I’m sure that this has been covered before, but since I can’t search…
Basic argument:
1)Things are complex
2)The more complex things are, the more likely they are to be created more or less whole rather than through incremental improvements
3)There are many things so amazingly complex that we see no likely way they could have come into bing incrementally
Therefore)Something must have created those things
It seems to me that premises 2 and 3 have the most potential for attack.
The question for the dopers is then “What’s wrong with this argument and can those wrong things be patched back up?”
Rather than bring in parts of other debates, I’d like to start this one fresh from here, even though it means repeating some information from other threads.
Here is the post that inspired this thread, I think:
This attacks the argument by proving that it leads to an absurd conclusion - that is, this is a proof by contradiction. As the exact argument given in the OP here is quite informal, I’d say it’s probably invalid - the conclusions don’t follow logically from the premises. Plus the premises having hedging built in, like “likely”, “many”, and “more or less”, doesn’t help matters - I’m not certain I’d accept any of them as true except 1), -and even then, only for certain definitions of “complex”.
Indeed that was the post, and thank you for following me here and kindly repeating your argument.
I disagree that there had to be more complexity to create current complexity. Modern computers have shown us that with rather simple tool sets (on, off, conditionals) we can do things far more complex through the tools than we can on our own. This assumes of course that time is a resource as well as computational power. This particular point doesn’t prove watchmaker, but it does show that it is at least possible to have more complexity come from less complexity.
Bryan Ekers, you’ve pointed out one of the weak points of the argument. Basically the thought is “why would we think things couldn’t be created whole?” While I have some rudimentary answers to that, they’re the standard sort and I’m rather hoping someone who’s done more in this area to provide some insight on that point.
Pochacco, RNA is a usual suspect in the “too complex for chance” argument.
The question is, could the structures we see have arisen through incremental steps? The *degree * of complexity is irrelevant. The *type * of complexity is highly relevent. The argument from design only works if complex organisms in nature display irreducible complexity. As is pointed out in the wiki article, though, scientists have pretty solidly refuted Behe et al’s alleged examples of irreducible complexity.
Shouldn’t the question be “Why couldn’t we think things, even complex things, could be created incrementally?” You’re still assuming that which you’re trying to prove.
Wait, is the computer the watch in this example? A divine computer-maker? Are we talking about the divine laptop, desktop, punch card reader? The divine Harvard Mark 1 or the divine tabulating machine?
Or is it the tools used to create the computer? A divine chip maker? A divine soldering iron maker? A divine drill, awl, chisel or hole punch?
Wait, are you arguing for or against irreducible complexity?
The problem is with the “pretty solidly” and the article’s many “may” type words. I absolutely agree that if we take the words of the people who have studied such things as likely to be true (as I think we should) then the argument from design has a fatal flaw. Unfortunately, many people consider the counterarguments too loose with not enough data on time lines involved for such counterarguments to be given credence over the design argument.
Ultimately it comes down to an appeal to authority on either side of the issue, which is a logical fallacy but a useful way to get through the day.
On my personal beliefs… I’ve now said that I believe in a Creator without any necessary attributes, and that I think we should listen to those who study the science that argues against design. Where does that leave me? I am of the opinion that there is more beauty in the idea of a creator than in the idea of complete randomness causing the universe to exist. So I’ve chosen the position that I know is an extreme long shot. I think this is a valid position to hold since I will not be overly shocked if enough evidence is given that I no longer think the long shot even worth considering. (like finding out the world really is round through direct evidence, for example)
I am really curious to see what someone who believes in the design argument without my reservations has to say, however.
An excellent question. I think it’s because the question the way you’ve stated wouldn’t give us a yes/no answer on a creator. If things can be created incrementally, there could still be a creator. If things can not be created incrementally then there must be a creator.
The goal of the argument is to prove to whatever extent possible that a creator exists. This goal is not entirely obtainable, I believe.
The computer was the complex device created through less complex means. It’s a counterargument to a counterargument against the thrust of the design argument. So for that to make sense I’ll do the short short version.
1)There are complex things
2)It is unlikely for such complex things to exist without a creator
Therefore: There is a creator
The idea of the argument is to prove the existence of a creator.
A counterargument that attacks the reason for the argument instead of the argument directly is that in order for something complex to be created, something even more complex must create it. This gives ad absurdum proof that complex things can not be created. Therefore no creator.
Showing that more complexity can follow from less complexity is a counterargument to this counterargument. You do point out the interesting point that the counterargument giving ad absurdum proof would indeed rule out any complexity, even that currently observed.
Well, I guess your first step is to find something that could not be created incrementally. And it can’t just be because it looks complicated to you - you’re going to need some seriously good-quality arguments.
I do not care much for a creator that should be more complex, however that point can not be hand waived, all creators described by believers are indeed more complex that human beings. Before I became a teapot agnostic I supposed that if there is a creator he/she/it is not something that deserves praise or adoration, because the watch is like a Rolex ripoff.
Some time ago I pointed also that biologists are finding that genes are just hacks to life (doing several things at the same time and sometimes badly) on top of the junk and useless code in them, research in artificial life is now looking to streamline the genes to find out how indeed an intelligent creator would do it.
This is IMHO worse for the creator argument, the suboptimal nature that we are finding shows that there was really no intelligence behind it, no creator worthy for us to worship. The watch is running and it is maintained really with spaghetti code that works only because other spaghetti code failed to do the job better than us. Indeed, it was like Dawkins said: the watch was made by a blind watchmaker, IOW not a creator.
Yep, I agree that you’ve got the best argument there against a creator. There’s no good reason that creator would have done such a poor job constructing things as they are now.
In the end, I don’t think science can remove the doubt far enough for me not to believe. Then again, in my case the belief is fairly suboptimal in it’s own way. I don’t give the creator and attributes, which means the belief has no impact on my life beyond thinking that things are connected. This in no way is incompatible with the belief that things are connected simply because it all started with the Big Bang or through evolution or whatever. My belief just has a couple more sparkles that give me an aesthetic pleasure when I examine the world.
If that seems logically flawed, look at the belief that there are incredibly small things that are beyond my comprehension in behavior (because I don’t know the math) which can seemingly incur a causal change without a time gap commensurate with distance. Of course I’m talking about Quantum entanglement. I only know what I’ve read in books for lay people and various articles and it staggers my mind to no end. If things like that are true, what harm in a belief that adds glitter without changing the way I behave?
Sadly, I see this same argument I use then turned into a reason to give Jesus my love and a small portion of my money. That I’m not buying since it would clearly change the way I lived and how I used my resources.
Ah, but time is the oft-ignored factor. Computers cannot do anything we cannot on our own. The only thing a computer can do better than us is add and subtract ones and zeros faster, making it SEEM smart when a human had to understand the equations when she programmed it.
Any living thing, though, is full of more kludges than the COBOL program your bank still uses because it still works, even though the IT department worries that a total collapse could come from some long-forgotten instruction. Face it: a human being is not some divine perfection but a total hack, and our singularity has less to do with our being the pinnacle of Creation than it does with our being the only species of our lineage that managed to not crash and die out, though we came close at least once.
OK, this seems, on the face of it, pretty solid - until we get to “what do you mean by complex?”. Just by how much information is needed to describe a thing? Relative to what? How do you distinguish, say, a piece of granite from a plant? Both are complex things. Do both need a designer?
Non sequitur - no proof is offered that complexity requires creation ex nihilo. In fact, I’d argue that the evidence favours the opposite - “complexity”, to me, implies “many parts” - surely this favours incremental development, since each part needs building too? The converse is only true if you’re talking about “irreducible complexity”, which I consider oxymoronic, especially when you drag in exaption.
(my bolding) argumentum ad ignorantiam. There are other people who do see.
Well, that conclusion didn’t stand up too well, now did it?
None, whatsoever. I just don’t want you trying to get your glittery beliefs incorporated into a high-school science class. At best, it should be lumped into an elective called Glittery Beliefs 101.
It’s interesting to note that one of the most complex things we know - a living human - is created in 9 months through incremental improvements to a single cell.
It seems like you are skirting the issue of evolution. Is that what you are referring to, or including?
If so, are you aware that evolution does not claim that things “just happened” to come together by random chance (the idea that a tornado in a junkyard could assemble a 747)? That there are critical, natural forces at work to guide the process (natural selection, survival of the fittest)?
And none of this requires a supernatural influence, but doesn’t prevent it?