Design and the universe.

[KingMerv00]

I was having a chat on Christian message board about evolution.

They said:

To note on intelligent design....question.

If any evolutionists in here stumbled upon a TV in the woods, what would be the first impression that comes to your mind? Would it be that the TV came about by millions of years of evolution and that science must have an answer for this complex TV? or would you think , "Gee how did this TV get out here in the woods?", and immediately assume it came from a factory somewhere? The ridiculousness of the idea that it was formed by time is the same as any other idea of evolution. No evolutionist in here would think it probable that the TV was formed by chance.


I said:

Bad analogy. Here's why:

1) TV's don't self-replicate.

2) TV's don't have DNA that changes with each generation.

3) There is no evidence of common decent in TV's.

4) TV's are not subject to natural selection.



Let's say I buy your "common sense" argument for the moment. Here are some more ideas that are contrary to common sense and therefore must be thrown out:

1) Light is both a wave and a particle.

2) All masses are attracted to each other.

3) The speed of light is constant regardless of the frame of reference.

4) The entire universe is hurtling away from itself at around 50-100 KILOmeters per SECOND and by inference, the entire universe was compact around 15 billion years ago.

5) The atoms you are made of are composed of mostly empty space.

6) The earth is a liquid-filled sphere that is spinning at 1000mph and hurtling around a giant ball of flaming hydrogen and helium at 67,000mph.

7) There is an invisible man in the sky who can read your mind and is personally responsible for numbers 1 through 6.

I agree that evolution is contrary to common sense, but so is most of established science. I don't take my belief in evolution lightly. I looked at the evidence and came to that conclusion over time. I don't used common sense to dictate objective reality to me. You shouldn't either.

I bring this up for a reason. According to Shermer, the primary reason people believe in God is because of the "obvious" design of the universe. I'm just sick of that argument and want to voice my displeasure. The JREF message boards are therapeutic.

If you wanna chime in on the message board:
http://forums.christianity.com/?do=post_view_flat;post=1148514;page=37;sb=post_la test_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

[jimlintott]

If any evolutionists in here stumbled upon a TV in the woods, what would be the first impression that comes to your mind?

Why is it never: Where did all these trees come from?

I've thinking about ID latey, trying in vain to make it make any sense at all. It seems to me that it is really not a subsititute for evolution but for survival of the fittest. Now my question is do the gene pools survive because they have the most intelligent design or because there is a plan for them? Where does extinction fit into all this? Was extinction designed or planned or a mistake? Can the intelligent designer make mistakes? If mistakes are common are humans a mistake?

I guess I'll never understand ID as long as I keep thinking!! (Although an actual clear definition might help.)

[Iacchus]

Yes, and if the Universe wasn't structured down to every single last detail, then what? What does that have to do with chance? Unless of course you're willing to admit that something can come from nothing? :con2:

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and if the Universe wasn't structured down to every single last detail, then what? What does that have to do with chance? Unless of course you're willing to admit that something can come from nothing? :con2:

Well I was referring to the evo/creationist debate not the origin of the universe.

Where did everything come from? :con2:

Was there a beginning to time? :con2:

NOBODY KNOWS!! Deal with it. If you are suggesting there is a supreme power who designed everything, you won't find support for your assumption here.

[c4ts]

I bring this up for a reason. According to Shermer, the primary reason people believe in God is because of the "obvious" design of the universe. I'm just sick of that argument and want to voice my displeasure. The JREF message boards are therapeutic.

There does seem to be this assumption that because the universe is expansive, complex, and not entirely understood, it somehow implies a creator.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

Well I was referring to the evo/creationist debate not the origin of the universe.And what does the evo/creationist debate entail if not the origin of the Universe? :con2:


Where did everything come from? :con2:

Was there a beginning to time? :con2:If you eliminate the possibility of chance, then what? Doesn't that suggest that the act of Creation was deliberate and, of a specific nature/design? Oh, and doesn't it sound plausible that the "temporal" springs forth from the Eternal? ... i.e., that time is but a "subset" of Eternity?


NOBODY KNOWS!! Deal with it. If you are suggesting there is a supreme power who designed everything, you won't find support for your assumption here. At the very least we know that we're here ... which, is quite an accomplishment for that which came about wholly by chance don't you think? I mean if existence can be assessed and acknowledged, then at what point does it not become assessible and hence knowable?

[Vortex]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you eliminate the possibility of chance, then what?
No reason to eliminate the possibility of chance.
Doesn't that suggest that the act of Creation was deliberate and, of a specific nature/design?
No. A random flux will certainly suffice, no reason to call gods into existence to explain it. I tire easily of "the gods dunnit" as an explanation that cannot be supported.
Oh, and doesn't it sound plausible that the "temporal" springs forth from the Eternal? ... i.e., that time is but a "subset" of Eternity?
No. The Big Bang theory holds that time and space were created via the Big Bang, there was no time before it.

[Lord Emsworth]

If any evolutionists in here stumbled upon a TV in the woods, what would be the first impression that comes to your mind? Would it be that the TV came about by millions of years of evolution and that science must have an answer for this complex TV?


It came about by millions of years of evolution. Just as the factory did. And the factory owner.

Sheesh.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you eliminate the possibility of chance, then what? Doesn't that suggest that the act of Creation was deliberate and, of a specific nature/design? Oh, and doesn't it sound plausible that the "temporal" springs forth from the Eternal? ... i.e., that time is but a "subset" of Eternity?


It sounds like rubbish.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Vortex

No reason to eliminate the possibility of chance.And what is the basis of chance except that which is "caused" by nothing?


No. A random flux will certainly suffice, no reason to call gods into existence to explain it. I tire easily of "the gods dunnit" as an explanation that cannot be supported.A random flux of what? A random state of "nothingness" to an unrandom state of "somethingness" perhaps? Would you care to elaborate?


No. The Big Bang theory holds that time and space were created via the Big Bang, there was no time before it. Yes, time has a beginning, and so does the Universe, but that's only because it is "temporal."

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

4) TV's are not subject to natural selection.
Actually, they are--very much so.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection does not specify genes (or anything else, for that matter) as the means of passing traits from one generation to the next. The free market can do that just as well, for some cases of natural selection. All we need is 1) parent-offspring similarity, 2) variability in the population, and 3) differential reproductive success. And we have it with televisions.

Look at the variability among television sets at any point in their history. My TV is vastly different from its ancestors....over the course of their evolution, some features worked better than others, and were preferred by consumers. TV manufacturers took note of this, and copied and expanded those features in later sets. Each was built on the ideas of the past, often copying whole sections of successful TVs (parent-offspring similarity) while tweaking something here or there, or introducing a new feature (variability), and what works in the market gets taken back to the lab to inspire new sets (differential success).

There is plenty to argue against in the television analogy, but TVs make a great example for natural selection. No need to either deny it (even though the mechanisms of reproduction are vastly different) or to obscure the issue with nonsense (like Iacchus).

[Tricky]

And what is the basis of chance except that which is "caused" by nothing?
Not exactly. Just that it conforms to the law of averages.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what does the evo/creationist debate entail if not the origin of the Universe? :con2:

It doesn't. Evolution is true whether or not the universe had a creator.

If you eliminate the possibility of chance, then what? Doesn't that suggest that the act of Creation was deliberate and, of a specific nature/design? Oh, and doesn't it sound plausible that the "temporal" springs forth from the Eternal? ... i.e., that time is but a "subset" of Eternity?

Well for all you know, the probability of the universe coming into existance could have been 100%.

Further I'd like to see your work that proves time had a beginning.


At the very least we know that we're here ... which, is quite an accomplishment for that which came about wholly by chance don't you think? I mean if existence can be assessed and acknowledged, then at what point does it not become assessible and hence knowable?

Again the odds could have been 1:1. You have no meaningful way of describing how likely our existance is.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

It doesn't. Evolution is true whether or not the universe had a creator.And in how many "days" was the earth/Universe created? And yet this is not the Intelligent Design argument now is it? ... or, it's but one version of it.

The only thing that you can possibly hope to suggest here is that evolution is true. You in fact do not know (by your admission) that the Universe had a Creator, and yet if this were true, the whole thing becomes contingent upon this. In which case it becomes a yes or no propostion, and there can be no other "possible" option. Evolution can only be "true" in relation to that which existed prior to it.


Well for all you know, the probability of the universe coming into existance could have been 100%.Coming into existence from what?


Further I'd like to see your work that proves time had a beginning.Well, I'm not the one who keeps postulating the Big Bang here.


Again the odds could have been 1:1. You have no meaningful way of describing how likely our existance is. And yet isn't it marvelous how existence is capable of pondering itself? That's just too unfathomable to think of, without giving any consideration for whatever conditions might have existed prior to its happening ... in the deliberate sense. And, by virtue of the fact that we are capable of knowing, how much more should that entail being able to trace the nature of origin? Everything else in the Universe seems to be explainable, why shouldn't this?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

Not exactly. Just that it conforms to the law of averages. Yes, when we are unable to fully comprehend the laws of complexity (due to our lack of omniscience that is), we have to resort to such things as the law of averages.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Vortex
No reason to eliminate the possibility of chance.

No. A random flux will certainly suffice, no reason to call gods into existence to explain it. I tire easily of "the gods dunnit" as an explanation that cannot be supported.
What do you find most appealing about "a random flux" vs. "goddidit"?


No. The Big Bang theory holds that time and space were created via the Big Bang, there was no time before it.
What "fluxed" if nothing existed? :)

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by c4ts
There does seem to be this assumption that because the universe is expansive, complex, and not entirely understood, it somehow implies a creator.

My currently favorite question:
Why is it necessary that there had to be only one designer?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by alfaniner

My currently favorite question:
Why is it necessary that there had to be only one designer? To keep everything homogeneous?

[Vortex]

Originally posted by hammegk
What do you find most appealing about "a random flux" vs. "goddidit"?
No gods required.
What "fluxed" if nothing existed? :)
Potential. :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Vortex

No gods required.

Potential. :) Must have been all that kinetic energy, huh?

[Vortex]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Must have been all that kinetic energy, huh?
Yeah, I like to think it was a bright adolescent left alone in his father's lab who happened upon his "How to Create a Universe" manual, and seeing how the atom smashers were fired up and all, he toggled a few switches... oops! Too bad we'll never know. :)

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Vortex
No reason to eliminate the possibility of chance.

No. A random flux will certainly suffice, no reason to call gods into existence to explain it. I tire easily of "the gods dunnit" as an explanation that cannot be supported.

No. The Big Bang theory holds that time and space were created via the Big Bang, there was no time before it.

Yes, but as has been suggested, in the pages of one of the skeptic mags no less, the rules about quantum mechanics existed before the big bang, and they are "a far cry from nothing".


Physics does have a few holes in it at the moment:

1. Why does anything exist? If it all started in a hyper-inflated event due to quantum randomness, that's fine, but how did the physics rules of quantum randomness come into being?

2. What is the essence of the subjective perceptual experience? Physics bails claiming it's not externally measurable. But it sure as hell does exist. That Crick paper was interesting in that it pushes that it's the proper time to at least study the correlations between neurons and the experiences of individuals. It wouldn't necessarily explain why said experiences exist, but it seems like a necessary first step to get beyond pure philosophical blowhardism. Once we can exhaustively say what happens in the brain for each possible thing, then we can start making guesses as to how, or whether, the brain is the true instantiator of said experiences (or more accurately, how.)

[Vortex]

Originally posted by Beerina
Why does anything exist?
I don't think there needs to be a why. It's hard to fathom the question, "Why does anything exist and not nothing?". Obviously we exist so I don't know that the question needs asking. Seems to me that "why" is just a human concept (we want a reason when there may be none) and short of our ability to ask it, the universe (reality) just IS. Works for me. :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Vortex

I don't think there needs to be a why. It's hard to fathom the question, "Why does anything exist and not nothing?". Obviously we exist so I don't know that the question needs asking. Seems to me that "why" is just a human concept (we want a reason when there may be none) and short of our ability to ask it, the universe (reality) just IS. Works for me. :) Yes, but if reality just "is," does that mean there's "nothing" we could do about it? This is what certain behaviorists would have us believe anyway. Yet the thing about existence, is that we don't just exist without something being realized from it ... in that things don't exist in a state of stasis and still exist. Existence requires that we interact with and, participate with it. So obviously this implies an overall sense of purpose that exists towards everything.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Actually, they are--very much so.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection does not specify genes (or anything else, for that matter) as the means of passing traits from one generation to the next. The free market can do that just as well, for some cases of natural selection. All we need is 1) parent-offspring similarity, 2) variability in the population, and 3) differential reproductive success. And we have it with televisions.

Look at the variability among television sets at any point in their history. My TV is vastly different from its ancestors....over the course of their evolution, some features worked better than others, and were preferred by consumers. TV manufacturers took note of this, and copied and expanded those features in later sets. Each was built on the ideas of the past, often copying whole sections of successful TVs (parent-offspring similarity) while tweaking something here or there, or introducing a new feature (variability), and what works in the market gets taken back to the lab to inspire new sets (differential success).

There is plenty to argue against in the television analogy, but TVs make a great example for natural selection. No need to either deny it (even though the mechanisms of reproduction are vastly different) or to obscure the issue with nonsense (like Iacchus).

Mercutio, this is perhaps one of the most concise and succinct rebuttals of Paley's Watchmaker argument that I have ever seen. May I steal it? Please?

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Existence requires that we interact with and, participate with it. So obviously this implies an overall sense of purpose that exists towards everything.

No it doesn't.

Not everything has a purpose. I know that this can scare some people, but it is better to live with it.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by AWPrime


Not everything has a purpose.
Is existence a purpose?


I know that this can scare some people, but it is better to live with it.
How does nihilism suit you? Or do some things 'have purpose'? If so what is the criterium that convinces you?

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Actually, they are--very much so.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection does not specify genes (or anything else, for that matter) as the means of passing traits from one generation to the next. The free market can do that just as well, for some cases of natural selection. All we need is 1) parent-offspring similarity, 2) variability in the population, and 3) differential reproductive success. And we have it with televisions.

Look at the variability among television sets at any point in their history. My TV is vastly different from its ancestors....over the course of their evolution, some features worked better than others, and were preferred by consumers. TV manufacturers took note of this, and copied and expanded those features in later sets. Each was built on the ideas of the past, often copying whole sections of successful TVs (parent-offspring similarity) while tweaking something here or there, or introducing a new feature (variability), and what works in the market gets taken back to the lab to inspire new sets (differential success).

There is plenty to argue against in the television analogy, but TVs make a great example for natural selection. No need to either deny it (even though the mechanisms of reproduction are vastly different) or to obscure the issue with nonsense (like Iacchus).

Well I guess you are right from one perspective. I was referring to genes you are referring to memes.

However, if I leave 100 TV's out in the forest for a million years outside of human interferance, I would wager that their offspring would not be HDTV's.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I agree that evolution is contrary to common sense, but so is most of established science.

That's interesting. Why do you think that evolution is contrary to common sense?


I bring this up for a reason. According to Shermer, the primary reason people believe in God is because of the "obvious" design of the universe. I'm just sick of that argument and want to voice my displeasure. The JREF message boards are therapeutic.

The O word.

Is design detectable?

If the primary reason that people believe in God is design (I'm not sure if it is, but let's assume that for now), science should consider coming up with new language. The mechanical universe? The genetic code? It may be that we can't *help* but to see design. Fair enough. You science types really have to check yourselves though. To be perfectly honest, if it wasn't called the genetic code...I'm not sure what beliefs I'd have right now. It was the phrase that got me thinking...I guess it was 15 years ago. I was on a certain track, and frankly I turned around after considering the ramifciations of the indisputable reality of the genetic code.

-Elliot

[Elind]

Originally posted by jimlintott
Why is it never: Where did all these trees come from?

I've thinking about ID latey, trying in vain to make it make any sense at all. It seems to me that it is really not a subsititute for evolution but for survival of the fittest. Now my question is do the gene pools survive because they have the most intelligent design or because there is a plan for them? Where does extinction fit into all this? Was extinction designed or planned or a mistake? Can the intelligent designer make mistakes? If mistakes are common are humans a mistake?

I guess I'll never understand ID as long as I keep thinking!! (Although an actual clear definition might help.)

It's a moving target, like all creationism. Think of it as a political movement designed to give a "scientific" flavor to religious instruction. Nothing more nothing less. The premise is that some "constructs" in nature can be "proven" to be impossible to achieve without outside intelligent interference, and the corollary is that some things can be "proven" through complex information theory, to be achievable only through artifical (intelligent) creation.

Of course the ID creationists have proven none of this and have been shot down every time they tried, BUT many of their claims can only be refuted fully by scientific expertise in the corresponding field.

Now, imagine how they overwhelm some poor administrator in a school system when they get enough fundies to attack the science sylabus! Says a lot about the ethics of this flavor of Christianity, doesn't it? Lie, lie some more and lie again, all for the glory of god.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
Mercutio, this is perhaps one of the most concise and succinct rebuttals of Paley's Watchmaker argument that I have ever seen. May I steal it? Please?

How is it a rebuttal?

-Elliot

[Elind]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I agree that evolution is contrary to common sense, but so is most of established science

Did you actually say this, or am I misreading the quote? Strange thing to read coming from you. I would have said quite the opposite, assuming one has a modest grounding in some science facts to begin with.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Elind
It's a moving target, like all creationism. Think of it as a political movement designed to give a "scientific" flavor to religious instruction. Nothing more nothing less.

I don't know if it is political or apolitical. I hear that everything is political. I don't know.

Scientific...nobody has exclusive ownership of science, or scientific, whatever. It's a methodology.

Re: religious instruction, whether or not a God/designer exists may or may not be an inherently religious debate. If anyone who considers that God does exist is by default, religious, then what you say is valid. I'm not as fixated or buggered by the assertion as you. Whatever.


The premise is that some "constructs" in nature can be "proven" to be impossible to achieve without outside intelligent interference, and the corollary is that some things can be "proven" through complex information theory, to be achievable only through artifical (intelligent) creation.

Of course the ID creationists have proven none of this and have been shot down every time they tried, BUT many of their claims can only be refuted fully by scientific expertise in the corresponding field.

If so, why don't you want ID taught in schools? If what you say is correct, that would surely be the forum to discuss not ID. Right?

Personally I don't want ID taught in schools. You materialists will mess it all up. Put a bad spin on it. I don't want you guys touching it in schools.

I am finding this whole thing more and more amusing. We all have to be uptight about something I guess. And I guess I should be more sympathethic. We all want our little niche, and it is frustrating when we can't have what we want. The good news? It won't matter to any of us personally, eventually. The interim is a bitch.

-Elliot

[KingMerv00]

Elliot said:

That's interesting. Why do you think that evolution is contrary to common sense?

Elind said:

Did you actually say this, or am I misreading the quote? Strange thing to read coming from you. I would have said quite the opposite, assuming one has a modest grounding in some science facts to begin with.

I suppose this was a bad choice of words.

I believe evolution is supported by everything I have seen so far. I think the confusion here is over the words "common sense". I meant that the theory of evolution (and indeed MOST of science) cannot be reached through instinctual reasoning. Evidence and research are needed. For example, it is not common sense that the earth is spinning, it is a well supported conclusion based on overwhelming evidence.

You didn't just wake up one day believing evolution did you? It was a conclusion you reached. At least I hope so.

Hope that clears it up. I'm not a kool-aid drinker.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by elliotfc
How is it a rebuttal?

-Elliot

It's an analogical rebuttal to be sure, and it certainly is not applicable if you take the restricted view that evolution applies only to biological organisms. And yes, of course it's open to the cries from creationists "BUT IT'S STILL DESIGNED!"

But I find that explaining evolution in the terms of memes can turn lights on in otherwise darkened minds. There are one or two darkened minds I have encountered in some of my other discussion forums, and this particular memetic analogy is exactly what I need.

[Elind]

Originally posted by elliotfc [/B]
I don't know if it is political or apolitical. I hear that everything is political. I don't know.



IDers say it's political (stealth wedge). Do the research.



Scientific...nobody has exclusive ownership of science, or scientific, whatever. It's a methodology.


Exactly. It's a methodology that creationists violate every time they use the word.



Re: religious instruction, whether or not a God/designer exists may or may not be an inherently religious debate. If anyone who considers that God does exist is by default, religious, then what you say is valid. I'm not as fixated or buggered by the assertion as you. Whatever.


You're buggered by your own conclusions methinks.





If so, why don't you want ID taught in schools? If what you say is correct, that would surely be the forum to discuss not ID. Right?



Wrong. What do you think schools are? A forum for religious debates? If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to do better than that.



Personally I don't want ID taught in schools. You materialists will mess it all up. Put a bad spin on it. I don't want you guys touching it in schools.


Nonsense??



I am finding this whole thing more and more amusing. We all have to be uptight about something I guess. And I guess I should be more sympathethic. We all want our little niche, and it is frustrating when we can't have what we want. The good news? It won't matter to any of us personally, eventually. The interim is a bitch.



Sorry. Can't find anything worth commenting on here.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
Mercutio, this is perhaps one of the most concise and succinct rebuttals of Paley's Watchmaker argument that I have ever seen. May I steal it? Please? It is yours.

I must say, I somewhat stole it from a student of mine (who probably stole it from someone else, who probably stole it from Dawkins); my student's paper was on the evolution of Teddy Bears. Same argument, though. Actually...I think the argument itself is evolving, depending on the niche available for it...

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Well I guess you are right from one perspective. I was referring to genes you are referring to memes.

However, if I leave 100 TV's out in the forest for a million years outside of human interferance, I would wager that their offspring would not be HDTV's. True, but Televisions are parasitic--they require host humans in order to reproduce. If you leave 100 humans out in the forest for a million years, but forbid them to reproduce...their offspring would look much like the TV sets' offspring: fossils.

All you have done by removing "human interference" is prevent reproduction from occurring...which pretty much puts the kibosh on natural selection. On the other hand, if you remove human interference, the "design" explanation kinda dies out too.

[wollery]

Elliot, I have one simple question for you;

Who designed God?

I assume that you believe that we were designed by God, and since we are complex and we couldn't design life from scratch, it implies that God must be vastly more complex than us. Also I assume that you believe in the biblical description of the creation, that God created man in his own image, so God looks like a human (a complex organism).

So who designed God?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

I suppose this was a bad choice of words.

I believe evolution is supported by everything I have seen so far. I think the confusion here is over the words "common sense". I meant that the theory of evolution (and indeed MOST of science) cannot be reached through instinctual reasoning. Evidence and research are needed. For example, it is not common sense that the earth is spinning, it is a well supported conclusion based on overwhelming evidence.


Lots of stuff in science is contrary to "common sense." That's why scientists do research. If you want the sort of answers that you can sit in your armchair and think up at home, that's what creationism and "intelligent design theory" are for.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I think the confusion here is over the words "common sense". I meant that the theory of evolution (and indeed MOST of science) cannot be reached through instinctual reasoning. Evidence and research are needed. For example, it is not common sense that the earth is spinning, it is a well supported conclusion based on overwhelming evidence.

This is an excellent clarification, thanks.

I would only mention that the earth spinning and the theory of evolution are not completely similar things. If only because you can articulate the earth spinning with just two words, whereas the theory of evolution is tougher to get a handle on.



You didn't just wake up one day believing evolution did you? It was a conclusion you reached. At least I hope so.

True, but creationists didn't wake up one day believing Genesis either. All theories are formed through research, and that includes people who read things like Bibles. I am not talking about the meritoriousness of a particular line of research. I'm just saying that all theories are formed by some amount of investigation and study, regardless of your opinions about the way those things occur.

I think that theory and instinct are two different things. I don't think that animals (non-humans that is) have theories, for instance. I could be wrong on that I guess.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
It's an analogical rebuttal to be sure, and it certainly is not applicable if you take the restricted view that evolution applies only to biological organisms. And yes, of course it's open to the cries from creationists "BUT IT'S STILL DESIGNED!"

But I find that explaining evolution in the terms of memes can turn lights on in otherwise darkened minds. There are one or two darkened minds I have encountered in some of my other discussion forums, and this particular memetic analogy is exactly what I need.

Fair enough.

I don't think that I take the restricted view that evolution applies only to biological organisms by the way. I do take the restricted view that biological evolution is different from non-biological evolution.

Memes are cute, and may the best memes win.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Elind
IDers say it's political (stealth wedge). Do the research.

Of course some of them say that. And I've already said that everything, I guess, is political.

Science is political too. If not, science types would not petition governments and argue in front of courts and stuff. Your point doesn't really mean that much to me I guess, and obviously its way meaningful for you. Is science exclusively political? Of course not. And neither is ID. Of course both can be used politically. You are just fixated on ID being political. It seems like a superfluous notion, so I won't argue against it further.



Exactly. It's a methodology that creationists violate every time they use the word.

Violate! Eek! I admire your need to protect the inviolability of science, and I'm sure she is grateful for your chivalry. I know I know I know, you want science all for yourself. That's nice. Some people like to swing both ways though. If you lack the capacity to consider that science can mix with non-science (I'm not even admitting that is happening, I'm just talking in language that you can probably understand given your belief system) then as usual, they'll just go right by you.

And you wonder why the religion analogy is applied on you. You think this is a sacred realm, don't you? The unmitigated heresy of it all! It's exclusionary thinking actually, you've banished alternative theories into the netherworld, and I see absolutely nothing scientific about that.


Wrong. What do you think schools are? A forum for religious debates? If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to do better than that.

You said (or, you quoted someone who said) that it took scientific types to really shoot down ID theory. Hold on....

"BUT many of their claims can only be refuted by scientific expertise"

That's the statement that you made, not me. That was what I was talking about. You've got the knee-jerk IT MUST BE RELIGION reaction going on, but you yourself says that scientific expertise is the key to refuting ID claims. If you don't want this expertise shooting religion down in the schools, then would you prefer it to happen in journals that the public does not read?

Anyhow we agree that ID shouldn't be taught in schools. so no biggie here.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by wollery
Elliot, I have one simple question for you;

Who designed God?

I assume that you believe that we were designed by God, and since we are complex and we couldn't design life from scratch, it implies that God must be vastly more complex than us. Also I assume that you believe in the biblical description of the creation, that God created man in his own image, so God looks like a human (a complex organism).

So who designed God?

Re: biblical description, I think that our nature is akin to the image of God more than are physical appearance. In other words, I see myself as being in God's image primarily because like God, I am a creator and a designer.

God is the first designer, by my working definition, and your question goes against my working definition. Not sure what else to say.

All other designers in existence are imperfect derivatives/manifestations/embodiments of the design concept/reality that is God.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Lots of stuff in science is contrary to "common sense." That's why scientists do research. If you want the sort of answers that you can sit in your armchair and think up at home, that's what creationism and "intelligent design theory" are for.

This is demonstrably false, as ID types have stated that it was experimental research that stimulated their ID theories. If your particular faith demands that you view such types as liars that's on you. Are some IDers solely armchair types? Sure.

In addition, many of the "explanations", or just-so stories, that are supplied by evolutionists...well, I've tended to think of those as armchair theories myself.

-Elliot

[wollery]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Re: biblical description, I think that our nature is akin to the image of God more than are physical appearance. In other words, I see myself as being in God's image primarily because like God, I am a creator and a designer.

God is the first designer, by my working definition, and your question goes against my working definition. Not sure what else to say.

All other designers in existence are imperfect derivatives/manifestations/embodiments of the design concept/reality that is God.

-Elliot But how did God come into being? If we had to be the product of design, because such a complex being couldn't come into existence by chance, then what chance was there that God would just come into being?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by wollery
But how did God come into being? If we had to be the product of design, because such a complex being couldn't come into existence by chance, then what chance was there that God would just come into being?


But God didn't come into being. Contingincies (like us) come into being. God has always been and always will be. That's the working definition. Your question is rejected as a complete misunderstanding of the working defintion, by the working definition.

So you make a good point at the end of your question. An excellent point in fact. Replace God with anything else and I might just be nodding my head.

So Wollery, I *believe* that God did not come into being. That's why I'm not answering your question. It goes against my beliefs to even consider your question as being meaningful. Of course you reject my belief system I reckon, but surely you can understand why your question is incompatible with my beliefs.

-Elliot

[wollery]

Originally posted by elliotfc
But God didn't come into being. Contingincies (like us) come into being. God has always been and always will be. That's the working definition. Your question is rejected as a complete misunderstanding of the working defintion, by the working definition.

So you make a good point at the end of your question. An excellent point in fact. Replace God with anything else and I might just be nodding my head.

So Wollery, I *believe* that God did not come into being. That's why I'm not answering your question. It goes against my beliefs to even consider your question as being meaningful. Of course you reject my belief system I reckon, but surely you can understand why your question is incompatible with my beliefs.

-Elliot So you don't adhere to ID because you believe in irreducible complexity, but because you believe in God, therefore we must have been created by God. Is that right?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by wollery
So you don't adhere to ID because you believe in irreducible complexity, but because you believe in God, therefore we must have been created by God. Is that right?

I think that irreducible complexity is a very specifically crafted concept to articulate a very simple and a very ancient idea. An idea that (I think many of you would agree) is either common-sensical, or borderline self-evident. I'm not putting any value judgment on any of those words.

I've believed that we are created by God before I ever heard the phrase irreducible complexity.

I do understand the irreducible complexity concept. Whether or not it can be applied to biological systems as well as mechanical systems is up in the air, for me that is. I don't think that intelligent design theory is contingent upon a biological unanimity on the irreducible complexity concept.

I do think that irreducible complexity is unquestionably USEFUL, at least in getting the unquestionably scientifically driven people in the world to get their explanations in order. Challenges are helpful after all. Right?

-Elliot

[AWPrime]

Wierd working definition you are using, elliotfc.


Now if 'god' was the first and is a perfect designer. Then it would not have made mistakes, and everthing would be perfect or near perfect.

But the universe is far from perfect, therefore it can be concluded that god doesn't exist or didn't create the universe.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Wierd working definition you are using, elliotfc.


Now if 'god' was the first and is a perfect designer. Then it would not have made mistakes, and everthing would be perfect or near perfect.

You are assuming that the creation of imperfect creators is, in fact, a mistake. I don't make that assumption. I actually reject the assumption.

I find it interesting that you include "near perfect" with perfect. Why do you do that? What is the objective standard to differentiate near perfection to not-even-close perfection? I think that you have to stick with perfection and ditch near-perfection as near-perfection can be contrued variably and inexactly.

I think that if God intended to create a not-very-perfect designer, and then did so, that would not be a mistake but objective reality. Mistake would be a very human interpolation to a fact that we may disagree with.

I guess you'd have to get me to accept some objective working notion of "mistake" that you have, and then convince me that it should apply to God. Or, you'd have to convince me that God creating an imperfect designer is inherently a *mistake*. Short of that, I don't accept your statements as valid.



But the universe is far from perfect, therefore it can be concluded that god doesn't exist or didn't create the universe.

I don't see it that way at all. The universe is contingent, is created. The universe is not God. Only God is God. Only God is perfect. Therefore the universe is not perfect.

-Elliot

[wollery]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I think that irreducible complexity is a very specifically crafted concept to articulate a very simple and a very ancient idea. An idea that (I think many of you would agree) is either common-sensical, or borderline self-evident. I'm not putting any value judgment on any of those words.

I've believed that we are created by God before I ever heard the phrase irreducible complexity.

I do understand the irreducible complexity concept. Whether or not it can be applied to biological systems as well as mechanical systems is up in the air, for me that is. I don't think that intelligent design theory is contingent upon a biological unanimity on the irreducible complexity concept.

I do think that irreducible complexity is unquestionably USEFUL, at least in getting the unquestionably scientifically driven people in the world to get their explanations in order. Challenges are helpful after all. Right?

-Elliot Well you didn't really answer my question, but I guess that you sort of did. (I think that makes sense!)

I agree that it's useful to have your scientific theories challenged and even more useful for people to come up with new theories. However, irreducible complexity fails miserably as a challenge for evolutionary theory. It also fails as a tenet on which to base ID.

A good challenging theory would offer an alternative explanation for all of the observations we have, which evolutionary theory explains. I've yet to come across an alternative which succeeds, or even comes close.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by wollery
I agree that it's useful to have your scientific theories challenged and even more useful for people to come up with new theories. However, irreducible complexity fails miserably as a challenge for evolutionary theory. It also fails as a tenet on which to base ID.

Wollery, I just smile when I see such loaded statements. You had to say "fails miserably"? You couldn't just say "fails", or "does not"? If you were more dispassionate here, I wouldn't think what I do think about you, that you've got a particular pony you're betting on and damn the others.

It is a challenge for evolutionary theory, and I base that on the response from the evolutionary community. If it is not a challenge, why the informed and detailed responses? If it is not a challenge, why do educated scientists advocate the theory? The loaded statements smack of wishful thinking. If this was all dispassionate I could take it more seriously. Of course then it would also likely be a non-issue. And it definitely isn't.

If it fails as a tenet on which to base ID, then why do some people, in fact, use it as a tenet on which to base ID? I agree that it fails for you, but it doesn't fail for everyone, so your absolutist statement, again, isn't exactly very impressive.

I think that the absolutist claims of the irreducible complexity crowd are exaggerated, often too much bluster and not enough careful thinking. That to me says more about particulars, be they people or individual cases, than the theory in general. Like all theories, it may be over-applied or poorly applied.


A good challenging theory would offer an alternative explanation for all of the observations we have, which evolutionary theory explains. I've yet to come across an alternative which succeeds, or even comes close.

I don't think that objective reality is contingent upon the personal needs of individuals. You exclude theories if they don't meet certain base standards. I accept that, and even respect that a bit. Given your *personal standards*, your beliefs follow from that. I consider that to be a bit limiting, but no doubt you have all the intellectual satisfaction you care to have and that's fine by me.

I lack the intellectual filters that you have, and I'm not making that into a moral issue. Filters and standards and explanations, to me, are not indicative of objective reality.

-Elliot

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I guess you'd have to get me to accept some objective working notion of "mistake" that you have, and then convince me that it should apply to God. Or, you'd have to convince me that God creating an imperfect designer is inherently a *mistake*. Short of that, I don't accept your statements as valid.
Now lets take the notion that the universe was created for god's people. This would have been the design goal.

Lets look at the mistakes.
- To many planets/solarsystems used for scenery.
- The enviroment is hostile (gamma flashes etc.)
- We as species have missed a lot of the time that the earth had (we came late to the scene).
- Things like to eat us.


So, either the design goal is/was diffenrent or there is no creator.




I don't see it that way at all. The universe is contingent, is created. The universe is not God. Only God is God. Only God is perfect. Therefore the universe is not perfect.
Given your *personal standards*, your beliefs follow from that. I consider that to be a bit limiting, but no doubt you have all the intellectual satisfaction you care to have and that's fine by me.;)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Now lets take the notion that the universe was created for god's people. This would have been the design goal.

Lets look at the mistakes.
- To many planets/solarsystems used for scenery.
- The enviroment is hostile (gamma flashes etc.)
- We as species have missed a lot of the time that the earth had (we came late to the scene).
- Things like to eat us.

So, either the design goal is/was diffenrent or there is no creator.

Your mistakes, you must admit, may not be mistakes to others.

Humans exist. Humans need a "place" in which to exist, or else they could not exist. So the universe exists, and we exist in it. Christians are at least as cognizant of universal and existential pitfalls as you are. They have different explanations for them. Your concluding statement doesn't follow from your mistakes. The reality of mistakes (I'm going to admit that they are mistakes for the sake of my point) does not mean that the universe was not created for us. Why should our expectation/demand be a mistake-free universe? That is where your thought argument falls apart. Your demand or expectation is nice, but it's just you and God is not contingent upon what you want or would have.




Given your *personal standards*, your beliefs follow from that. I consider that to be a bit limiting, but no doubt you have all the intellectual satisfaction you care to have and that's fine by me.;)

I've always maintained that religious believers have much in common with skeptics. People think alike. The particulars differ, but wen're all after intellectual satisfaction and we all pick and choose ways to limit what we will entertain.

-Elliot

[wollery]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Wollery, I just smile when I see such loaded statements. You had to say "fails miserably"? You couldn't just say "fails", or "does not"? If you were more dispassionate here, I wouldn't think what I do think about you, that you've got a particular pony you're betting on and damn the others.

It is a challenge for evolutionary theory, and I base that on the response from the evolutionary community. If it is not a challenge, why the informed and detailed responses? If it is not a challenge, why do educated scientists advocate the theory? The loaded statements smack of wishful thinking. If this was all dispassionate I could take it more seriously. Of course then it would also likely be a non-issue. And it definitely isn't.

If it fails as a tenet on which to base ID, then why do some people, in fact, use it as a tenet on which to base ID? I agree that it fails for you, but it doesn't fail for everyone, so your absolutist statement, again, isn't exactly very impressive.

I think that the absolutist claims of the irreducible complexity crowd are exaggerated, often too much bluster and not enough careful thinking. That to me says more about particulars, be they people or individual cases, than the theory in general. Like all theories, it may be over-applied or poorly applied. I use the word miserably because it doesn't just fail on a scientific level, but also on a philosophical level. Irreducible complexity is a scientific cop out, because the point of science is to seek the mechanisms by which things happen, and IC says, "that's too complex to explain". It fails philosophically because it says, "we shouldn't bother seeking an explanation for that".

The detailed responses are required, because without them the IC advocates could say, "look, no one has refuted our claims, so they must have merit". That there are scientists who advocate IC is not surprising, there are doctors who advocate homeopathy, despite the total lack of any evidence that it has any benificial effect. That some people use IC as a tenet for their theories impresses me not one iota.

Am I passionate about this? Of course I am. When I see people advocating a totally unscientific, lazy, pseudotheory as if it were a viable alternative it makes me angry. However, my opinion of whether or not IC is valid is based on the evidence and methodology, not on wishful thinking. As for your accusation that I'm betting on a particular pony, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm perfectly willing to accept any theory which can be evidentially backed up. I'm even willing to accept theories which have no current evidence, but make testable predictions. That's the definition of a theory. So please tell me, what evidence is there for IC, and what predictions does it make?

I don't think that objective reality is contingent upon the personal needs of individuals. You exclude theories if they don't meet certain base standards. I accept that, and even respect that a bit. Given your *personal standards*, your beliefs follow from that. I consider that to be a bit limiting, but no doubt you have all the intellectual satisfaction you care to have and that's fine by me.

I lack the intellectual filters that you have, and I'm not making that into a moral issue. Filters and standards and explanations, to me, are not indicative of objective reality.

-Elliot Well, you have to have a standard by which to measure the validity of a theory, or every idea anyone ever had would be a valid scientific theory! As for my personal standards, they are the same as they should be for any scientist, and they've been around for a long time.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by elliotfc

It is a challenge for evolutionary theory, and I base that on the response from the evolutionary community. If it is not a challenge, why the informed and detailed responses? If it is not a challenge, why do educated scientists advocate the theory?


This is at best naive, and at worst an outright lie -- but it ties in to some misstatements you made earlier as well, to wit:


Science is political too. If not, science types would not petition governments and argue in front of courts and stuff.


You're failing to distinguish between the content and practice of science, the content and practice of supporting science, and the application of science to other problems. In an ideal world, with infinite resources, scientists wouldn't need to petition governments for support, because they would have everything that they need. Scientists would only argue in front of courts when the court had a need for "scientific evidence" of some sort, as expert witnesses to a material fact.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. I can't do science unless I have the resources I need (it's hard, for example, to write computer programs without a computer). Since the government will (sometimes) provide resources to people it is persuaded needs them, I (and scientists in general) need to petition the government for resources. But that's not science. That's something scientists do in order to be able to do science.

ID is not a challenge for evolutionary theory. It is a political challenge to the ability to do (and to teach) evolutionary theory. If the government were to outlaw neurosurgery (or to demand that homeopathy be practiced in all hospitals), that wouldn't be a challenge to "medical theory." That would simply be an attempt to influence by force what could not be influenced intellectually. Really, it's no different in spirit or morality than sending in a Mafia thug to say "if you do this, I break-a you leg." Breaking my leg doesn't prove you right, or me wrong. It doesn't establish that your medical or scientific judgement is better than mine. It merely establishes a level of "morality" that you don't see fit to rise to.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by wollery
I use the word miserably because it doesn't just fail on a scientific level, but also on a philosophical level. Irreducible complexity is a scientific cop out, because the point of science is to seek the mechanisms by which things happen, and IC says, "that's too complex to explain".

No. It's too complex to happen, not too complex to explain. God knows there are explanations. WHat, do you expect me to say that the explanations don't exist? That would be a deliberate falsehood on my part. Rather, the explanations exist, but they ARE NOT necessarily objective reality. And in spite of the explanations, it doesn't mean that they actually have happened, can happen, will ever happen, have been observed to happen, etc.


It fails philosophically because it says, "we shouldn't bother seeking an explanation for that".

Really? I think you're putting words in people's mouths. You've put the statement in quotes. Back it up. Where did you get it from please?

Actually, irreducible complexity types DO in fact ask for explanations. Fact. I've read Behe's book, and he did in fact ask for explanations. So at least in his case you are wrong. And in my case, I do seek explanations. I'm always seeking explanations.


The detailed responses are required, because without them the IC advocates could say, "look, no one has refuted our claims, so they must have merit".

That's a fair point.

That there are scientists who advocate IC is not surprising, there are doctors who advocate homeopathy, despite the total lack of any evidence that it has any benificial effect. That some people use IC as a tenet for their theories impresses me not one iota.

OK. But you do admit that some people can use IC to bolster a theory. Let's get beyond your own person predilictions. If I'm not mistaken, you said that IC can't be used to back ID. But it can. Forget about whether or not you are impressed. It can. It does.


Am I passionate about this? Of course I am. When I see people advocating a totally unscientific, lazy, pseudotheory as if it were a viable alternative it makes me angry.

I'm sorry for that. I don't think it is unscientific. Nor do I think it is lazy. As for your anger, only you can control that.



However, my opinion of whether or not IC is valid is based on the evidence and methodology, not on wishful thinking.

Fair enough. I've already said that I don't think that objective reality is contingent upon how we do things, or the limits we place on ourselves, so I understand why you think as you do, but it's not for me.


As for your accusation that I'm betting on a particular pony, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm perfectly willing to accept any theory which can be evidentially backed up. I'm even willing to accept theories which have no current evidence, but make testable predictions. That's the definition of a theory. So please tell me, what evidence is there for IC, and what predictions does it make?

I'm not going to convince you, because I don't personally limit myself to "testable predictions". Whatever that means. And I'm still waiting for god knows how many evolutionary claims to be tested.

What evidence is there for IC? The *fact* that there is complexity in biology. Is it irreducible? That's a theory. It is based on the *fact* of complexity.


Well, you have to have a standard by which to measure the validity of a theory, or every idea anyone ever had would be a valid scientific theory! As for my personal standards, they are the same as they should be for any scientist, and they've been around for a long time.

Right. Should be is the key phrase. Frustrating, too.

Wollery you're in a tough spot here, and you are agreeable and don't let the buggers get you down! We all have an equilizing fate awaiting each of us.

-Elliot

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by elliotfc
The reality of mistakes (I'm going to admit that they are mistakes for the sake of my point) does not mean that the universe was not created for us.
That we exist doesn't mean that the universe was created for us or any purpose. It only mean that we exist.

And there is no good reason to assume that we are here for any special purpose and that the universe is created for us.

There is only false hope, insecurity and dogma that would demand so.

[wollery]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I'm not going to convince you, because I don't personally limit myself to "testable predictions". Whatever that means. And I'm still waiting for god knows how many evolutionary claims to be tested.And here is the crux of the matter. If a theory doesn't make predictions which can be tested then it has absolutely no scientific validity, and is thus in the realms of philosophy and/or religion.

The fact that there are predictions of evolution which haven't been tested does not make the theory less valid scientifically. It may make it less satisfying and less palatable for many people, but not less valid.

ps If you don't know what testable predictions means then you really shouldn't be discussing science, as that is one of its fundamental bases.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I'm not going to convince you, because I don't personally limit myself to "testable predictions".

Well now I HAVE to ask.

What other methods do you use? How do you know if they are valid if they cannot be tested?

[Elind]

Originally posted by elliotfc
quote:
Exactly. It's a methodology that creationists violate every time they use the word.



Violate! Eek! I admire your need to protect the inviolability of science, and I'm sure she is grateful for your chivalry.

You miss the point and view science just like some new-ager who thinks all opinions are equally valid.

Science and scientific method are what they are and work because of that. What you say is no difference from saying that for certain purposes you wish to say that 2+2=5.

You lack an understanding of what science is.

As an edit; I'm thinking I may have been asleep at the wheel. Are you the same jokester who was bragging here a while ago about your skills in confusing children?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by wollery
And here is the crux of the matter. If a theory doesn't make predictions which can be tested then it has absolutely no scientific validity, and is thus in the realms of philosophy and/or religion.

Exactly. I feel the core of this is that science is not a body of beliefs, but a methodology to develope and test theories against the world.

[uruk]

Sorry to but in, but I see ID as simply a arbitrary point selected by believers.

"What created the univers?"

"God did."

"What created god?"

"Nothing, god was always there. "

"Who said?"

"God did."

"Stop."

Sounds a bit circular and arbitrary to me. Just a belief. No more or less valid than let's say......"The universe was always here."

"What created the universe?"

"Nothing, the universe was always here."

"Well, let's try to find out how and why."

Truely very difficult questions to answer since evidence is very scarce and hard to come by. So it seems to come to a matter of belief. The only difference that I see is that one belief allows you to ask questions and seek answers. The other does not.

To me ID provides no practical or viable answers much less testable claims or thoeries. But that's my belief.

As to the universe not being perfect, Well that seems to depend on who you ask. Being eaten may not seem so perfect to the one eaten, but it's just peachy to the one doing the eating.

[arthwollipot]

I've always had a problem with Irreducable Complexity. Using the terms that IC-proponents use, the argument appears to be basically thus:

"This object is too complex to have formed by random chance. Therefore it must have been designed."

It is given form and substance in the form of Paley's Watchmaker argument, which I'm sure we're all familiar with.

I have three main objections to this statement. First, the phrase "too complex". Using this phrase sounds to me a whole lot like an Argument from Incredulity. "I can't believe that this could have formed by random chance, therefore it did not do so." It ignores what other people believe, for example, and places the limitation of what is and is not "too complex" squarely in the subjective camp.

The second problem is with the phrase "random chance", but this is a very old argument and I won't elaborate here, except to say that evolution is not random chance.

The third objection I have is that people comtinue to cling to the "too complex" idea despite the fact that it has been shown that gradual evolution of so-called "irreducably complex" items is not impossible.

There's one for the eye here (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_stages.html), and one for the bombardier beetle here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html). Both are favourites of Irreducable Complexity advocates.

Never mind if these scenarios are the means by which it did happen. They demonstrate that it could happen, and thereby refult the "impossible" claim. If you claim that something is impossible, it only takes one demonstration of possibility to falsify that claim. ID has been falsified, at least in the cases of the eye and the bombardier beetle, yet people still cling to it.

That is not science. In science, once a theory has been disproved, it is discarded. You don't keep trying to push the teaching of phlogiston once oxygen is discovered.

Irreducable complexity has been shown to be like phlogiston. Once a potentially useful explanation, now due to further investigation and understanding no longer so.

In fact, I'd dispute that it was ever useful to consider irreducable complexity in science, since once you hit the "irreducable" barrier, inquiry stops.

[c4ts]

Complexity is no indication of design. Complex mistakes happen all the time, we call it "politics."

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by c4ts
Complexity is no indication of design. Complex mistakes happen all the time, we call it "politics."

Exactly!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts

Complexity is no indication of design. Complex mistakes happen all the time, we call it "politics." No, this is merely a matter of stupidity confonting "the complex" ... which inadvertantly fails and makes things even more complex.