Evolution and natural selection explains the complexity, no need for a creator.
For an in debth response to this claim see the books: "The Biotic Message" and "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome"
hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
33
Darwin in Context
by hamilcarr inwhy non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
-
-
hooberus
-
33
Darwin in Context
by hamilcarr inwhy non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
-
-
hooberus
I'll try to add some clarification on some common misunderstandings.
The creationist/ ID design argument is not that: "any type of complexity or intelligence in existence needed a designer". Which would of course logically require any complex or intelligent creator to themself have needed a creator.
But instead the argument is (for example): "The origin of complexity [complex systems composed of specified componet parts] from non-complexity requires, or is best explained as the result of intelligent design." Or "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" etc. There is no logical requirement in these arguments for the designer to themself also have an origin, (or even be composed of componet parts), hense no need according to the same argument for the designer to also have had a designer.
(The argument is then also supported by design theorists with specific scientific and observational evidence.)
-
33
Darwin in Context
by hamilcarr inwhy non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
-
-
hooberus
Evolution and natural selection explains the complexity, no need for a creator. We did not suddenly appear the way we are today, this is not evolution, it took billions of years combined with natural selection to achieve such complexity.
Who is claiming that the idea that we suddenly appeared "the way we are today" is evolution?
-
33
Darwin in Context
by hamilcarr inwhy non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
-
-
hooberus
The problem is who created the creator? If life is so complex to not have a creator then how more complex the creator must be.
Perhaps you mean: The problem is who created the creator? If life is so complex to need a creator as the creationists reason, then how more complex the creator must be, and hense how much more they themself would need a creator according to the same reasoning.
Is this your claim?
-
33
Darwin in Context
by hamilcarr inwhy non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
-
-
hooberus
From an experiment that produced a few dipeptides and even fewer tripeptides you claim that the origin of life from non-life has been explained?
Unless you give an alternative definition of life and non-life, I do.Very well then, you have shown the problem to be solved. Simply define a few dipeptides as life, and then document the formation of a few of them. Then pronounce the issue of the "origin of life from non-life" in the context of creation-evolution issue to thus be "explained". Thank you for wasting my time.
-
15
The Portable Atheist - Christopher Hitchens
by portcontrol7 ini'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.
most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.
this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.
-
-
hooberus
btt
-
33
Darwin in Context
by hamilcarr inwhy non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
-
-
hooberus
It has been falsified. There are many non-supranatural explanations for the origin of life, such as the metabolism-first and the genetics-first theories. I like, for instance, Wächtershauser's iron-sulfur world theory with its brief recipe for life:
From an experiment that produced a few dipeptides and even fewer tripeptides you claim that the origin of life from non-life has been explained?
-
33
Darwin in Context
by hamilcarr inwhy non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
-
-
hooberus
The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science
The testable supranatural. Isn't that a contradiction in terms?The book (1993) "Shows that some statements about the supernatural [creation by a creator outside of nature] can be testable science." Such as "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life [from non-life]."-This would be falsified by a demonstration that nautral processes are sufficient to account for life from non-life. B.T.W. this demonstrates that the claim of prominent anti-creationist Kenneth Miller that intelligent design has produced "no testable hypothesis" is false. Here he is making such a false claim in an interview. The Colbert Report: (4:40 to 4:55) in the clip http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/173859/june-16-2008/kenneth-miller
-
15
The Portable Atheist - Christopher Hitchens
by portcontrol7 ini'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.
most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.
this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.
-
-
hooberus
The God Delusion book is crafty in that when it uses the phrase "statistically improbable" in relation to God*, it doesn't define it explicilty, as it does much earlier in the same chapter as referring to statistical improbabilityas to coming about by chance** . Thus, alllowing "statistically improbable" in reference to God to be easily equivocated in the minds of readers as statistically improbable as to existence, -the thrust of the chapter.
*For example the book says: "a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable."
** "The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means."
-
15
The Portable Atheist - Christopher Hitchens
by portcontrol7 ini'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.
most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.
this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.
-
-
hooberus
F.Y.I., The fallacy is the same in both the above arguments. That is equating improbability of coming about by chance, with improbability of existence, for something that need not have come about by chance. Such an argument in reality can only be used to show that God, or Dawkins is improbable as to coming about by chance, and not necessarily also improbable as to existence.Note what happens to the same arguments when the consistent phrase "by chance" is added (and not omitted) to premise #3.
Example A
- "Complex things are improbable as to chance. (The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means).
- Life is very complex and therefore improbable by chance.
- However complex life is though, any creator of such life would have to be even more complex, hense even more improbable by chance.
Example B
- "Complex things are improbable as to chance. (The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means).
- The new atheist books ("The God Delusion", "Portable Atheist", etc,) are complex, hense improbable by chance.
- However complex the books are though, any creator of such a book would have to be even more complex, hense even more improbable by chance.
Observe how how the arguements now at best only prove improbability of coming about by chance and not also improbability of existence, since the creators in question (i.e.Dawkins, Hitchens, God,) need not also have come about by chance). Threfore the concluding point that they "almost certainly do not exist" is now easily seen as an invalid deduction.