Posted on 08/08/2008 9:26:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The commonly cited case for intelligent design appeals to: (a) the irreducible complexity of (b) some aspects of life. But complex arguments invite complex refutations (valid or otherwise), and the claim that only some aspects of life are irreducibly complex implies that others are not, and so the average person remains unconvinced. Here I use another principle autopoiesis (self-making)-to show that all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
This paper is absolutely fascinating!
ping!
Thanks for the ping!
Creation "science" is getting more ingenious all the time!
As ingenious, and fundamentally wrong, as phlogiston chemistry.
There is something that is motivating the mechanisms of life as we understand them. What says take this blueprint and make a protein now? What tells the what when to do this? Maybe there is a naturalistic explanation for this, maybe not. Maybe it’s like an onion - there’s something behind the something behind, the something behind........
I suppose it depends on how determined you are to remain ignorant.
Not knowing how something works inspires some people to find out. So most of us no longer believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it. Most of us no longer believe arrows in flight need to be pushed along by angels.
What a load of poop.
No evolutionary biologist has suggested that vacuum cleaners are animals.
Darn! Wish I could read it. I can’t get the site to open.
There is an unbridgeable abyss below the autopoietic hierarchy, between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environment and the perfect purity, the single-molecule precision, the structural specificity, and the inversely causal integration, regulation, repair, maintenance and differential reproduction of life.
This argument makes no sense. Cells just seem too clean and orderly to be of naturalistic origin? Guess this can't be natural either:
Basically every creationist argument, no matter how gussied up, seems to come from simple-minded incredulity. "That can't possibly be the case," because, well, "it just can't!"
Every day for the last few billion years, the sun has taken millions of tons of Hydrogen and fuses it to produce Helium, releasing huge amounts of energy. What's the sun's "motivation?" What's gravity's motivation?
Preferred over “As lame, and fundamentally wrong, as evolutionary theory”.
Not "can't because it just can't." Extremely unlikely because we don't see it happening in the universe on any consistent enough basis. (Remember the principles of actual science.)
Was just watching the Cosmos series again the other night, and Sagan eloquent and passionate as always, explained that there have been multitudes of competing theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe etc., and because one theory appears to be wrong, the scientific method insists that it be given all possible latitude to prove it’s case.
Creationists are almost certainly wrong, but the world needs all ideas to be explored to their fullest before judgements are made.
Science and God are not mutually exclusive. Many evolutionary biologists are religious. Who’s to say that evolution was not God’s tool to get here from there?
If silver were to remelt and resolidify every time it didn’t come out round, and this occurred many trillions of times, do you think you wouldn’t get a round deposit of silver?
Likewise on it being iterative...a round disk might not look like much of a coin, but it could be an intermediate step, even if it doesn’t meet the modern neumistmatist’s needs. So even if an eyespot doesn’t provide true vision, it can be an intermediate step toward an eye.
We have good understanding of the mechanism of solar activity. We have a good theory to explain every every molecular reaction from a few seconds after the big bang until today.
A more accurate analogy would be what motivated the Big Bang.
Actually a few microseconds after the big bang.
Is it a valid question to then ask where the hypothetical uber-complex intellegent designer came from, or am I supposed to show reverence and stop there? If the hypothetical complex designer is somehow declared eternal and didn’t require a creator itself, what is the basis for that conclusion, other than pure faith?
If the Creator truly left as much evidence for Evolution as we have, but Evolution didn’t actually occur, then our Creator’s name is Loki.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.