Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity?

[Tonus]

Also, just wondering, is there actually a refutation to the "Well, God is Mysterious!" argument or is it just an unfalsifiable Creationist/ID escape hatch?

I wouldn't say that there is a refutation for that, because it's really just a way of saying "I don't know." You might want to refer to it as the "gaps of the god" approach, but I think people should be encouraged to admit when we lack sufficient knowledge, data, or understanding of something. Now, if they want to treat it as something other than, "I don't know" you might want to press them for an explanation.

[downbeatplumb]

I think it's just because humans previously did not understand how the eye works and how it was formed by evolutionary processes and therefore an Intelligent Designer was the reason. But now we DO understand the processes that created the eye and how it functions so therefore there was no reason anymore to wedge an Intelligent Designer in.

Cool, lets hear how the eye developed step by step.

Really! I have seen this very issue done to death here many, many times. Yet somehow you seem to have missed it.

If you are still interested Richard Dawkins did a Christmas Lecture on this subject which I believe is still available on you tube.

[FatAndFaithless]

Cool, lets hear how the eye developed step by step.

Really! I have seen this very issue done to death here many, many times. Yet somehow you seem to have missed it.

If you are still interested Richard Dawkins did a Christmas Lecture on this subject which I believe is still available on you tube.

Yeah the evolution of the eye is one of the oldest and most-disproven canards of creationists...take 5 minutes on google alpha male..

[Clueless Morgan]

Thanks, I suppose my English ain't that bad.

When you understand and employ the correct usage of the word "ain't" you are allow to call yourself good at English. :p

The only thing which shows signs of ID is Religion itself.

Also, just wondering, is there actually a refutation to the "Well, God is Mysterious!" argument or is it just an unfalsifiable Creationist/ID escape hatch?

I wouldn't say that there is a refutation for that, because it's really just a way of saying "I don't know." You might want to refer to it as the "gaps of the god" approach, but I think people should be encouraged to admit when we lack sufficient knowledge, data, or understanding of something. Now, if they want to treat it as something other than, "I don't know" you might want to press them for an explanation.

I don't know, Esq took a pretty good stab at it:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27204-po...#pid702580

As I was watching this cool Sam Harris video:

[video removed here]

a thought occurred to me as he was discussing the double standard of christians waving away the problem of evil and suffering by appealing to god's mysterious intentions: it's not only that this excuse is unconvincing, it's also completely irrelevant. It's just a deflection to avoid talking about the real issue, because motives aren't the sole determining factor when deciding moral issues.

...

Follow link above for the rest of the post.

[OfficerVajardian]

Thanks, I suppose my English ain't that bad.

When you understand and employ the correct usage of the word "ain't" you are allow to call yourself good at English. :p

Oops, yeah you're right. It should be "isn't", not "ain't".

[Tonus]

I don't know, Esq took a pretty good stab at it:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27204-po...#pid702580

I think the point that he (and Sam Harris) is making is that "mysterious ways" should not prevent an atheist from judging a god's actions. I think it's the difference between "I don't know why god did that" and the follow-up "but I trust he had a good reason."

[Clueless Morgan]

I don't know, Esq took a pretty good stab at it:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27204-po...#pid702580

I think the point that he (and Sam Harris) is making is that "mysterious ways" should not prevent an atheist from judging a god's actions. I think it's the difference between "I don't know why god did that" and the follow-up "but I trust he had a good reason."

That's why I say he took a good stab at it. I agree that Esq's post doesn't exactly get at what OfficerVajardian is asking for, but it gets at the spirit of what's often hidden behind an appeal to God's mysterious ways: his questionable choices.


In essence, the "God works in mysterious ways" is just an argument from ignorance, and thus can be refuted in the same manner any argument from ignorance can be.

[Minimalist]

Here you go.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

[ignoramus]

When you understand and employ the correct usage of the word "ain't" you are allow to call yourself good at English. :p

Oops, yeah you're right. It should be "isn't", not "ain't".

He "mussnabeen" good at joining words together!

[John V]

Did you actually think nobody would be able to do that?

Yes.

The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms.

How did photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms develop before eyespots came along?

---

Unfortunately a search on evolution of eyespots (the first step on the journey) mostly turns up pieces on false eyes on butterfly wings. Here's one that's on point:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~olse0176/Evolution/bacteria.html

Now that random mutation is understandable, imagine a population of plain, primitive bacteria (no specific size, shape, etc.). There are trillions of them scattered throughout the world. Imagine that one out of every million of these trillion bacteria experience a mutation which allows it to have a pigmented surface. That means we have one million bacteria with some kind of a light-capturing surface on them. A few out of these million bacteria develop the pigmented spot over an opaque surface connected somehow with the rest of the internal network of the cell (Patton). These few cells, have just developed a primitive type of vision.

The irreducible complexity problem is just blown off with a single sentence.

I could have a light sensitive cell on my elbow, but it's not going to do me any good, as the rest of my body either doesn't receive the information it provides, or doesn't know to do anything with that information.