Quote from mattai
You're using the old "specified complexity" argument. In other words, "it's too complicated to have popped out of thin air, so god made it". To answer your question, a complex DNA pattern didn't form. Something simpler formed and this, step by step, lead to something more complex.
Besides, a few hundred years ago people didn't know how lightning was made, so they assumed it was because a guy was up in the clouds chucking lightning bolts at us...maybe it's better to withhold judgement until science comes up with a decent answer? And then still withhold judgement, because it'll keep looking for alternatives.
Besides, a few hundred years ago people didn't know how lightning was made, so they assumed it was because a guy was up in the clouds chucking lightning bolts at us...maybe it's better to withhold judgement until science comes up with a decent answer? And then still withhold judgement, because it'll keep looking for alternatives.
Dawkins wrote the same thing. His argument is often referred to "the ultimate boeing 747 gambit", basically calling God the ultimate boeing 747.
Essentially, an argument for simplicity should more likely run counter to intelligent design than for it. Supposedly, the creationist position is that a boeing 747 is too complex to have simply "sprung up" by chance / "evolution" so intelligent design must have been the cause. Dawkin's counter is that a boeing 747, indeed, did not spring into existence randomly. It was engineered by highly intelligent humans, and assembled by a combination of humans and machines, which, put together are many magnitudes more complex than a mere boeing 747. Any "being" that creates a 747 should logically be even more complex than 747 (the concept of conservation of information, which you should know having brought up "specified complexity" ~> Dembski). Thus, "God" having created this 747 out of thin air is more complex than the 747, and God is "the ultimate boeing 747". "Who created God?"
Now, this isn't against you, mattai. This is more of a rant against Dawkins...
I disagree with the "specified complexity" argument, having designed software/simulations/viruses that indeed seem to violate most "laws of conservation of information". I understand how persistent patterns can be interpreted as new information, pulled from chaos.
However, Dawkins went about it the wrong way in his counter and grossly simplifies the specified complexity argument. The complexity of "God" ("Who created God?") is irrelevant, because Dembski's specified complexity argument specifically places "God" outside of this "closed system" (bound by natural sciences).
So while the specified complexity may be flawed, the converse is not necessarily proven. Dawkins proved that supposedly logical arguments made by creationists was wrong. Good for him, but he should not be using that as "evidence" that God doesn't exist (as he did in his The God Delusion). I'm surprised how many people confuse logical contrapositions, conversions, and equivalences.
Last edited by N0x_ at 11:55 am, May 3 2011