Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ryyker

Irreducible Complexity.

Recommended Posts

It is most certainly obvious to conclude that IC does exist. But what is the best course of action if one cannot accept it or reject it?

 

Simple, just apply the Rhodesia Solution.

40663[/snapback]

That clip was a perfect illustration. I always see the level of intellectual/political mud that has been successfully thrown at science, by evolutionary thought, when somebody demands the scientific product of Intelligent Design.

 

The reason this demand is so telling is because of the nature of all good methodological science... It's ALL steeped in, and dependent on, Intelligent Design the whole way through. The only difference is, that evolutionary thought teaches, that the design is apparent and not actual, where ID says; No, it's actually and truly design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it would have been nice to have gotten some agreement on the existence of this simple concept. Acknowledgment and acceptance without "mights" and "maybes", without evocation and twisted logic, without the refusal to except even the definition.

 

IC is of course real. So simple a concept, so simple the observation of its existence. One only needs to see the twists, avoidance of simple questions and arbitary alteration of plain meaning that is needed in order to deny its existence.

 

The implications of IC for evolution is profound, it would have been great to start on a basis of agreement and move forward and apply it to evolution, to test evolution. After all, we are not here to defend our own beliefs at all costs but to examine, test, learn and discuss, right?

 

The implications of the denial of IC for evolution is, I think, far more profound. If something is true, as many claim evolution is, can it not withstand testing against all other true things? Can a concept as big and explanatory as evolution not withstand exposure to a much smaller less explanatory concept? Why would we consider a concept true if it needed to be protected from other truths? Is a fortress secure against an army if it needs to be kept protected from one arrow? Wouldn't we welcome other smaller observations of reality so that we can confirm even more a bigger observation.

 

The implications of the denial of IC for evolutionists is, I think, also profound. In any contentious issue the most fundamental question one must ask is - Who is credible? I find it the best question to ask because the incredible quickly reveal themselves. To be a proponent of something that one does not care about the truth of but merely the persuasion of others one must be prepared to act in an incredible manner because truth might not be enough. The most basic thing an incredible person does is hide things; only reveal that which helps with persuasion and obscure anything that does not or might be a threat to it. It is an attempt to gain power over what others believe because controlling what others believe is the primary goal not the revelation of truth.

 

Beware all who would seek to deny you information, for in their hearts they deem themselves your master. - unknown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tommy

Irreducible complexity is a watchmaker argument; specified complexity is god-of-the-gaps. Both draw on incredulity based on a lack of appreciation of geological timescales (as does the distinction between observed speciation and macroevolution).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irreducible complexity is a watchmaker argument; specified complexity is god-of-the-gaps.  Both draw on incredulity based on a lack of appreciation of geological timescales (as does the distinction between observed speciation and macroevolution).

40698[/snapback]

Hi Tommy,

 

Can you formalize this argument for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tommy

Can you formalize this argument for us?

 

No argument per se, just a couple of thoughts. Design in nature can't be identified in the same way as human artifice in a flint, or indeed a bridge, as there is no designed reality gainst which to compare our observations or identify them as hints of an established pattern. If some organ were shown to be irreducibly complex, design would be no more likely than a hitherto unknown natural cause.

 

I often find the complexity of life on Earth improbable until I reflect on the age of the Earth. It is worth noting that if the expansion of space really is accelerating as measured and gravity unable to bring the galactic clusters together then we are living at the very start of a Universe that may take qunitillions of years to disippate into pure energy. Not the end of days it would seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some organ were shown to be irreducibly complex, design would be no more likely than a hitherto unknown natural cause.

40781[/snapback]

Why do you say this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument per se, just a couple of thoughts.  Design in nature can't be identified in the same way as human artifice in a flint, or indeed a bridge, as there is no designed reality gainst which to compare our observations or identify them as hints of an established pattern.If some organ were shown to be irreducibly complex, design would be no more likely than a hitherto unknown natural cause.

This is only true if you first eliminate the possibility of a designer. Without the designer only nature can be allowed to answer the question of design therefore lending that there must be some unknown action at work. If however, the possibility of a designer is allowed into the discussion then the question may be answered with regard to that possibilty. To not allow the possibilty is the equal of discussing the flint or bridge without the allowing possibility of it having a designer. You would then be reduced to assuming the bridge is a natural occurence which we cannot explain yet.

 

 

 

I often find the complexity of life on Earth improbable until I reflect on the age of the Earth.  It is worth noting that if the expansion of space really is accelerating as measured and gravity unable to bring the galactic clusters together then we are living at the very start of a Universe that may take qunitillions of years to disippate into pure energy.  Not the end of days it would seem.

40781[/snapback]

It would be worth noting if true. The expansion of space is no proof of age, only proof of action. Can you watch the freeway and tell me the age of the autos from the speed they travel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tommy

Why do you say this?

 

Because neither a supernatural agency nor an as yet unidentified natural factor are known to exist much less be held responsible. Taking it for granted that the supernatural source is an intelligent designer would be further presumption. True, for the time being the supernatural cause would be no less likely and someone might see this as the hand of Allah or Jehovah or whoever although this would be the product of faith rather than observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tommy

This is only true if you first eliminate the possibility of a designer.

No, I didn’t eliminate the possibility of a designer. I just noted that hints of its involvement cannot be identified in nature as we have no known divinely-created product to compare against (whereas a flint or bridge can be compared with known artificiality).

 

Can you watch the freeway and tell me the age of the autos from the speed they travel?

I could if their speed were established as a “standard candle†in the same way certain astronomical phenomena are. Stars balance the inward pull of gravity with the outward push of thermal pressure. Our Sun is stable but some larger stars known as Cepheids fluctuate regularly between the pull and push winning; the greater the length of the fluctuations, the bigger the star and the greater its intrinsic brightness. The relative brightness of such stars from Earth indicates the distance to their host galaxy or cluster. Red shift measurements, used for greater distances, are supported by data from such “standard candles†as Cepheids. Distance doesn't equate to age, but either all clusters have been receding from each other for billions of years or they were created to look that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it would have been nice to have gotten some agreement on the existence of this simple concept. Acknowledgment and acceptance without "mights" and "maybes", without evocation and twisted logic, without the refusal to except even the definition.

Now this isn't directed at you Ryyker, but what I find funny is that when the Creationists ask questions about a subject that an Evolutionist brings up it is considered a good tactic to get the Evolutionist to stick his/her foot in his/her mouth. But when an Evolutionist asks questions in the same manner they get accused of Equivocating.

 

From what I've seen elsewhere on the internet is that IC is basically not considered as evidence against Evolution because the definition of IC basically dis-allowsed evolution. I for one don't know enough about it, so I was interested in this thread.

 

IC is of course real. So simple a concept, so simple the observation of its existence. One only needs to see the twists, avoidance of simple questions and arbitary alteration of plain meaning that is needed in order to deny its existence.

If you say so. I for one was simply trying to nail down the definition as opposed to going in without full knowledge of what I was willing to discuss.

 

The implications of IC for evolution is profound, it would have been great to start on a basis of agreement and move forward and apply it to evolution, to test evolution. After all, we are not here to defend our own beliefs at all costs but to examine, test, learn and discuss, right?

Well from the little I know about it, the definition set forth for IC by Mr Behe completely removed the possibility of Evolution, so I don't see how it is profound.

 

The implications of the denial of IC for evolution is, I think, far more profound. If something is true, as many claim evolution is, can it not withstand testing against all other true things? Can a concept as big and explanatory as evolution not withstand exposure to a much smaller less explanatory concept? Why would we consider a concept true if it needed to be protected from other truths? Is a fortress secure against an army if it needs to be kept protected from one arrow? Wouldn't we welcome other smaller observations of reality so that we can confirm even more a bigger observation.

Here is my concern about the Concept of IC. Does IC allow things to be re purposed? Because that one of the things that Evolution does. If IC cannot take into account re purposing then IC is not a good test for Evolution.

 

 

The implications of the denial of IC for evolutionists is, I think, also profound. In any contentious issue the most fundamental question one must ask is - Who is credible? I find it the best question to ask because the incredible quickly reveal themselves. To be a proponent of something that one does not care about the truth of but merely the persuasion of others one must be prepared to act in an incredible manner because truth might not be enough. The most basic thing an incredible person does is hide things; only reveal that which helps with persuasion and obscure anything that does not or might be a threat to it. It is an attempt to gain power over what others believe because controlling what others believe is the primary goal not the revelation of truth.

I find it interesting that you say this. I gave you the perfect time to fully explain what your purpose was, and you chose to hide it. Are you now saying that you are not a credible person? And then you chose to tease everyone with your plan B. Seeing you still have not shown us what your original point was going to be, I still say you are obscuring it from everyone one this site.

 

Beware all who would seek to deny you information, for in their hearts they deem themselves your master. - unknown

40696[/snapback]

Yeah I couldn't agree with you more Ryyker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it would have been nice to have gotten some agreement on the existence of this simple concept. Acknowledgment and acceptance without "mights" and "maybes", without evocation and twisted logic, without the refusal to except even the definition.

40696[/snapback]

Rykker, is seems to me your entire point rests on your definition, which I think is flawed. I don't see why I should accept it just because you want me to.

 

IC is of course real. So simple a concept, so simple the observation of its existence...

The implications of IC for evolution is profound, it would have been great to start on a basis of agreement and move forward and apply it to evolution, to test evolution.

40696[/snapback]

The definition you have given of IC, I believe is real, however I don't think it applies to evolution in the way you think it does.

However, there is no reason we can't still go ahead and test evolution using your definition. Perhaps once we start applying it it will become apparent where it is flawed?

 

After all, we are not here to defend our own beliefs at all costs but to examine, test, learn and discuss, right?

40696[/snapback]

Absolutely. But you seem intent on using your definition and no other, regardless of what others say. This learning and discussing thing needs to be a two way street, and not just you trying to tell the rest of us what you believe is right.

 

If you want to test evolution with your definition I'm ready and willing :lol:

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this isn't directed at you Ryyker, but what I find funny is that when the Creationists ask questions about a subject that an Evolutionist brings up it is considered a good tactic to get the Evolutionist to stick his/her foot in his/her mouth.  But when an Evolutionist asks questions in the same manner they get accused of Equivocating.

40854[/snapback]

You didn't seem to understand what the word 'part' meant in relation to a mouse trap. It seemed to confuse you. You needed clarification. Clarification was provided. You understood it. And then got confused again by the concept - compare lines 1 and 2 in post 121. I guess I should have started a thread - "Parts of a mouse trap, What are they?"

 

You are either equivocating on one term in the definition of IC or you simply lack the intelligence to understand such a basic concept. If you have reason to think that a word means something other than the accepted meaning that everyone else uses then please provide reason or use the word as everyone else does.

 

From what I've seen elsewhere on the internet is that IC is basically not considered as evidence against Evolution because the definition of IC basically dis-allowsed evolution. I for one don't know enough about it, so I was interested in this thread.

 

You are not sure what 'part' means in relation to a mouse trap so I fail to see how you can understand the concept of IC, let alone starting to use it as evidence either way in regards to evolution.

 

Are there any other words in the definition when applying it to a mouse trap that you need clarification on?

 

If you say so.  I for one was simply trying to nail down the definition as opposed to going in without full knowledge of what I was willing to discuss.

 

Looks like there is.

 

Well from the little I know about it, the definition set forth for IC by Mr Behe completely removed the possibility of Evolution, so I don't see how it is profound.

Here is my concern about the Concept of IC.  Does IC allow things to be re purposed?  Because that one of the things that Evolution does.  If IC cannot take into account re purposing then IC is not a good test for Evolution.

 

Oh, apparently you want to test IC against evolution. I thought you wanted to nail down the definition.

 

I find it interesting that you say this. I gave you the perfect time to fully explain what your purpose was, and you chose to hide it.  Are you now saying that you are not a credible person?  And then you chose to tease everyone with your plan B.  Seeing you still have not shown us what your original point was going to be, I still say you are obscuring it from everyone one this site.

Yeah I couldn't agree with you more Ryyker.

40854[/snapback]

<sarcasm>

Yes, I was trying to deceive people. I am just kicking myself for using the words - "I am sure many can figure out where I would ultimately like to go with this thread" in my OP. And, can you believe it, when I saw that aggreement about the existence of IC was looking extremely unlikely I used the term 'Plan B'. Not just once, but twice. :D And then, I am still reeling that I did this, I clarified what Plan A and Plan B was in post 127.

Oh well, lesson learned - never spell out exactly what you are up to when attempting to deceive people.

</sarcasm>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rykker, is seems to me your entire point rests on your definition, which I think is flawed. I don't see why I should accept it just because you want me to.

The definition you have given of IC, I believe is real, however I don't think it applies to evolution in the way you think it does.

However, there is no reason we can't still go ahead and test evolution using your definition. Perhaps once we start applying it it will become apparent where it is flawed?

Absolutely. But you seem intent on using your definition and no other, regardless of what others say. This learning and discussing thing needs to be a two way street, and not just you trying to tell the rest of us what you believe is right.

 

If you want to test evolution with your definition I'm ready and willing :D

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

40868[/snapback]

My definition of IC rests on the plain use of the English language and the plain reading of Behe's words.

 

Did you not care what the clarification provided in post 59 said, not understand it, or simply reject it?

 

You have fought tooth and nail to obscure even the concept of IC, let alone test its existence. Would you seek to shed light on the testing of IC agaisnt evolution or would you seek to spread smoke anyhwere you think you can get away with it. I think your actions even accepting the concept of IC reveals the later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My definition of IC rests on the plain use of the English language and the plain reading of Behe's words.

40912[/snapback]

Lol, it's okay Ryyker, the English was fine :D I don't think I've had any problem understanding the concept. I just don't think Behe got it right.

 

Did you not care what the clarification provided in post 59 said, not understand it, or simply reject it?

40912[/snapback]

I rejected it because I don't think it applies to evolution.

 

You have fought tooth and nail to obscure even the concept of IC, let alone test its existence.

40912[/snapback]

No, if you go back through a lot of my posts you'll see I've been trying to clarify the two definitions and work out which one should be used. I'd consider that an attempt to reveal what IC actually is, not an attempt to obscure.

 

Would you seek to shed light on the testing of IC agaisnt evolution or would you seek to spread smoke anyhwere you think you can get away with it. I think your actions even accepting the concept of IC reveals the later.

40912[/snapback]

What smoke? I've been completely upfront. There's two definitions and I don't agree with the one you're using. Despite that I've stated I'm willing to test your definition against evolutionary theory and see where we go.

 

Seriously, can we stop the pointless finger pointing for five minutes and actually talk on the same level?

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't seem to understand what the word 'part' meant in relation to a mouse trap. It seemed to confuse you. You needed clarification. Clarification was provided. You understood it. And then got confused again by the concept - compare lines 1 and 2 in post 121. I guess I should have started a thread - "Parts of a mouse trap, What are they?"

Oh no I understand the definition of part, I think its revealing that you keep on attacking me in this fashion. In case you were wondering there are more than 1 definition of part. Your 'plain use' of part can be and probably is different from other peoples use of the word.

 

But I'm fine going in with your definition.

 

So for you each bone in the skeleton system would be its own 'part' as opposed to the full skeleton system be considered a 'part'. We can than safely remove any single limb and still have a human. We can remove any singe finger joint and still have a human.

 

 

This also means that each cell in an organ is considered a part. That means we can easily remove many cells from an organ and still have it function.

 

Now this final use of part is not what you are suggesting, and that is to consider each feature as a part. Or would you say that each feature was considered a part, so if we removed the pigment from skin we would still have a human.

 

Do you have any issues with the use of part that I think you are putting forth?

 

 

You are either equivocating on one term in the definition of IC or you simply lack the intelligence to understand such a basic concept. If you have reason to think that a word means something other than the accepted meaning that everyone else uses then please provide reason or use the word as everyone else does.

:D

 

Ryyker, I really hope you can learn to stop with these snide little comments. It does not make anyone want to take you seriously. Unlike you though I choose not to add people to ignore lists regardless of how they behave, or what they believe in.

 

 

So what's it going to be, are you going to finally say that you consider each feature a 'part' or are you going to complain that I am equivocating? I think I know what you will choose to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you were wondering there are more than 1 definition of part.  Your 'plain use' of part can be and probably is different from other peoples use of the word.

 

But I'm fine going in with your definition.

It doesn't matter which definition you use, the problem is apples and oranges.

 

Irreducible complexity is based on essentialist thinking; the view that, for any specific kind of entity, there is a set of characteristics or properties all of which any entity of that kind must possess, and therefore all things can be precisely defined or described.

 

Irreducible complexity goes one step further in regard to biological features and claims the biological features cannot function without all the parts.

 

Evolution, on the other hand, is based on population thinking i.e. the statistical relationships between members of a population in defining biological features. The statistics define the biological feature or organism, not the parts. For example, the human eye is defined by statistical relationships between features within the population. In a case where the S cones are missing from an inviduals eye, for whatever reason. Population thinking still includes this person within the statistical relationship, even though their eye falls outside the statistical mean of what we would say a human eye is.

 

So even if a human was born with an eye without S cones, that missing part according to evolutionary theory does not mean the individual does not have a human eye. They merely have an eye outside the statiscal mean of 20/20 full colour vision. Where as irreducible complexity claims they do not have a human eye, due to a part (S cones) missing that would make it function as a human eye with full colour.

Ryyker, I really hope you can learn to stop with these snide little comments.

Don't let it bother you. I tend to agree with him. But I would word it differently - you lack simplistic intelligence. I believe your arguments may be too sophisticated to get any traction here.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter which definition you use, the problem is apples and oranges.

Gotcha, I was doing this :D when I read this first line but after reading your post it makes sense to me now.

 

Irreducible complexity is based on essentialist thinking; the view that, for any specific kind of entity, there is a set of characteristics or properties all of which any entity of that kind must possess, and therefore all things can be precisely defined or described. 

 

Irreducible complexity goes one step further in regard to biological features and claims the biological features cannot function without all the parts.

Okay you really needed to say this at the beginning of the thread :D I wouldn't have needed to hop in here at all :D

 

Evolution, on the other hand, is based on population thinking i.e. the statistical relationships between members of a population in defining biological features.  The statistics define the biological feature or organism, not the parts.  For example, the human eye is defined by statistical relationships between features within the population.  In a case where the S cones are missing from an inviduals eye, for whatever reason.  Population thinking still includes this person within the statistical relationship, even though their eye falls outside the statistical mean of what we would say a human eye is. 

 

So even if a human was born with an eye without S cones, that missing part according to evolutionary theory does not mean the individual does not have a human eye.  They merely have an eye outside the statiscal mean of 20/20 full colour vision.  Where as irreducible complexity claims they do not have a human eye, due to a part (S cones) missing that would make it function as a human eye with full colour.

Cool.

 

So just to make sure I understand the issue then. Within the concept of ID if an important part, such as the S cones in the eye, or the holder arm of the mouse trap is missing then it is no longer that "thing" anymore. But if the 'part' is not important, like the left CTRL button on a keyboard is missing then it is still the keyboard, although slightly damaged.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

Don't let it bother you.  I tend to agree with him.  But I would word it differently - you lack simplistic intelligence.  I believe your arguments may be too sophisticated to get any traction here.

 

:)

40940[/snapback]

 

ROFLOL Thank you Loungehead this made me smile. See the thing is I don't take anything that Ryyker says personally. I just do my best to point out when I feel that someone is being abrasive. He might think he has a valid reason for being this abrasive.

 

And this was the first time I can think of that I was accused of having sophisticated arguments :D I wasn't too sure how to take it at first, but I appreciate it. I know I over-think a lot of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha, I was doing this  :lol:  when I read this first line but after reading your post it makes sense to me now.

I thought it might throw yah! I'm glad what followed made sense.

Okay you really needed to say this at the beginning of the thread I wouldn't have needed to hop in here at all :lol: 

The problem is "the controversy" is generally seen as a political issue about whether Creationism or Evolution is science or not. And in the process, a lot of scientists from both sides spend too much time arguing the science of the matter. Some argue the philosophy too, but it tends to be overlooked, particularly the creationist position.

 

In fact the Philosophy of Biology paper I'm currently doing in a secular university spends a lot of time ripping apart Dawkins' The God Delusion because he really doesn't make very good philosophical arguments. We have also looked at the scientific basis for Darwin's The Origin of Species. Very little attention has been given to Creationism, which is why I am here.

 

And the way things are shaping up, there is very little philosophical analysis of Creationism from both sides, especially creationists. Almost every question I've asked in this forum, probing the philosophical basis of Creationism has been unanswered. And those questions that have been answered were insufficiently addressed.

 

Even finding the material is difficult. The Discovery Institute provides an obscure article on falsifiability. It looked more like a discussion paper on media strategy to deny that Intelligent Design is not a falsifiable theory, rather than a clear statement of how it is falsifiable.

 

So far, what I have pieced together indicates a Creationism is based on a completely different metaphysics from science. Creationism appears to use an understanding of "science" similar to Ancient Greeks, particular Plato and Aristotle, which is to be expected given the foundations of Christian thought. And that's not necessary a bad thing. But it does reveal the fundamental problem with "the controversy" philosophically.

Cool. 

 

So just to make sure I understand the issue then.  Within the concept of ID if an important part, such as the S cones in the eye, or the holder arm of the mouse trap is missing then it is no longer that "thing" anymore.  But if the 'part' is not important, like the left CTRL button on a keyboard is missing then it is still the keyboard, although slightly damaged.

 

Did I miss anything?

No, you pretty much got it.

 

As I said in another thread, missing parts means the function changes. The eye with missing S Cones becomes color blind to violet hues, so its function differs in terms of the type of visual images that will be constructed within the brain. Just as an eye without a lens would still send colour to the visual cortex, but not sharp images, shows that the eye still functions, but in a different way. The question for irreducible complexity; Is the eye still to considered a human eye?

 

In the case of the mouse trap... if it was missing the trigger arm, the next best function I can see for it, is a door stop. The weird thing is friends would still ask why I have a "mouse trap" jammed under my door. My answer would be, "Are you stupid? Its not a mouse trap, why would you even think that it was? Can't you see the door stop design in it?"

 

The missing CTRL button. That would be like the missing S cones. The object still can carry out most of its functions, but cannot do everything a fully functional object would do.

 

The problem for Irreducible Complex is that it relies on a static interpretation of the world. That is, a mouse trap is only a mouse trap if it has all its parts (essentialism). So even if a mouse did get caught in a "mouse trap" without a trigger arm, we cannot say the mouse was caught in a mouse trap. Maybe we would say the mouse is trapped in a door stop.

 

:lol:

ROFLOL  Thank you Loungehead this made me smile.  See the thing is I don't take anything that Ryyker says personally.  I just do my best to point out when I feel that someone is being abrasive.  He might think he has a valid reason for being this abrasive.

I disaprove of the way Ryyker was belittling you. And wanted to express it.

 

"All evil needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson.

And this was the first time I can think of that I was accused of having sophisticated arguments :D  I wasn't too sure how to take it at first, but I appreciate it.  I know I over-think a lot of things.

40948[/snapback]

I have a similar problem. A tendency to know how the sentences I write connect logically (in my head) but overlook that fact the expression does not always carry it through.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it might throw yah! I'm glad what followed made sense.

:lol: it certainly did. I like to read the entire post before I fully react to them.

 

The problem is "the controversy" is generally seen as a political issue about whether Creationism or Evolution is science or not.  And in the process, a lot of scientists from both sides spend too much time arguing the science of the matter.  Some argue the philosophy too, but it tends to be overlooked, particularly the creationist position.

You seem to hold a lot of respect for the creationist point of view. I do to, but I am curious how you came to it.

 

In fact the Philosophy of Biology paper I'm currently doing in a secular university spends a lot of time ripping apart Dawkins' The God Delusion because he really doesn't make very good philosophical arguments.  We have also looked at the scientific basis for Darwin's The Origin of Species.  Very little attention has been given to Creationism, which is why I am here.

Just remember when thinking about Dawkins is that he is a scientist first and a philosopher last.

 

And the way things are shaping up, there is very little philosophical analysis of Creationism from both sides, especially creationists.  Almost every question I've asked in this forum, probing the philosophical basis of Creationism has been unanswered.  And those questions that have been answered were insufficiently addressed. 

 

Even finding the material is difficult.  The Discovery Institute provides an obscure article on falsifiability.  It looked more like a discussion paper on media strategy to deny that Intelligent Design is not a falsifiable theory, rather than a clear statement of how it is falsifiable.

 

So far, what I have pieced together indicates a Creationism is based on a completely different metaphysics from science.  Creationism appears to use an understanding of "science" similar to Ancient Greeks, particular Plato and Aristotle, which is to be expected given the foundations of Christian thought.  And that's not necessary a bad thing.  But it does reveal the fundamental problem with "the controversy" philosophically.

I think the understanding you have so far is good. but the biggest thing to remember is that to a Creationist is that the Bible is infallible. So everything that they see is skewed by that perspective. Like you said its not a bad thing.

 

No, you pretty much got it.

 

As I said in another thread, missing parts means the function changes.  The eye with missing S Cones becomes color blind to violet hues, so its function differs in terms of the type of visual images that will be constructed within the brain.  Just as an eye without a lens would still send colour to the visual cortex, but not sharp images, shows that the eye still functions, but in a different way.  The question for irreducible complexity; Is the eye still to considered a human eye?

Good I thought I had it pretty much figured out after you explained it.

 

So here is the question then. If the eye without the 's cones' is not considered a human eye, is the person who has the 'non-human eye' still considered a human? This person has a 'non-human' part, so they cannot be human.

 

:lol: here is the question that will incite anger. If this person is no longer a human because of this different eye, doesn't this show that IC proves evolution? This person changed species because they have non-human features.

 

In the case of the mouse trap... if it was missing the trigger arm, the next best function I can see for it, is a door stop.  The weird thing is friends would still ask why I have a "mouse trap" jammed under my door.  My answer would be, "Are you stupid?  Its not a mouse trap, why would you even think that it was?  Can't you see the door stop design in it?"

I can imagine doing this to my friends. I think I would get slapped!

 

I disaprove of the way Ryyker was belittling you.  And wanted to express it.

 

"All evil needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson.

One of my favorite quotes from our founding fathers. I would list more but those would incite anger from people on this site also.

 

I have a similar problem.  A tendency to know how the sentences I write connect logically (in my head) but overlook that fact the expression does not always carry it through.

 

:lol:

40967[/snapback]

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to hold a lot of respect for the creationist point of view. I do to, but I am curious how you came to it.

I've studied a lot of philosophy at university. And while I have always been open to considering alternative ideas, the Philosophy of Buddhism paper that I'm doing introduced an approach to studying religious philosophy in a serious way, despite any disagreement I might personally have. Instead of dismissing perceived or real inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities in religious philosophy (and Buddhism has plenty), I've learnt to take those anomalies and find ways in which they can be reconciled within the philosophical system to which they relate. For example, instead of judging creationism from the perspective of evolutionary biology, it needs to be understood on its own terms.

 

So the respect I give creationism is based on my desire to learn the metaphysical basis for it.

Just remember when thinking about Dawkins is that he is a scientist first and a philosopher last.

40978[/snapback]

For sure. I find his historical anaylsis and sociological anaylsis very amateur too.

I think the understanding you have so far is good.  but the biggest thing to remember is that to a Creationist is that the Bible is infallible.  So everything that they see is skewed by that perspective.  Like you said its not a bad thing. 

Good I thought I had it pretty much figured out after you explained it.

That's the bit I struggle with. I have no understanding of Biblical interpretation. I was brought up a Catholic, and was taught that Genesis is metaphorical and the Bible was spiritual and moral guide. Not a scientific database.

 

And when I indicated a desire to learn Biblical interpretation in another thread, CTD kept trying to undermine the integrity of my enquiry. And the ensuing argument had the thread subsequently closed. So, I sort of avoid that issue now, which is a shame, because I'm still ignorant on how to interpret the Bible.

 

The other problem is that Creationism is not only a Christian science. Islam also adopts Creationism, so where does the Bible fit in with that?!

:lol:

But I'm not considering that just yet. My head might explode.

So here is the question then.  If the eye without the 's cones' is not considered a human eye, is the person who has the 'non-human eye' still considered a human?  This person has a 'non-human' part, so they cannot be human.

I assume so.

If this person is no longer a human because of this different eye, doesn't this show that IC proves evolution?  This person changed species because they have non-human features.

I suppose it does! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So even if a human was born with an eye without S cones, that missing part according to evolutionary theory does not mean the individual does not have a human eye.  They merely have an eye outside the statiscal mean of 20/20 full colour vision.  Where as irreducible complexity claims they do not have a human eye, due to a part (S cones) missing that would make it function as a human eye with full colour.

 

No, it only claims that the eye will not function properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it only claims that the eye will not function properly.

40987[/snapback]

 

I can accept you answer, but I am really interested in Ryyker's answer to this line of thinking.

 

From reading his posts it seems to me that if the mouse trap is missing a part it is no longer a mouse trap. So a human eye missing the s cones is no longer a human eye.

 

I do want to ask you this. Did you get the same impression from his posts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems some people want to play dumb and not accept the consequences of such action. It seems some people want to use the plain meaning of words only when it suits them.

 

The arbitary alteration of plain meaning is the antithesis of examination which surely defeats the main reason for this forum's exsitence.

 

I would like to ask a simple question that was asked by a great man a long time ago - How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to state that I think Javabean is highly intelligent, it has been a pleasure and informative to read his posts on EFT from a critical thinking and rhetoric detection perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to state that I think Javabean is highly intelligent, it has been a pleasure and informative to read his posts on EFT from a critical thinking and rhetoric detection perspective.

41098[/snapback]

 

PODPERSON!!!!!!!!!!! :o

 

What did you do with Ryyker!!!!!

 

Ryyker thank you for those kind words. I have enjoyed discussing different topics with you, even if we disagree. I find that your posts have been very well written and informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms