Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 08, 2010, 13:00 (5198 days ago) @ David Turell

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.-This will kind of be a summary of previous arguments--I just don't find this line of argument compelling. In light of the fact that we don't have a mechanism as to how life arose, your argument of "chance vs. design" is a false dilemma, because we can't reasonably compute the statistic without a known mechanism. At the moment, by your own admission the best expert in the field (Shapiro) has at best a guess that energy cycles was a likely beginning. And from my interpretation of your words, I can't name a single piece of "less-important" decisions I've made essentially using a "negative evidence" argument. -Even more probable (when considering a creator) is chance plus design. If we accept an imperfect creator (which I accepted that possibility long ago) then we have to accept mistakes; and accidents. Probably more informed by my time spent as a musician than as a scientist--I often start with a plan for how a song will be written--and then keep the mistakes. I think it clearly more likely that similar things happen in nature under this meta-physic. -Another thing to think about. What it seems to me that you are arguing, is that since the creator still influences life, then that means that you are arguing that biochemical components are expressing attributes of consciousness. To me this is akin to arguing that molecules are intelligent. Stepping back to the program paradigm, I would never argue that pieces of a program are intelligent. And neither could I truly argue that they were designed, knowing what I know about small programs. -Another thought that just struck my mind. Humans design things to solve problems. If we're ultimately an expression of the creator, then what purpose do we have? What problem do we solve? George Carlin's old bit about the earth and plastic is a great one here. -Doesn't a God that one cannot truly commune with destroy the importance of that question? Even if I accepted a creator such as the one you've discussed, it still is completely devoid of all the benefits one normally associates with a deity.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"