The God Delusion?!

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Red Sky at Morning, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. Red Sky at Morning

    Red Sky at Morning Star

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    2,659
    OK, I cheated!

    This is not a thread from a Christian abandoning faith in God and embracing Neo-Darwinian thought... However, I am aware of the work of the New Atheists, and have considered their perspectives.

    From the various friends I have had discussions with, I would venture to say that If an atheist likes to pride themselves on anything, it is the commitment to truth even if the answers hurt.

    I just watched a very interesting short film called "The Atheist Delusion". Of course you could ignore it, but if you think about it, what has an atheist to lose by questioning the view that they are just an insignificant, specialised monkey clutching a mobile phone, crawling around on a planet of no particular importance?

    I offer an alternative perspective for consideration.

     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
    Karlysymon, floss, JoChris and 2 others like this.

  2. Hubert

    Hubert Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    82
    First off, short film my ass. Damn thing is over an hour long, I'll see how long I can go.

    Around the five minuet mark the video argues that the information in DNA must have come from an intelligent designer. This is just a god of the gaps argument. I don't know where DNA came from therefor GOD. Also his assertion that DNA couldn't have assembled it's self is baseless. Amino acids, the protein building blocks of DNA, will self assemble if their component molecules are present in the correct conditions.

    Around ten minuets the video brings up the something can't come from nothing argument. This is again a god of the gaps. Most people, my self included, do not have a deep enough understanding of quantum physics to understand how something can come from nothing. I trust this conclusion because I trust the method that was used to reach it. Since unlike religion attempts to find and fix all of its errors.

    at 19 minuets he begins an insane rant against evolution. At one point he asked how come you never see something that's not fully evolved. This makes no sense. Evolution has no goals, it is just change in response to natural selection. The first "eye" was a small patch of pigment on a single celled organism that was sensitive to light. Some creatures still have eyes like this today. That primitive eye spot is just as evolved as our eye is.

    Ok that's as far as I can go. This video does not provide any new perspective. It is a series of logical fallacies and false assertions, and it won't convince anyone who does not already believe.
     
  3. Red Sky at Morning

    Red Sky at Morning Star

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    2,659
    Hi Hubert,

    Well done for sticking with it as far as you did... as the view of a created world requiring a designer is as old as Paley's watchmaker. For those who have become immune to such logic through writings like "the Blind Watchmaker", a view of the universe as the undirected upward process of life through competition, mutation and natural selection remains intact.

    I understand that perspective pretty well and had to write numerous essays on the process of evolutionary biology at university, but one thing started to bother me...

    I could make up a plausible enough tale of a small advantageous jump from one beak size to another, rather like demonstrating you might leap across a stream by taking a run up.

    Where the "leap of faith" came in was in biological systems of huge complexity. The jump for a catterpillar to a butterfly, carrying a fully designed body plan around in a sexually inactive catterpillar precursor which would then need to find a mate silenced my arguments. If you are of the view that a man taking enough leaps might one day get across the Grand Canyon, Evolution is the theory for you ;-)

    To give it it's technical term, it is the problem of "irreducible complexity". It's not for me to tell you what to think so I wanted instead to let you know what convinced me in the end.

    For evolution to have explanatory value, it would not only need to provide explanations for micro evolution but also true macro evolution. IMO This second stage cannot he justified logically, never mind demonstrated in nature.

    For anyone wanting to try it out, please consider the Monarch Butterfly and allow for yourself only chance and natural selection as tools for your explanation of it's evolution and continued survival.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
  4. Hubert

    Hubert Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    82
    Irreducible complexity is simply an argument from ignorance. You don't understand how these systems could have evolved therefor God did it, because if you can't understand it it must be beyond understanding or impossible. The theory of evolution is one of the most well supported and fruitful theories in all of biology, to say that it is not demonstrated or logically justified is ridiculous. No one other than creationist distinguish between macro and micro evolution. This is because natural selection applies equally to single and multi-celled life. It's a completely false dichotomy what applies to one applies to the other. Why would it be any different?
     

  5. Red Sky at Morning

    Red Sky at Morning Star

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    2,659
    To insist that micro-evolution (variation) and macro-evolution (novel 'designs' arising by chance) are the same is rather disingenuous. If I can prove that a random process of weathering in a quarry occasionally produces very serviceable brick shaped rocks, I have in no way proven the capacity to build a house!

    IMG_3199.JPG

    I could argue with you, but I know that I can't make you see what you don't want to see...

    P.s I used to teach Biology, you would be surprised the kind of questions on evolution that would come up in the staff room!

    P.p.s. It is a tried and tested rhetorical technique in talking with creationists when confronted by a logical brick wall like irreducible complexity to tell them they only invoke 'God' because science currently lacks explanatory power on that area.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
  6. Hubert

    Hubert Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    82
    My high school biology teacher was the baseball coach. He was an idiot but he had to teach something.

    Irreducible complexity is not a brick wall, it is a gap in understanding. But that gap does not invalidate the entire theory of evolution.
     
  7. Etagloc

    Etagloc Star

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,945
    Likes Received:
    3,851
    It's funny. One would think that Richard Dawkins, being a scientist and such, would show more scientificological understanding. God is real. This is science. Oh, atheists in their arrogant ignorance...

    You believe in love, yes? I believe the great philosopher Ronald Isley has stated quite eloquently that "love is real".

    So we accept this premise- that love exists.

    Well... God is love. Love is real. God is love. God is real.

    Silly atheists.
     
    Haich and Karlysymon like this.
  8. Etagloc

    Etagloc Star

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,945
    Likes Received:
    3,851
    Irreducible complexity? Sounds like the old reducto ad too many syllables.

    It reminds me of how my sociology professor tried to use the biggest words he knew in order to try to confuse me into agreeing with him. I wish I had recorded it. It was actually pretty funny cuz he tried to use the most confusing language possible to baffle me into agreement.
     
  9. Red Sky at Morning

    Red Sky at Morning Star

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    2,659
    Avoiding the words "irreducible complexity", perhaps we could talk about 'minimum viable solutions' to the problem of life arising from non-life, or for some of the apparently ingenious organs, behaviours or systems that would need to appear in complete form in order to confer evolutionary advantage. For the purpose of discussion, it doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs to work...

    Do you think time and chance could get you there, @Hubert ?
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
    rainerann and Karlysymon like this.
  10. rainerann

    rainerann Star

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    No irreducible complexity is saying that one part can't exist independently of an entire system in order for there to have been survival of the system.

    Blood clotting is irreducibly complex system. You either become a hemophiliac or die of a pulmonary embolus without a complete blood clotting system. How does humanity survive in the wilderness as a hemophiliac until the blood clotting system is complete? How does humanity survive childhood with DVT's existing as land mines within the circulatory system? They don't. The system has to exist in a complete form at the time of creation and deviations from this took place since that time that demonstrate this delicate balance could not have evolved over time.

    Irreducible complexity is not an argument based on ignorance but a discussion based on an a greater understanding of the microscopic world that Darwin was not capable of predicting when he was conveying his theory.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
  11. Karlysymon

    Karlysymon Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    1,879
    Any creation cannot be greater than its creator. As complex as the human body is, that should be more than enough to tell us there is Something greater and more intelligent that brought forth intelligent man, and, a complex and interconnected biosphere.
     
    Red Sky at Morning and rainerann like this.
  12. rainerann

    rainerann Star

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    2,811


    This is the video of the man who actually made this same argument in the Dover case where this school was sued for teaching intelligent design, as bizarre as that sounds in a world that frequently seems to claim that freedom of speech is such an important thing.

    Intelligent design is not the discussion of any specific religion, so why it can't be included in a secular science class is beyond me. Alien life might be just as responsible for intelligent design according to the actual scientific discussion of the subject that is actually separate from the discussion of creationism, which does include religion.

    Anyways, interestingly enough in his effort to prove that the mousetrap has a function when you reduce the parts down to just the board and the trap component, the trap still requires a user to produce this function, which still presents the potential for legitimate scientific discussion on intelligent design. The concept of a mousetrap that exists to serve one function can't exist in any function without outside intervention.

    Therefore, can any form of evolution exist without intervention? How do you prove evolution exists without intervention? If you can't prove that evolution exists without intervention, how can discussion of intelligent design be considered a discussion based on ignorance instead of inquiry into determining a conclusion that would go one way or the other.
     
    Karlysymon likes this.
  13. Red Sky at Morning

    Red Sky at Morning Star

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    2,659
    @rainerann - I watched the clip and the guy appeared to be applying some clever 'philosophy and vain deceit' style of argumentation...

    By employing a mousetrap, and demonstrating a dual use, he raises a good point. It allows for unintended uses for parts of a system.

    The best way to look at the question is not like a criminal trial, with 'beyond reasonable doubt' but more like a civil trial with 'balance of probability' being the test. I don't believe there are any magic bullet arguments.

    That having been said, the value of a part formed, one winged butterfly emerging has surely got to be a point of concern, even for the guy in the clip you posted up?
     
    rainerann likes this.
  14. Karlysymon

    Karlysymon Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    1,879
    Red Sky at Morning and rainerann like this.
  15. rainerann

    rainerann Star

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    @Red Sky at Morning

    Yah, the mousetrap was a whole thing in the irreducible complexity discussion at one point. Here is a clip of Behe discussion the mousetrap.



    Ken Miller is also clearly an evolutionary theory evangelist. His presentations don't even feel scientific. It is more like he is trying to sell you a used car. He has presented his brilliant rebuttal to the mousetrap many times. The first time I saw it was in a clip of the Dover trial, which I can't find, but he has gone on to use this over and over again in many presentations that are still available on YouTube.

    This presentation is where you can clearly see that he is an evangelist on a mission to reduce the discussion of irreducible complexity.



    However, he never will address the fraud in the history of evolutionary theory that can be found in the Scopes trial when teaching evolutionary theory was first introduced. I'm pretty sure this is the documentary I watched a long time ago. This is very interesting and worth watching. They referred to the Scopes trial as The Monkey Trial and there is evidence that it was very staged and had some significant propaganda promoting it that was continued by Hollywood who made a movie about it that didn't follow the actual history in a literal sense. In the movie Inherit the Wind, they presented Scopes, who was a teacher who had been teaching evolutionary theory, as a strong supporter of the theory. The documentary said he had a different motivation for teaching the theory and actually left the country after he won the trial even though he won and could teach evolutionary theory like he supposedly was passionate about. He was really more disconnected from the issue than the movie suggested.

     
  16. Hubert

    Hubert Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    82
    When you say that a component can't exist outside of the system you now see it in, what your saying is that you don't understand how it could exist different from it's current form. A component for a system may have evolved in an entirely different system. Then maybe a few million years later, changing evolutionary pressures cause the development of a new system. This new system appropriates a component from a now obsolete old system.

    Just because you can't understand how to reduce a system does not mean it is irreducible.

    Also a pulmonary embolus is caused by a blood clout in the lung, so without a clotting system an embolus could not form. Our own clotting system occasionally kills us. Hows that for a complete survival system:)
     
  17. Hubert

    Hubert Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    82

    Time and chance DID get us here.
     
  18. Hubert

    Hubert Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    82
    We create things greater than ourselves all the time. The Large Hadron Collider is far greater than we are. So are the super computers we build, and we then use those computers to create even more complex computers. This ability isn't even unique to humans, an ant colony is far greater than an ant. So I don't accept any argument that our existence is evidence for the existence of a more complex creator.
     
  19. Red Sky at Morning

    Red Sky at Morning Star

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    2,659
    Do you believe the people involved in these complex constructions apply the principles of 'time and chance' or 'intelligent design' to their projects?
     
    Karlysymon and rainerann like this.
  20. rainerann

    rainerann Star

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    So this would be a theory that can't be proven by demonstrating any method to arive at the present state of the blood clotting system.

    So considering the possibility that a system like this did not evolve is not any more ignorant than believing it didn't when there is no way to prove this one way or the other.

    As it stands, the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex because it can not exist in one state or the other and reproduction is the method of evolution would have to take place.

    If a entity cannot survive to a state where it can reproduce in one state or the other, then the system had to have existed in a point of origin in the state it is in.

    As it stands, evolutionary theory can't determine a point where blood originates to say whether or not it is impossible that the blood clotting system ever existed in a different form.

    There has been no greater understanding of how blood evolved anywhere from our present understanding of DNA.

    So unless you can prove otherwise, maybe comments about ignorance should be kept to a minimum.

    Also, a DVT is dangerous because it can travel to the lung. This is a very basic medical understanding from someone who thinks his science teacher was ignorant.

    "A pulmonary embolism (PE) usually happens when a blood clot called a deep vein thrombosis (DVT), often in your leg, travels to your lungs and blocks a blood vessel. That leads to low oxygen levels in your blood. It can damage the lungand other organs and cause heart failure, too."
    http://www.webmd.com/dvt/pulmonary-embolism-dvt

    Without a blood clotting system you might not have a dvt or pulmonary embolus, but you would be a hemophiliac who couldnt survive the scratches you would natrually get trying to survive in the wild like tarzan. No swinging from vines allowed without a blood clotting system.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017

Share This Page