Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problem with creationism and god
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 5 of 109 (531492)
10-18-2009 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
10-17-2009 3:57 PM


The Subjectiveness of 'Complexity'
The issue with complexity is, what are you referencing complexity off of? Everything can be considered complex from life itself down to subatomic particles and superstrings (as I am sure Cavediver can attest to). So if everything is complex, than nothing is since there is not something you can say is not complex.
Can you say a quark in nonliving matter are less complex than quarks in living matter? Of course not. When you boil things down to their ultimate fundamental structure we are the same. It is the arrangement that differs as we macroscopically scale up. Does this differing arrangement make things more or less complex? Not really. Are you saying that 2x1027 atoms in a living cell are more
"complex" than 2x1027 in an ice crystal the same size?
I guess the real question than is, what is complexity?
In my opinion, the only thing we can say is that some things "appear" to be more complex than others in an anthropomorphoc way. Like the term "beauty", "complexity" is subjective rather than objective and to me is an unscientific term you do not see often in the scientific community which is precisely why the ID and creationists try to capitolize on it.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Fix html code

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 10-17-2009 3:57 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 14 of 109 (531569)
10-18-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fallen
10-18-2009 3:27 PM


Fallen writes:
There is a massive difference between claiming that a particular kind of complexity indicates intelligence and the claim that complexity alone indicates intelligence. Of course complexity is an important concept for intelligent design advocates. But there is much, much more to intelligent design than simply appealing to complexity.
Behe writes:
It was once expected that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins. There has been virtually no attempt to account for the origin of specific, complex biomolecular
systems, much less any progress. Many scientists have gamely asserted that explanations are already in hand, or will be sooner or later, but no support for such assertions can be found in the professional science literature. More importantly, there are compelling reasons-based on the structure of the systems themselves--to think that a Darwinian explanation for the mechanisms of life will forever prove elusive.
I don't know about you but what I get from this is that Behe is implying that life is complex. However, the question has to be asked "Complex in comparison to what?". Is a star complex or not? How about an individual atom? The question that is begging to be asked is "What is complexity?" and "How is it measured?". If we can't answer those two fundamental questions than bringing up the subjective term 'complexity' is a moot point. It would be like saying life is beautiful and that is why we should believe in God. Anyone who thinks life is beautiful has not seen the ravishing affects of life on other life:
child suffering from ebola
The same is subjectiveness is true with the term 'complexity'. Complexity is a completely subjective term, if you think otherwise talk to a particle physicist who can explain the complexity of particle physics.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fallen, posted 10-18-2009 3:27 PM Fallen 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