Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, February 08, 2010, 13:14 (5401 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Why is it more reasonable to conclude that life was designed? We all agree it's not a scientific claim, so I still wonder why taking an unprovable position is more reasonable?-Your question makes it sound as if the choice is between one provable and one unprovable hypothesis. Do you think it's possible to prove that life came about by accident? From my position on the fence, the choice is between two unproven, unprovable, and highly unlikely hypotheses. (BBella offers a third option, but it also entails some kind of universal intelligence.) These are:-1) That the first living organisms could not only spontaneously get themselves to replicate, but could also spontaneously manufacture the capability for heritable adaptations and innovations. (David has described the scientific technology required.) All of these mechanisms ... not only unique in our experience, but also proving to be far more complex than was once thought ... are necessary for evolution. You may be able to write a computer programme that randomly generates other programmes, but we're talking here of the FIRST programme, and for that you need a designer. So that's one "unreasonable" hypothesis I can't believe in.-2) That in some unknown dimension, in some unknown form, and from some unknown provenance there exists a universal intelligence of unknown nature which initiated or survived or was inside and outside the Big Bang, and which went on to organize our universe and to create life on Earth. That's the second "unreasonable" hypothesis I can't believe in.-The choice, then, is belief in one of two prime causes, both of which go beyond the limits of my credulity (ultimately it has to be personal). An amazing scientific discovery or a personal revelation could change all that, but we can only base present beliefs on present knowledge. There's nothing to be proud of in my neutrality. One way or another I've got it horribly wrong.