How ANTI-CREATIONISTS MISREPRESENT the Argument from Complex Design

by hooberus 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  Formally and explicitly stated the argument from design is written such as:

  "The origin of complexity* [see below for definition] from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result non-intelligently guided natural processes".

  *complexity defined for example as complex systems composed of multiple componet parts or complexity defined as organized specified complexity.

  Note that the above argument is dealing with 1.) complexity defined specifically and 2.) with complexity that has an origin from non-complexity. To use an analogy the origin of the multiple componet complexity of a sophisticated "watch like device" if found on Mars would be taken as strong evidence of being the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result of natural processes. (In this case no one-not even anti-creationists would object to complexity as evidence for design).

  However, when it comes to complex biological systems anti-creationists protest and claim that the argument from design is somehow illogical, requiring an infinite regression of designers, or other logical fallacies. Their argument for example is that: "If complexity requires and intelligent designer then the intelligent designer must himself have required a designer, and his intelligent designer a designer, etc, etc, !!"

  In order to do this though they do they omit the fact that the design argument is explicitly or implicitly dealing with 1.) complexity defined specifically and 2.) with complexity that has an origin. Their method is to automatically define all types of intelligent designers as "complexity"; and then to also ignore the fact that the design argument is dealing specifically with complexity that has an origin, and not any other.

  By doing these things they twist a logically valid argument from design into a strawman requiring an illogical conclusion.
• 

  WTWizard

  This is a fallacy. Granted, the chances of getting something more complex from something less complex in one try is pretty small, and the greater the increase of complexity, the longer the odds become. However, the odds never reach zero. They might reach something on the order of 10^500,000 against it, but it still isn't zero.

  The catch is, no matter how long the odds are, if you have infinity chances, you are going to get it right an infinite number of times. Suppose this is the 10^500,000th try--and it happens. That alone is proof that it can happen from evolution in a Big Bang situation. Now, suppose that, once it happens right once, intelligent life appears that is able to load the dice and keep the universe in a steady state. And, perhaps create new dimensions and new universes. Those new universes may have something more like a 1 in a million chance of getting it right instead of one in 10^500,000. And then, as they get better, the odds become more like 1 in a thousand, or one percent, or 5%--eventually reaching a success every time.

  Remember, it only takes once to work, and this can start happening. And there is an infinite number of chances in case it doesn't work.
• 

  jstalin

  hooberus - Please lay your argument out in a logical syllogism. Your wording makes no sense as is.
• 

  Narkissos

  hooberus

  Note that the above argument is dealing with 1.) complexity defined specifically and 2.) with complexity that has an origin from non-complexity. To use an analogy the origin of the multiple componet complexity of a sophisticated "watch like device" if found on Mars would be taken as strong evidence of being the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result of natural processes. (

  I note with the utmost interest that your definition of "specific" complexity requires a healthy distinction between artefact-like complexity and nature-like complexity. Now what kind of complexity was "intelligent design" supposed to explain, again?
• 

  Spook

  Here's one for hoob:

  1. Assumption: If complexity refers to a discreet entity or part, it refers to the degree of heterogeneity. (Huxley, T.H.)

  2. Assumption: Any intelligence is composed of heterogenous parts or states of mind, either physical or metaphsyical.

  3. Ergo: Any Intelligence is by definition complex to the extent that intelligence obtains.

  4. Therefore, we infer that teleological activity by an intelligent agent could possibly be a proximate cause for an individual heterogenous structure but cannot possibly be an ultimate cause for the appearance of complex heterogenous structures in general. Or, if we assume proximate complexity is unlikely, we can infer that an infinite intelligence is infinitely unlikely to exist.
• 

  Spook

  And you furthermore did not define complexity specifically. You defined it tautalogically.
• 

  drwtsn32

  Yawn. Hooberus, "anti-creationists" are not using a straw man logical fallacy; it's the IDers that are using a "special pleading" logical fallacy.

  But it doesn't matter. The fact is you are outside the realm of science on this one. Your "creator" is not testable; there is no way to prove or even attempt to prove that he has no origin using objective science.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Here's one for hoob:

  1. Assumption: If complexity refers to a discreet entity or part, it refers to the degree of heterogeneity. (Huxley, T.H.)

  2. Assumption: Any intelligence is composed of heterogenous parts or states of mind, either physical or metaphsyical.

  3. Ergo: Any Intelligence is by definition complex to the extent that intelligence obtains.

  4. Therefore, we infer that teleological activity by an intelligent agent could possibly be a proximate cause for an individual heterogenous structure but cannot possibly be an ultimate cause for the appearance of complex heterogenous structures in general. Or, if we assume proximate complexity is unlikely, we can infer that an infinite intelligence is infinitely unlikely to exist.

  Category error. Also, I challenge assumption #2.

  BTS
• 

  drwtsn32

  BTS, I've heard the Divine Simplicity argument before. It is an interesting approach to try and get around the logically flawed argument that there must be a designer due to complexity, but then completely reverse that requirement when discussing the designer him/her/itself.

  But again this is completely outside the realm of science. How can the nature of any supposed intelligent designer be objectively quantified when we have no data to work with?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/

  According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter/form composition, potency/act composition, and existence/essence composition. There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in a sense requiring clarification identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each attribute is identical to every other one. God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence. This is the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). It is to be understood as an affirmation of God's absolute transcendence of creatures. God is not only radically non-anthropomorphic, but radically non-creaturomorphic, not only in respect of the properties he possesses, but in his manner of possessing them. God, we could say, differs in his very ontology from any and all created beings.