RE: The Watchmaker: my fav argument
March 20, 2021 at 8:49 pm
(This post was last modified: March 20, 2021 at 8:55 pm by Angrboda.)
(March 20, 2021 at 6:58 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(March 20, 2021 at 6:27 pm)Angrboda Wrote: A poorly worded article. Apparently they are as inept as you are. Got that cite for me yet?
Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason lol.
Respectfully, you seem to be confusing a deductive argument in which irreducible complexity is predicted by intelligent design, with an inductive argument in which irreducible complexity is used to support intelligent design. The former is an invalid argument made by Nudger; the latter is presumably a weak/strong argument made by Dembski.
Specifics please. As you've pointed out, design doesn't necessarily imply irreducible complexity, so I'll need to see this deductive argument which predicts irreducible complexity before I pass judgement. I suspect that much like your claim about irreducible complexity it is you that are confused. The words "irreducible complexity" can be used as a metonym referring to an argument. However, irreducible complexity used as a metonym can refer to either an argument for design from irreducible complexity or an argument against evolution from irreducible complexity. Your claim that it is an argument against evolution rather than an argument for design is false because it metonymously refers to both.
But I confess that I am intrigued. Please present this deductive argument for irreducible complexity. Perhaps I missed it. I haven't been paying close attention.