Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Kingpin]

My apologies Equilax, I missed one day and trying to keep up so I'm sure I missed some responses.  Can you explain how you perceive my argument as circular?

Regarding complexity and design, the circular problem is this: how do you know the universe is designed? Because it's complex. How do you know complex things are designed? Because complexity denotes design. So the universe is designed because it's complex, and complexity denotes design, and the universe is complex, therefore it's designed, because complexity is an exclusive sign of design... And around we go.

The problem is that you're merely asserting that complexity equals design, which is also entirely untrue in two different ways, one being that we know of complex things that weren't designed. Following your argument so far, you seem to be asserting that even if we have a natural explanation for a complex thing, it's still designed by god ultimately (your argument regarding Henry Ford and combustion engines) but that is little more than a baseless assertion, a presupposition made without evidence so that your claim will always be right, even when it's evidently wrong.

The second thing is that you're ignoring the concept of emergent complexity, that is, complexity that comes about over time. If I leave a random number generator on for a while, I'll end up with an extremely complex number, that came to be simply by single digits accumulating over time. With regards to the universe, it didn't start out as complex as it is now: in fact, it started out as a single point of spacetime, and the early universe was devoid of planets, stars, even the chemical elements that compose things today. All of that stuff arose over time, as products of interactions between simple, uniform physical laws and equally simple initial compounds. You say the universe is complex, therefore it's designed, and in doing so you ignore that demonstrably, it was not so complex in its beginnings.

One final thought, regarding complexity: it's not a hallmark of design. Simplicity is. Designers want to remove moving parts, reduce the number of components in their designs, both to reduce the cost of construction and the risk of breakages and malfunctions. Modern computers have far less parts than their predecessors for precisely that reason. Just look at modern technological interfaces: simplicity is the name of the game. Touchscreens over keyboards, simple pictographs over long command strings, all the while the computers and phones that house these programs get slimmer, smaller, more compact. Simplicity is accessible. Simplicity and refinement is a hallmark of design, not complexity. Nobody designs the next generation of a given technology by making it larger and more unwieldy.

Perhaps I should clarify my argument.  Complexity in general does not denote design, I can grant you that.  Design means purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.  Agreed?  

I will use your analogy of making things simpler (even though the technology to make it simpler is in fact more complex than the previous).  When we see language we assume a mind behind it.  Which is why I used the analogy of a dictionary out of an explosion at a printing press.  Where there is language there is design, purpose, meaning - a mind behind it.  This mere sentence carries meaning and you assume a mind behind it.  It is not reducible to the physics and chemistry of the screen you're reading it on.  

I know some people disagree with me, but I do not know how you can call DNA anything but a language.  It is an enormous code.  I've heard the rebuttals to this how us superimposing a codon alphabet on it doesn't make it a language, etc.  But consider this:

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”
-Norbert Weiner, Founder of Cybernetics

That is a profound statement. You don’t have to think about it very long to realize it’s absolutely true. Matter, Energy and Information are three Distinct Entities.

Is the computer code separate from the computer disk material? Yes! We also know that information cannot be created without intent. There are no examples of information that is created without intent. You have to have the dimension of intent or will, which is a property of a conscience mind, in order to have any kind information. Otherwise all you have is chaos. All you have is tornadoes and hurricanes and stalactites and stalagmites and snowflakes. But you do not have any kind of language whatsoever.

So the problem with a materialistic philosophy or belief is there is no way to explain where the language of DNA came from. Because all codes, all languages, all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind. No exceptions.

Even Hubert Yockey, a huge critic of the ID movement, readily admits that science cannot explain the origins of the information contained in DNA. Simply put, its like trying to scientifically prove that computer code can simply evolve from the computer disk material!

However I grant the following: Life originated, but must be taken as an axiom [something we know to be true, but cannot prove] but we can make assumptions and draw our own conclusions based on the evidence laid before us.  I conclude there is a mind behind the origin, but I do not know with certainty.


http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/1...etic-code/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosne...-dna-code/