Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Omaha NE, Monday, February 08, 2010, 02:51 @ dhw

While I still have plenty of time to read Shapiro's books, I've been catching up on these posts at a slow rate.

While I'll often argue and play devil on almost all topics, I have to say here that there's a few points I'd like to draw attention to here.

1. I'm perfectly fine with natural selection playing the role it does; a filter.

2. I've no problems with genetic transfers and complexity.

What I'd like to call to attention is a more core notion.

Why is it more reasonable to conclude that life was designed? We all agree its not a scientific claim, so I still wonder why taking an unprovable position is more reasonable? We can't verify anything about a creator, and although there is an analogy to computers often made in the name of biology, it isn't the same thing because we can write programs that can randomly generate other small and useful programs. And there would be no way to determine if these programs were designed by a human or by a computer, thus recreating a similar chicken-and-egg scenario for an outside observer.

Any thoughts?

---
---
As a rule, men worry more about what they can't see than about what they can.
Julius Caesar