RE: I'm offended by Islam
April 5, 2013 at 9:01 pm
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2013 at 9:55 pm by Mystic.)
(April 5, 2013 at 8:48 pm)LukeMC Wrote:(April 5, 2013 at 7:43 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I think human morality is magic and is not a product of evolution. I don't even know how you can get offended from the perspective that it's a product of evolution
Moreover, from what I read, studied, watched, and perceived regarding science, and reasoned, it appears to me the irreducible complexity argument is correct, that some systems are irreducibly complex even though various details of it are not irreducible, or it at least shows severe unlikelihood of evolution from naturalism perspective.
Yes I took biology in high school.
When you say that you've read/watched/etc material pertaining to irreducible complexity, does this include arguments that specifically dismantle such claims? I'm not sure how it can appear one way or the other if you've engaged the arguments honestly. I'm sure that your example of irreducible complexity isn't as mundane as the old "human eye" argument, right? What examples (you needn't justify them if you don't wish) in biology do you perceive as being irreducibly complex?
It has nothing to do with saying "it's super complex...therefore it can't be reduced to simplicity".
Let's take the eye example. Let's work with that. There is so many steps in nature, and evolutionist say, look at these steps (which I believe ARE steps) and say, evolution happened with a bunch of even smaller steps....with a bunch of even smaller steps. To me, when you get really small, it doesn't simply work. Or doesn't appear to work because of lack of direction towards that by blind forces.
I researched into the eye, and I found both sides intelligent design fundies and those who refute it, don't understand Michael Behe's perspective, who is the founder of irreducible complexity.
If you want to know more about his view, you can see this video for starters:
He also believes in common descent and that all organism come from common descent. It's whether the mechanism can be purely Darwinian, that he disputes.
Some points to, is that he doesn't believe majority of mutations are controlled (designed), the majority of mutations can very well be random...just some design happens in nature time to time.
I say if this is true, perhaps X - Men powers is very possible in the future for us humans
The reason why it doesn't work small steps why, is because of the irreducible complexity problem. You can always get bigger muscles or smarter etc...but for a whole system, to develop..there is no direction leading by adding on part of that system that is essential but doesn't work, and that adding other parts later that don't work, then they come all together. Really, what is happening, is that since we clearly understand how an eye get's better and better or that giraffe necks grow and grow, etc...we think everything then is possible...by means of evolution. But I tend to agree with how Micheal Behe thinks. He is right about the mouse trap analogy and that adding parts that don't work all together, before they work all together, would be useless. And it seems analogous in this situation to biology, because you are adding stuff gradually by small mutations.
It's a way of thinking. It's the same evidence we are looking at. The same data. Just different reasoning.