Comments on: Intelligent Design in a Nutshell http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/12/15/intelligent-design-in-a-nutshell/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:38:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: grumpypilgrim http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/12/15/intelligent-design-in-a-nutshell/#comment-15396 grumpypilgrim Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:52:22 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1943#comment-15396 Irreducible complexity boils down to the following argument: imagine a (nonexistent) creature that has, say, five physical traits that cooperate to achieve a particular function. Now, imagine taking away one of those traits. See, the other four traits suddenly become useless; therefore, the creature must have been designed by an intelligent creator. Do you see the flaw? The argument begins with a modern creature (one we see today), then asks us to imagine an imaginary ancestor creature that has only a subset of the necessary parts that exist in the modern creature. However, the modern creature would not have had the imagined creature as its ancestor, it would have either had a simpler version of the five traits or the traits would have performed some other function. Thus, the IC argument (not unlike the Bible itself) rests on a fictional premise. Irreducible complexity boils down to the following argument: imagine a (nonexistent) creature that has, say, five physical traits that cooperate to achieve a particular function. Now, imagine taking away one of those traits. See, the other four traits suddenly become useless; therefore, the creature must have been designed by an intelligent creator.

Do you see the flaw? The argument begins with a modern creature (one we see today), then asks us to imagine an imaginary ancestor creature that has only a subset of the necessary parts that exist in the modern creature. However, the modern creature would not have had the imagined creature as its ancestor, it would have either had a simpler version of the five traits or the traits would have performed some other function. Thus, the IC argument (not unlike the Bible itself) rests on a fictional premise.

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/12/15/intelligent-design-in-a-nutshell/#comment-15330 Erich Vieth Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:51:10 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1943#comment-15330 Dan- I assume that you are referring to comments like this: <blockquote>1_Atheist---No im serious. U will b disappointed. ---What is wrong with you atheists? You are truly blinder than I ever imagined. There is no doubt that you are under Satan's control. You look at God's Word and see such distortiion that only the devil can make you see. Please humor me and explain yourself.</blockquote> Dan- I assume that you are referring to comments like this:

1_Atheist—No im serious. U will b disappointed. —What is wrong with you atheists? You are truly blinder than I ever imagined. There is no doubt that you are under Satan’s control. You look at God’s Word and see such distortiion that only the devil can make you see. Please humor me and explain yourself.

]]> By: Dan Klarmann http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/12/15/intelligent-design-in-a-nutshell/#comment-15328 Dan Klarmann Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:26:51 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1943#comment-15328 I read a few pages of responses to the Nightline story, and have more cause to appreciate the civil and reasoned tone of intellectual dissent within our blog here. I read a few pages of responses to the Nightline story, and have more cause to appreciate the civil and reasoned tone of intellectual dissent within our blog here.

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/12/15/intelligent-design-in-a-nutshell/#comment-15326 Erich Vieth Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:35:23 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1943#comment-15326 Cameron and his buddies worship the god of the gaps. Their arguments can be summarized by the slogan from the Youtube report on the O’Reilly interview that you’ve cited in your post: “If stuff is complicated, then a magical Being must have made it.” Here’s more of Cameron. This time he’s getting chewed up by members of the Rational Response Squad. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940 If Cameron wants me to believe in his God who kills innocent babies http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=732 , he’ll have to do better than these interviews. For starters, Cameron needs to learn to say “I don’t know” when he doesn’t know. http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1556 Most scientists know how to be silent beyond the evidence. Cameron needs to do the same. As Wittgenstein famously wrote: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Check out this Richard Dawkins “interview” by O’Reilly. http://youtube.com/watch?v=ijA5QGF7e6c Great commentary here. Cameron and his buddies worship the god of the gaps. Their arguments can be summarized by the slogan from the Youtube report on the O’Reilly interview that you’ve cited in your post:

“If stuff is complicated, then a magical Being must have made it.”

Here’s more of Cameron. This time he’s getting chewed up by members of the Rational Response Squad. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940

If Cameron wants me to believe in his God who kills innocent babies http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=732 , he’ll have to do better than these interviews. For starters, Cameron needs to learn to say “I don’t know” when he doesn’t know. http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1556 Most scientists know how to be silent beyond the evidence. Cameron needs to do the same. As Wittgenstein famously wrote: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Check out this Richard Dawkins “interview” by O’Reilly. http://youtube.com/watch?v=ijA5QGF7e6c Great commentary here.

]]>