(December 10, 2015 at 12:04 am)KevinM1 Wrote:(December 9, 2015 at 11:13 pm)SteveII Wrote: Thanks for adding to the discussion!
You infer a designer because you cannot allow for naturally occurring complexity in your world view. Please do not speak for the rest of us. You infer a designer. We do not.
Moreover, your analogy sucks. We infer an artist or turtle placer because we can make a comparison. We know what art is, how it's constructed, and how it differs from things that are not art. We know that turtles cannot climb things. With life, we don't have that kind of comparison to make. We simply do not know if DNA is special or mundane, and to infer anything out of that ignorance is idiotic.
"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. There's no need to presuppose a designer. Complexity alone doesn't beget anything.
It is absurd to say my worldview cannot allow for naturally occurring complexity. If science proves something, it must be accepted. It is the naturalistic worldview that is extremely limiting.
How is the following an argument from ignorance?
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, ...
[i'm lazy. cut and pasted from the first website I found that listed it this way (I have no idea about the site itself). ]
