Re: [OT] voting
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 20:22, Richard Lyons wrote:
> On Monday 08 December 2003 21:49, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 18:12, s. keeling wrote:
>
> [...]
> > eternal power and deity; demonstrated,
> > among other things, by the immense and beautiful complexity of living
> > systems. Paul cited DNA. On a "higher" level, photosynthesis and
> > blood-clotting are two very complex systems which need every part of
> > them to work
> [...]
> Come now, the very compexity of these systems
You appear to be saying that the more complex a system is, the more
likely it is that it evolved by random chance. So a complex package
like glibc is more likely to be the product of random chance than a
simple one like debian-policy? Would you like to break your argument
down into manageable steps?
> and the "re-use" of a
> small set of genes across the animal (and plant) kingdom for similar
> but differing functions argues for an evolved origin (as does
> continuing evolution).
Reuse of genes is evidence of a designer, to my mind. But arguing what
a creator might or might not do is pretty futile, since none of us is
qualified to be a creator.
It is not reasonable to expect that the creation could understand its
creator, or know anything about him unless he revealed it. However, we
do have a revelation, which is data that needs to be accounted for in
any other theory.
> Intelligent creation is almost inconceivably
> unlikely.
A bald statement without support. Evolution of life from non-life is
almost inconceivably unlikely. Evolution of irreducibly complex systems
is inconceivably unlikely.[1]
> And if one posits external intelligent intervention, it
> could take an infinite number of forms, so it is hardly worth
> considering the possibility that such an agency would have any
> measurable similarities to one or another set of folk myths that have
> been used for a few hundred years to help control populations by the
> power elites in those populations.
Is this an attempt to win the record for the number of logical fallacies
in a single sentence? "External intervention" is not equivalent to
creation; it looks as though you are surreptitiously trying to change
the terms of the argument. "...could take an infinite number of
forms...": in terms of this argument, only one kind of intervention is
relevant -- creation out of nothing by one who is transcendent to the
universe created. "Folk myths" is an attempt to muddy the waters by
including all kinds of human invention and story-telling with the record
of divine revelation as if they were of equal (and impliedly low) value;
and then there is a tendentious statement about misuse of power, which
has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the proposition being
examined.
--------------------------------
[1] Note on irreducible complexity:
As an example, photosynthesis involves a number of processes with
closely linked transformations and finely balanced control. If any one
of them is missing, the result is either to do nothing (so no selection
advantage) or to poison the cell. Therefore it is impossible for them
to evolve separately; but to suppose them to evolve together, by the
random conjunction of favourable mutations, requires you to stretch
probability far beyond any reasonable limits. Similarly, blood-clotting
combines 26 separate processes, the omission of any of which leads to a
failure of clotting and therefore the likely death of the organism. An
organism must have all of them at once along with the blood and its
circulation. [NB: apologies if I have misstated these processes; I am
working from memory rather than reading the texts.]
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
========================================
"For I am the LORD your God; ye shall therefore
sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am
holy." Leviticus 11:44
Reply to: