Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, February 08, 2010, 04:46 (5199 days ago) @ xeno6696

While I still have plenty of time to read Shapiro's books, I've been catching up on these posts at a slow rate. 
 
> 
> 1. I'm perfectly fine with natural selection playing the role it does; a filter. -I agree 
> 
> 2. I've no problems with genetic transfers and complexity.-No problem here.
>
> Why is it more reasonable to conclude that life was designed? We all agree its not a scientific claim, so I still wonder why taking an unprovable position is more reasonable? And there would be no way to determine if these programs were designed by a human or by a computer, thus recreating a similar chicken-and-egg scenario for an outside observer. 
> 
> Any thoughts?-Very simply, since we have no concept of how life got here, in the first place, we are left with it was either designed or it arose, somehow, bit by bit by chance. Since it is so complex, and getting more and more complexer by the year, only design seems feasible. Chance is lessened every year as the complexity gets more complex. And you haven't even raised the major point. All of the complex mechanism is needed working together at the same time. DNA needs continuous copy protection. From the beginning. How would you arrange for that?. By chance? No way.