.
More Adaptive Complexity articles
All
Jeffery Dach, MD claims that this argument is persuasive:
Since every man on the street knows that the computer code that runs a program requires intelligence for its origin, it is reasonable to make the same inference with the code in DNA, which is even more complicated. This is Stephen Meyer's point regarding the coded pattern in DNA which (according to Bill Gates) is a even more complicated than the source code for Microsoft Office. Both of them require intelligence for their origin, and even the man on the street can see this clearly.
Michael White, PhD, has the following to say about this nonsense:
1) The man on the street is generally not a very good endorsement for the soundness of any particular idea, as Jay Leno has demonstrated on numerous occasions:
2) The argument above essentially asserts that, because we know human inventions require intelligence to produce, complex systems in nature also require intelligence to produce. But why would we draw that conclusion? The vast majority of complex, information-rich systems we're familiar with (i.e., those in nature, which far outnumber human-designed systems) require no direct, observable intelligence to produce - as far as we can see from direct observation. So, the more reasonable conclusion, if we're going to make inferences about the design of complex systems from our direct observation of the generation of such systems, is that intelligently-designed systems are the exception. Go read the argument quoted above again - nowhere are we given a reason for why we should conclude that human-designed systems (the minority) make a proper analogy for natural systems (the majority).
3) We have some understanding of how natural complexity is produced, and no intelligent input is required. We can observe the evolution of new metabolic pathways. We know how new genes are produced. We understand, to some degree, how a zygote follows a complex developmental process, without any intelligent input.
So Dach's (and Meyer's) argument isn't even really an argument -it's just an assertion, that information and complexity can't be produced without intelligence. So where is the evidence? William Dembski (with his ideas about 'conservation of information', and Michael Behe (with his notion of irreducible complexity) have put forward some ideas, but to date, it's just armchair science - neither of them has bothered to test these ideas against the natural world, in stark contrast to physicists, who have extensively tested their conservation laws.
I'm still waiting for the ID people to stop pretending to be scientists: it's time for them to actually go out and do what genuine scientists do.
Start with:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/saving_science_non...
(be sure to read the links he provides in it.)
Then read:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptivecomplexity/intelligent_designs...
(be sure to read the long argument between Michael and some still useless, (i checked, ) twit.)
Then realise that you aren't going to get an answer out of this because you can no more understand the big bang than you can god, and read this: Taken from my blog
"If you look at it religiously or spiritually you run the risk of
dangerous offenses. If you look at it scientifically you must have
proof. It's the double standard of the fickle programming. You can't
win. There isn't any answer possible in the current reality.
We've reached an impasse for either the mystical or scientific argument
for it takes a leap of faith to reasonably explain both the smallest
and largest components of either camp. (Note I say mystical, not
religious, let us separate Religion as an idea from the idea of God,
furthermore let us stipulate that "God" shall be defined as "Creator"
and nothing more. I do this as the idea of God as creator is common
among current and historical definitions. There's also the ease of
contemplation in terms of equality with the ease of understanding.
I don't have the faculty nor the time to understand the true nature of
the big bang, I must take it on as much faith as I do God. And I do...
The evaluation of why I do, perhaps we will discuss some other time.)
Religion, on the other hand, let us define as the catagorization and
distribution of a much finer definition of God with all the accoutre
one would expect. (For eg: "God is such and such or God expects this
and that.") So by the defining of our terms we can now claim that our
God vs the Big Bang paradigm is equally reliant on faith. It doesn't
mean that we must pick one or the other. It means we must remember what
faith means."
"I'm still waiting for the ID people to stop pretending to be
scientists: it's time for them to actually go out and do what genuine
scientists do."
As am I, but while I wait, I can no more tell them that they are wrong, than I can tell you or I, or anyone else for that matter, is right.
I can only agree that their argument doesn't exist.
Best thoughts!