Irreducible Complexity (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 17:31 (5428 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: The fact that a judgment must be made that Shakespeare is complex and random letters is not, doesn't this mean that an interpretation must be made, and that therefore there will be some bias as to what is "intelligent" and what "isn't"? If we're talking about an unknown intelligence, what if randomness IS its design methodology?-My answer to your first question would be yes, but as usual there has to be a consensus. I don't think anyone on this website would disagree that a Shakespeare sonnet requires more intelligence to assemble than a jumble of higgledy-piggledy letters. We would all agree that a machine which works suggests design. We have to make these commonsense judgements in order to hold a rational discussion. -Your second question has rich potential! We would need to know what degree of randomness we're talking about. If it's total (= atheism), we needn't bother with the concept of intelligence. A designer has no part to play. But if some sort of "mind" has set up a mechanism that entails a DEGREE of randomness ... e.g. a form of life capable of random variations ... then it's a force to be reckoned with. If it sometimes interferes with the way the mechanism functions ... e.g. experimenting with new organs ... then I'd like to know a bit more about it. If it takes an ongoing, active interest in the random results of its experiments (e.g. how humans cope with randomness), I'd like to know a lot more about it! But as far as deciding WHETHER there is such an intelligence at work, we can only go back to the subjective judgement you summarize in your first question. Do we or don't we consider the mechanism for life/reproduction/evolution to be so complex that it must be the product of a conscious intelligence? My answer is the same as yours. You say:-In the end, I'm still left where I was standing before. [...] I'm certainly not sure of anything. -Nor am I. You hope, though that "some of this exercise was useful either to yourself or David". Yes indeed. And I hope you find the discussions useful too. You always bring lots of fresh angles to our attention, and it's thanks to you, David, George, BBella and various others who have contributed at different times to this forum that (here comes a nice oxymoron for you) I feel I'm gradually becoming a more knowledgeable ignoramus! Perhaps that's the best any of us can hope for.