Creationists PWNED

[DRoseDARs]

But a computer program is, by definition, "designed" by Human programmers. If anything, this can be twisted around to be evidence of Intelligent Design.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Why? You seem to be very accepting of the notion that a computer program of this day and age is capable of accurately and unequivocally replicating the complex system of evolution, thus proving it at least in part.

no.


He appears to be saying that an argument which proceeds thus:

"An irreducably complex system cannot arise as a result of random changes and competitive selection. Any such system must be the result of intelligent design."


Has now been shown to be invalid since these irreducably complex programs arose entirely from random changes and competitive selection.


Ironically, the refuted argument itself may be another strawman in that I can't recall creationists using it.

[Last Conformist]

Please tell me how proof positive of the falseness of one of their chief claims can support ID?

[DRoseDARs]

This is why I don't do Evolution vs. Creation threads. Much too rediculous when people jump all over the slightest little thing in the field.

[Whaleboy]

Kuci:

He's not saying that a computer is going to produce a perfect correlation, but it's results using the RL applicable model will usually be indicative.

But yes, evo/creation threads (with the exception of mine ) tend to just take the form of some pedantic creationists picking up on evolutionists grammatical errors, or at bests limits in the remits of presented evidence as somehow proof that there is a god, while stubbornly refusing to even look at the attacks on Intelligent Design, which seems to be the last vestige of their fallacious argument. "If we won't read you, you can't refute us".

[BeBMan]

Creationists PWNED - isn't this a tautology?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Weren't creationists pwnd in 1850 something? Why would anyone have to do it again?

Creationists have yet to evolve to a state of being sufficiently intelligent to understand it.


After all, I can't remember the number of times I've exploded my cat's theory that digging unsheathed claws into my groin produces an increase in catfood, milk, or a better adjusted molly. Yet still he tries....

[Giancarlo]

Creationists get PWNED often every few years.. it doesn't really mean much anymore. People will continue to be ignorant and adhere to their creationist beliefs, but it doesn't really mean much and it shouldn't.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Geronimo
"An irreducably complex system cannot arise as a result of random changes and competitive selection. Any such system must be the result of intelligent design."

...

Ironically, the refuted argument itself may be another strawman in that I can't recall creationists using it.

You're joking, right? This is precisely the ID mantra that Creationists have been trying to foist on American public school students for years now.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Drose:
His point is that an evolving program (a program that "reproduces" with a random chance at modification) has been proven to create different programs of irreductible complexity, without any intelligent design in this complexity.

Intelligent design was still required at the very begining to create the original program. So, there was still intelligent design involved. The difference is just when in the life of this program did the intelligent design intervene. The intelligent design was not required to create the individual evolutionary steps but it was required to start the process in the beginning.

So, actually the experiment illustrates a deist belief, where a god creates basic life and then let's it evolve completely on its own.

[Whaleboy]

Intelligent design was still required at the very begining to create the original program. So, there was still intelligent design involved. The difference is just when in the life of this program did the intelligent design intervene. The intelligent design was not required to create the individual evolutionary steps but it was required to start the process in the beginning.

So, actually the experiment illustrates a deist belief, where a god creates basic life and then let's it evolve completely on its own.

Hardly, the existence of the experiment was not used in the conclusion of the experiment itself (again you're resorting to a complex form of the cosmological argument/fallacy, which is self-contradictory and absurd).

As for the universe and ID, special relativity nicely gets rid of what you're alluding to and I and others have refuted ID on numerous occasions so you might want to stop embarrasing yourself by continually posting as though it'll hold water here .

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Creationists PWNED

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No, most of the arguments against the irreducible complexity show that the things AREN'T irreducibly complex. This is conclusive proof that purely natural selection with random mutation can produce irreducibly complex structures ahead of the odds.

Yes, most were, but not all. Biologists have also shown that systems that did function as IC were a result of natural evolution and the adaptation of previously existing parts to serve another function. A good example of this is the development of wings in bats.

There is also Demski's tortuously-defined "specified complexity," which, as far as I can see, is nothing more than a smokescreen of bald-ass assumptions meant to support the conclusion he has already come to.

In fact, pretty much all of ID boils down to two easily refuted logical fallacies: an argument from incredulity and circular reasoning.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In some way, the creatinists help science progress. Because of their amazing nitpicking talents, many scientifics feel compelled to solidily prove what would otherwise be accepted as mere common sense.

This devotion to proving evolution in such a way to be proof to zealot nitpickers, is what makes the theory more solid than it would otherwise be

Not really. For that to work, the advocati diaboli would have to evolve too. They aren't doing that.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Intelligent design was still required at the very begining to create the original program. So, there was still intelligent design involved. The difference is just when in the life of this program did the intelligent design intervene. The intelligent design was not required to create the individual evolutionary steps but it was required to start the process in the beginning.

So, actually the experiment illustrates a deist belief, where a god creates basic life and then let's it evolve completely on its own.

Whaleboy already pointed out why this specious logic, but I have to mention that the above is categorically NOT what IDers propose, so this still contradicts the ID hypothesis. ID claims that IC shows that there was active, intentional design in the complex functions of living beings. In other words, flagella are just so specially complex that they couldn't conceive of it being anything but the intentional workings of a designer who decreed, "let there be flagella!" This is categorically opposed to a deist belief.

This program demonstrates why that logic is nonsense, as there needs not be any directed intention to evolutionary change in order to produce "irreducible complexity" in systems--it can and will arise by natural selection. This eliminates any need for ID as an explanation.

What set the "program" in motion isn't relevant. The point is, the "program" proves that there need be no intelligence guiding the changes.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Intelligent design was still required at the very begining to create the original program. So, there was still intelligent design involved. The difference is just when in the life of this program did the intelligent design intervene. The intelligent design was not required to create the individual evolutionary steps but it was required to start the process in the beginning.

So, actually the experiment illustrates a deist belief, where a god creates basic life and then let's it evolve completely on its own.

This experiment doesn't disprove the deist belief, or the belief that some-intelligent-entity-that-is-not-necessarily-God created life, but it doesn't prove it either. By looking at what we know of this experiment, there is no way you can say: "this experiment is conclusive, it proves that life has/has not been created by an intelligent designer". That's not what the experiment adressed.

It adressed the contention that a system, when left to its own devices of random mutations, could not create irreductible complexity. I don't know exactly how this claim is related to the creationist/evolutionist debate, but I would hazard that some creationists claim there's a proof for intelligent design, because irreductible complexity could only be created by an intelligent designer. Such a claim has been disproved.

I personally have nothing against the opinion that God created the universe (I don't believe it, and it's not like we can prove or disprove it any day soon), and I don't consider this idea to be incompatible with evolutionism.
Actually, I consider the crusade against evolutionism to be completely misguided, even from a religious point of view: God might have created the universe and then let it to its own devices. The only religious reason why evolution should be opposed, is because evolutions bears the idea that the humans were bot here at the creation of the universe, and that they weren't directly created by God, unlike what the Bible says. That's nothing that couldn't be shrugged off by saying "it is symbolic talk, just like that passage mentioning the earth as the center of the universe".