Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,614 Year: 4,871/9,624 Month: 219/427 Week: 29/103 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does complexity require intelligent design?
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 5 (190548)
03-07-2005 10:24 PM


Full disclosure, I am an atheist. I was raised Catholic, but I never felt any spiritual connection with church or God, so I stopped going when I was old enough. I don't believe in any gods, angels, demons, ghosts or other spiritual entities. (I also don't believe in ESP, crystals, reincarnation, or any other new age concepts...) I do believe that original philosophy described by Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha) makes a lot of sense, and I strive to live my life according to it's precepts, as best I can...
Anyway, I have seen the assertion several times on this, and other religious debate boards, that the complexity of the universe could only have been achieved by an intelligent designer. I believe this is more a matter of human perception than divine design. Sort of like looking at constellations and seeing patterns... Ancient humans saw shapes in the sky and saw visions of Gods... Now we know that the constellations are just random arrangements of stars. Focusing on the apparent complexity of one group of stars, ignores the that fact that the vast majority of stars are arranged in a random pattern.
Another example. Here in Colorado we have a natural rock formation called balanced rock, a huge boulder balanced on a delicate spire. This huge rock is in perfect balance, and would appear to be the result of intelligent design. After all, what are the odds that a huge rock would be able to balance on a delicate little footing? But if you believe that this could only be the result of divine intervention, you are ignoring the millions of rocks that are not in balance...
I realize that the process of humans and plants creating oxygen and carbon dioxide for each is a far more complex systems, but complexity is all relative. The greater our understanding of the universe, the more that seemingly complex systems will seem commonplace.
Also, focusing on the systems that work ignores all of the systems that didn't work. The millions of species that became extinct because they couldn't compete. The millions of planets that were destroyed because they were hit by meteors or comets. The millions of stars that are too hot or too cold to sustain life.
If (an obvious subject of debate...) the universe is as old as science seems to suggest, then we are looking at the end results of billions of years of trial and error. We are looking at the system after the non-working parts have fallen away, and we are seeing the celestial balanced rocks.
At least that's my opinion...
Citizzzen

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 03-08-2005 11:07 PM Citizzzen has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 5 (190697)
03-08-2005 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Citizzzen
03-07-2005 10:24 PM


Welcome to EvC. Thanks for proposing a new thread but before I can promote it I'd like for you to revise it slightly.
It's not clear exactly what your topic or question is. Can you edit the original message and add one paragraphy that sums up your position and asks a fairly narrow question based on your summation?

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Citizzzen, posted 03-07-2005 10:24 PM Citizzzen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Citizzzen, posted 03-08-2005 11:23 PM AdminJar has replied

Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 5 (190703)
03-08-2005 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminJar
03-08-2005 11:07 PM


Admin,
Sure, thanks for the critique. I will be out of town on business for a couple of days, so worst, I will re-write Friday. If I can get a laptop from the east coast office, I will re-write sooner... I'll redo the posting with your suggestions in mind. I will also check out the links you provided...
Thanks,
Citizzzen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 03-08-2005 11:07 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminJar, posted 03-08-2005 11:32 PM Citizzzen has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 5 (190705)
03-08-2005 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Citizzzen
03-08-2005 11:23 PM


Great. Just edit the original message and then post a separate reply letting me know when it's done. Thank you sir. Editing the original will allow me to move it to start a new thread and adding the reply will send me a reminder to get off my duff and check it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Citizzzen, posted 03-08-2005 11:23 PM Citizzzen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Citizzzen, posted 03-12-2005 9:52 PM AdminJar has not replied

Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 5 (191224)
03-12-2005 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminJar
03-08-2005 11:32 PM


How/Why does (apperent) complexity necessitate an intelligent designer?
I have seen the assertion on this, and other religious debate boards, that the complexity of the universe could only have been achieved by an intelligent designer. This leads me to a specific question:
1 - How/Why does (apparent) complexity necessitate an intelligent designer?
The apparent intelligence behind the universe's "design" is due to human perception. Sort of like looking at the stars and seeing patterns. Ancient humans saw shapes in the sky and saw visions of Gods, now we know that the constellations are just coincidental arrangements of stars. The apparent design of one group of stars, obscures the that fact that the vast majority of stars are arranged in a random pattern. In fact, focusing on any system that works ignores all of the systems that didn't work. The millions of species that became extinct because they couldn't compete. The millions of planets that were destroyed because they were hit by meteors or comets, and the millions of stars that are too hot or too cold to sustain life.
Citizzzen

The message is ended, go in peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminJar, posted 03-08-2005 11:32 PM AdminJar has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024