Hmmm... more flat assertions and delusional constructs. Please tell me how you KNOW that something is ALWAYS more complex than the thing they design? If you wish to make a positive statement about the universe, please back it up with something more than an anecdote.
A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."
by BurnTheShips 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
besty
lets not forget the burden of proof falls on those with the most fantastical claims
scientists - we don't know how it all fits, but this fits the facts we do know
theists - it was a magick man in the sky that did it, invisibly of course. And he needs money. Dollars good. Riyals not so good.
-
Copernic
God exists ! It's me !
I have discovered that I am God the day where I see that when I was praying, I was speaking to myself !
-
PSacramento
I've always liked Richard's stuff, sure he is brash and arrogant at times, just liek everyone that thinsk their view is right and the other sides is wrong.
He would have made an excellent fundamentalist preacher if he had gone the "other way", LOL !
Wooble made a great point, this arguments are nothing new and have been going on for ages and probably will continue to go on till the end, if there is an end.
I think we are all the better for them.
Believers because it forces us to evaluate our beliefs and unbelievers because it forces them to think outside the box.
-
Deputy Dog
Nic
Frankly you deserve all the ridicule and derision you get.
Gee Thanks! I always consider the sourse.
-
Mad Dawg
Who decides which claim is fantastical? And lets not forget:
Fundi Atheists - We really don't know how we evolved from rocks, but here are some fantastical stories! Buy my books! Dollars, please.
-
besty
Who decides which claim is fantastical?
the American judicial system declared teaching creationism as unconstitutional and anti-science in Dover v Kitzmiller and I quote part of the ruling here for your consideration:
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are:
(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and
(3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community
Fundi Atheists - We really don't know how we evolved from rocks, but here are some fantastical stories! Buy my books! Dollars, please.
You think this is about book sales? Really? L Ron Hubbbard knew getting rich from books was less likely than using 'religion' as a vehicle. Think he might know something you don't? All those tax-free properties and never ending donations....hmmm...."maybe I could sell some crappy books with more wild claims to the faithful as well.."
The mechanisms of evolution are extremely well understood with a high degree of confidence. For every scientist doing well with book publishing (probably after a lifetime of study and hard work) I'll show you 100 pastors (with traditional snakeoil selling skills) fleecing their flock.
-
BurnTheShips
This thread isn't an evolution debate. Specifically, it is about the "argument from complexity," which I think, is a weak argument.
BTS
-
Mad Dawg
So, you are saying that the courts decide what is fantastical? The courts did good job with Galileo, didn’t they?
So let’s see if I have this right:
1. A court in Kentucky decided evolution is true.
2. That means anything that is not supportive of evolution is fantastical
3. Evo’s can make any statement they want without having to prove it is true, as long as it supports evolution.
I still waiting for someone tell me how you KNOW that something is ALWAYS more complex than the thing they design? If you wish to make a positive statement about the universe, please back it up with something more than an anecdote.
I am glad that you understand that there are shady scientists just as there are shady pastors and that both will lower themselves to the level of a snakeoil salesman to get what they want. Keep in mind that pastors do it “probably after a lifetime of study and hard work”.
It is more than books; there are speaking fees, posh professorships, prestige, and fame. There have been many hoaxes perpetrated by scientists in order to gain these. Scientists are not above having philosophical axes to grind any more than pastors are.
-
bohm
WHO LET THE DOGS OUT
@mad dawg:
Your blowing smoke.
1) Complete misrepresentation of what evolution is. You know evolution does not mean what you say it mean, yet you keep on saying it. Why? Personally, i think your trolling.
2) Define complex. Before you do that your making a non-statement. If you go with normal measures of complexity, like kolmogorov complexity, you got a non-statement that is trivially true. So what is your definition of complexity?
3) your last point seem to be claiming that some scientists are somewhat like bad pastors, and therefore they are full of shit and bias and will never abbandon their own ideas. whenever i hear that complete non-point, i keep thinking that its being made by a person who know he dont give a crap about evidence, but want me to buy the delusion scientists are like him.
As far as the authors article - whole lot of air.