craig admit they aren't speaking of physical causation but metaphysical causation when describing how God brought the universe into existence.
I also don't see how supernaturalism becomes likely just because the universe began. We can speak about the relative probabilities of natural events because that's comparing like with like. To compare the probability of a natural event with a supernatural one is fallacious, because we have no idea what the likelihood is of the supernatural occurring.
October 12 at 12:17am
Dan Eisenhauer
Two things.
First, as I've told you before, I tend to adopt Bertrand Russel's take on the distinction between atheism and agnosticism (see: Russell's teapot hypothetical). I'm fairly certain that Dawkins takes roughly the same position. Furthermore, Dawkins is not as rabidly atheist as you seem to be making him out to be. He talks about this in... Read More The God Delusion by saying that if complete atheism was a 10, complete 50/50 being a 5, and unwavering belief in god being a 0, he characterizes himself as something like a 7. Actually, instead of going on to make this point, I'm curious where you would place yourself on this scale. I don't think I've ever asked you this and it might be illuminating.
Secondly, Nathan beat me to it, but please please please stop misrepresenting science Kris. Scientists talk about the universe begining with the big bang, but only because that's simply the easiest way to discuss it, and the only way to discuss it for all practical purposes. We don't know, and have rather poor prospects of ever knowing, what existed or didn't exist or in what form prior to the big bang. That does NOT mean that there was nothing prior to the singularity. Getting you to finally conceed this I suspect will be like trying to catch a fart in a butterfly net as it's absolutely devestating to your position, but I'm holding out hope.
First, as I've told you before, I tend to adopt Bertrand Russel's take on the distinction between atheism and agnosticism (see: Russell's teapot hypothetical). I'm fairly certain that Dawkins takes roughly the same position. Furthermore, Dawkins is not as rabidly atheist as you seem to be making him out to be. He talks about this in... Read More The God Delusion by saying that if complete atheism was a 10, complete 50/50 being a 5, and unwavering belief in god being a 0, he characterizes himself as something like a 7. Actually, instead of going on to make this point, I'm curious where you would place yourself on this scale. I don't think I've ever asked you this and it might be illuminating.
Secondly, Nathan beat me to it, but please please please stop misrepresenting science Kris. Scientists talk about the universe begining with the big bang, but only because that's simply the easiest way to discuss it, and the only way to discuss it for all practical purposes. We don't know, and have rather poor prospects of ever knowing, what existed or didn't exist or in what form prior to the big bang. That does NOT mean that there was nothing prior to the singularity. Getting you to finally conceed this I suspect will be like trying to catch a fart in a butterfly net as it's absolutely devestating to your position, but I'm holding out hope.
October 12 at 11:15am · Delete
Kris Wampler
All that does is beg the question. Do you not acknowledge there must be SOME eternal entity that preceded all finite beings? I believe logic would require this. A finite entity logically necessitates something outside of and before it to account for its origin. And so does that entity. And so on and on. At some point, there must be an ... Read Moreuncaused/eternal/infinite First Cause, lest we have an infinite chain of regression (which is not possible - I'm sure Rip will jump in at this point).
Atheists generally believe it's the universe that's eternal. I've never met one who doesn't. Honestly, if the universe is finite in time and space, then again, that just begs the question of what or who made it. And then we wind up at the same question again.
Atheists generally believe it's the universe that's eternal. I've never met one who doesn't. Honestly, if the universe is finite in time and space, then again, that just begs the question of what or who made it. And then we wind up at the same question again.
October 12 at 11:46am
Dan Eisenhauer
I'm not following.
Although I'm not totally sold on it, I'm willing to grant you for the sake of this argument that something must be eternal. My question is: Why can it not be the universe? If I was following you correctly, it seemed as if you were saying that it cannot be the universe because science indicates that the universe is finite in time (had a begining). My response, and Nathan's response, was that no, you are misrepresenting current scientific understanding on that issue. Big Bang theory does NOT state that there was nothing prior to the big bang, only that we have no way of knowing, as we can't get past planck time. Maybe the universe is eternal, maybe it isn't. The point is, to get to the answer of god, you need to rule out the possibility of the universe being eternal.
Soooooooo... why can't the universe be the eternal entity you seem to think is logically necessary?... Read More
Or am I misinterpreting your argument?
Although I'm not totally sold on it, I'm willing to grant you for the sake of this argument that something must be eternal. My question is: Why can it not be the universe? If I was following you correctly, it seemed as if you were saying that it cannot be the universe because science indicates that the universe is finite in time (had a begining). My response, and Nathan's response, was that no, you are misrepresenting current scientific understanding on that issue. Big Bang theory does NOT state that there was nothing prior to the big bang, only that we have no way of knowing, as we can't get past planck time. Maybe the universe is eternal, maybe it isn't. The point is, to get to the answer of god, you need to rule out the possibility of the universe being eternal.
Soooooooo... why can't the universe be the eternal entity you seem to think is logically necessary?... Read More
Or am I misinterpreting your argument?
October 12 at 12:22pm · Delete
Kris Wampler
I'm still not buying you and Nathan's assessment, especially when oscillating universes, imaginary time and other theories have proven to be nonsense. And especially since the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy are still in operation and the universe is a closed system. This means the universe (if we define "the universe" to be every ... Read Morematerial thing in existence) couldn't have existed forever.
I know science will continually posit new theories to explain the origin of the universe, and that's fine, but they've all failed up to this point. Keep trying, I guess.
The reason I don't believe the universe could be the "god" of everything is that there's too much evidence of intelligence and, yes, design, for me to think it's all some great, random accident. We don't ascribe purely naturalistic causes to far less complicated systems and phenomena, and I don't see the reason to do with the universe. It is at this point, frankly, that we pass the realm of scientific proof and it becomes a question of what you feel in your gut. I can't prove it's not an accident, you can't prove it is. But everything I know about the world tells me it isn't.
I know science will continually posit new theories to explain the origin of the universe, and that's fine, but they've all failed up to this point. Keep trying, I guess.
The reason I don't believe the universe could be the "god" of everything is that there's too much evidence of intelligence and, yes, design, for me to think it's all some great, random accident. We don't ascribe purely naturalistic causes to far less complicated systems and phenomena, and I don't see the reason to do with the universe. It is at this point, frankly, that we pass the realm of scientific proof and it becomes a question of what you feel in your gut. I can't prove it's not an accident, you can't prove it is. But everything I know about the world tells me it isn't.
October 12 at 1:02pm
Rip Fiser
I would jump in, but I'm working, unlike some (Kris). My problem is not so much that the universe as we know it may have a beginning. My problem here is the age you ascribe to it. We've hashed out almost completely your misunderstandings of "infinity," Kris, so I won't go back into them here. I will be happy to assume, for now, a finite ... Read Moreobservable universe.
I spent some time reading Answers in Genesis last night, and the problems with young earth creationism are apparent and numerous. I'll be back on tonight to make my argument against the young earth creationist view found in Answers in Genesis.
I spent some time reading Answers in Genesis last night, and the problems with young earth creationism are apparent and numerous. I'll be back on tonight to make my argument against the young earth creationist view found in Answers in Genesis.
October 12 at 1:53pm
Dan Eisenhauer
Out of curiosity, what are these far less complicated systems that we don't ascribe purely naturalistic causes to?
October 12 at 3:08pm · Delete
Kris Wampler
You and I have discussed them previously. Virtually every complicated process in the world that evidences an intelligence behind it. I've never once heard a refutation of the "watch in the forest" analogy, despite Dawkins' best attempts.
October 12 at 8:07pm
Dan Eisenhauer
I assume you're talking about Paley's watchmaker argument. I'm not going to waste the time listing the close to innumerable problems with that argument. But you know that, at least with regard to biological complexity, evolution provides an elegant answer to an admittedly beautiful argument.
You could at least give it the nod it deserves, even if you think it's the scientific community's biggest conspiracy of all time.
You could at least give it the nod it deserves, even if you think it's the scientific community's biggest conspiracy of all time.
October 12 at 8:39pm · Delete
Kris Wampler
And what is the answer? How did the cell evolve, when several parts of it are interdependent? Which came first?
October 12 at 8:42pm
Nathan Shore
"All that does is beg the question. Do you not acknowledge there must be SOME eternal entity that preceded all finite beings?"
I simply don't know. Energy can spring into existence at the quantum level out of nothing. Many cosmologists postulate the universe began in a similar way. I admit it's possible for something eternal to exist, yes.
"I believe logic would require this. A finite entity logically necessitates something outside of and before it to account for its origin."... Read More
This appears violated by modern quantum mechanics, as well. However, it appears you've made an assumption that may be unwarranted. Namely, you're assuming our everyday intuitions, as in A giving rise to B within the universe, is applicable to the universe itself. This is the fallacy of composition: we know things inside the universe operate that way, but we cannot say the universe itself operates that way based merely on what's going on inside it.
"I'm still not buying you and Nathan's assessment, especially when oscillating universes, imaginary time and other theories have proven to be nonsense."
See the cyclic universe theory. It's been published relatively recently and is taken seriously. It's not nonsense. The only way I know about this, btw, is because I've read a book by the developers of it: "Endless Universe."
I simply don't know. Energy can spring into existence at the quantum level out of nothing. Many cosmologists postulate the universe began in a similar way. I admit it's possible for something eternal to exist, yes.
"I believe logic would require this. A finite entity logically necessitates something outside of and before it to account for its origin."... Read More
This appears violated by modern quantum mechanics, as well. However, it appears you've made an assumption that may be unwarranted. Namely, you're assuming our everyday intuitions, as in A giving rise to B within the universe, is applicable to the universe itself. This is the fallacy of composition: we know things inside the universe operate that way, but we cannot say the universe itself operates that way based merely on what's going on inside it.
"I'm still not buying you and Nathan's assessment, especially when oscillating universes, imaginary time and other theories have proven to be nonsense."
See the cyclic universe theory. It's been published relatively recently and is taken seriously. It's not nonsense. The only way I know about this, btw, is because I've read a book by the developers of it: "Endless Universe."
October 12 at 8:53pm
Dan Eisenhauer
Are you asking generally why evolution creates the illusion of design or are you making a specific irreducible complexity argument about the cell?
October 12 at 8:59pm · Delete
Kris Wampler
"Energy can spring into existence at the quantum level out of nothing."
That isn't true. The measurement tools being used to determine such activity introduces a causal effect.
"This is the fallacy of composition: we know things inside the universe operate that way, but we cannot say the universe itself operates that way based merely on what's going on inside it."... Read More
The universe itself is a physical entity, and IF it began (which I still contend it did), then I see no reason to suspend the laws of physics just because we're talking about the absolute most macro level. I'm just extrapolating from what we know.
I'd have to look up the cyclic theory. I've heard of it before but haven't looked at it as much as imaginary time and the oscillatory theory.
That isn't true. The measurement tools being used to determine such activity introduces a causal effect.
"This is the fallacy of composition: we know things inside the universe operate that way, but we cannot say the universe itself operates that way based merely on what's going on inside it."... Read More
The universe itself is a physical entity, and IF it began (which I still contend it did), then I see no reason to suspend the laws of physics just because we're talking about the absolute most macro level. I'm just extrapolating from what we know.
I'd have to look up the cyclic theory. I've heard of it before but haven't looked at it as much as imaginary time and the oscillatory theory.
October 12 at 8:59pm
Kris Wampler
"Are you asking generally why evolution creates the illusion of design or are you making a specific irreducible complexity argument about the cell?"
A little from column A, a little from column B. I've never understood the "illusion of design" angle to be anything more than subjective personal belief, because the illusion is in the eye of the ... Read Morebeholder. There's nothing keeping me from saying this laptop evolved naturally in the wilderness somewhere before being shipped to the Wal-mart where I buy it. After all, I didn't see it made! And even you'd have to admit we need not necessarily posit an intelligent intervention between nature and myself that made this typing possible. It could have arisen by purely mechanical and natural physical forces.
I was trying to remember some of the cellular components claimed as irreducibly complex. The ribosomes go with something but I don't remember what.
A little from column A, a little from column B. I've never understood the "illusion of design" angle to be anything more than subjective personal belief, because the illusion is in the eye of the ... Read Morebeholder. There's nothing keeping me from saying this laptop evolved naturally in the wilderness somewhere before being shipped to the Wal-mart where I buy it. After all, I didn't see it made! And even you'd have to admit we need not necessarily posit an intelligent intervention between nature and myself that made this typing possible. It could have arisen by purely mechanical and natural physical forces.
I was trying to remember some of the cellular components claimed as irreducibly complex. The ribosomes go with something but I don't remember what.
October 12 at 9:07pm
Kris Wampler
*bought, not buy.
October 12 at 9:07pm
Nathan Shore
"That isn't true. The measurement tools being used to determine such activity introduces a causal effect."
What causal effect? All it says is the more precisely the position of a particle is known, the less you know about its momentum. You can only know probabilities. This doesn't mean the instruments caused anything. To my understanding (which is layman at best), particles with a definite position and momentum simply don't exist in the quantum world, as bizarre as that may sound intuitively.
"The universe itself is a physical entity, and IF it began (which I still contend it did), then I see no reason to suspend the laws of physics just because we're talking about the absolute most macro level. I'm just extrapolating from what we know." ... Read More
It may be a physical entity but the problem is lumping everything that is physical into one. It seems to me that it's the fallacy of composition to say physical entities operate according to X within the universe, thus, the universe itself operates according to X. This is why we have quantum mechanics and general relativity: each describes the operation of the physical universe in very different ways, despite both describing something physical.
What causal effect? All it says is the more precisely the position of a particle is known, the less you know about its momentum. You can only know probabilities. This doesn't mean the instruments caused anything. To my understanding (which is layman at best), particles with a definite position and momentum simply don't exist in the quantum world, as bizarre as that may sound intuitively.
"The universe itself is a physical entity, and IF it began (which I still contend it did), then I see no reason to suspend the laws of physics just because we're talking about the absolute most macro level. I'm just extrapolating from what we know." ... Read More
It may be a physical entity but the problem is lumping everything that is physical into one. It seems to me that it's the fallacy of composition to say physical entities operate according to X within the universe, thus, the universe itself operates according to X. This is why we have quantum mechanics and general relativity: each describes the operation of the physical universe in very different ways, despite both describing something physical.
October 12 at 9:59pm
Dan Eisenhauer
Instead of throwing general principles at you, let me just give a real life concrete example that I've thrown at you before. Forgive me if I flub some of the details, as I'm going to make this as brief as possible.
There was a group of researchers in England who were studying a group of white forest moths. While studying these moths a new predator moved into the environment and began wrecking havock on the white moth population. While this was happening, some moths were born brown, due to a genetic mutation. Being brown, these moths were able to blend into the bark of trees that they frequently perched on. This adaptation gave these brown moths a significant competetive advantage over their white brothers as they lived longer and in turn were able to reproduce more often. Within a few short generations, the entire moth population changed from white to brown.
In this case, evolution created the illusion of design. One can easily imagine a creationist looking at this population of moths and saying, "ah ha! Design. These moths could be any color. They could be black, red, green, or blue. Instead, they are the one color that enables them to survive. What are the odds? Are we really to believe that this is an accident? No, this is clearly design."... Read More
The point here Kris, is that it looks like design, but it isn't. It's merely descent with modification per natural selection; change over time as the result of environmental pressures.
As to the specific irreducible complexity argument, if you're not even willing to explicate it, I see no reason to offer a refutation. You do have a litany of failured examples to point to though, so take your pick.
There was a group of researchers in England who were studying a group of white forest moths. While studying these moths a new predator moved into the environment and began wrecking havock on the white moth population. While this was happening, some moths were born brown, due to a genetic mutation. Being brown, these moths were able to blend into the bark of trees that they frequently perched on. This adaptation gave these brown moths a significant competetive advantage over their white brothers as they lived longer and in turn were able to reproduce more often. Within a few short generations, the entire moth population changed from white to brown.
In this case, evolution created the illusion of design. One can easily imagine a creationist looking at this population of moths and saying, "ah ha! Design. These moths could be any color. They could be black, red, green, or blue. Instead, they are the one color that enables them to survive. What are the odds? Are we really to believe that this is an accident? No, this is clearly design."... Read More
The point here Kris, is that it looks like design, but it isn't. It's merely descent with modification per natural selection; change over time as the result of environmental pressures.
As to the specific irreducible complexity argument, if you're not even willing to explicate it, I see no reason to offer a refutation. You do have a litany of failured examples to point to though, so take your pick.
Tue at 7:56am · Delete
No comments:
Post a Comment