Ok,
I'll respond to all three of you and try not to hit too much overlap. My mind can't hold all three arguments simultaniously so if I repeat myself you have my apologies. If I contradict myself though feel free to pounce
Homer wrote:Apos,
You wrote:
Looking back in time we see a succession of simpler and simpler descendants until we get to single celled organisms,
That seems a rather odd proof of anything. Without looking back in time don't we see the same thing now?
There isn't much for me to work with here. Your question looks like an appeal to the "why are there still apes" meme. If it isn't then I'm sorry to have assumed incorrectly, but please put a paragraph together to spell out specifically what objection you are raising. This looks like is signifies a lot more to you and probably is a place holder for many previous conversations I wasn't part of.
If it is the why are there still apes meme, I'd point out that we are apes. However evolution is not a ladder, and things don't get "more evolved" or "less evolved". There are degrees of specialization, but changes are largely dependent on the ecological niche that the creatures inhabit. So there are still bacteria, because that niche was not lost when some of them advanced into colonial organisms. Modern cells do show significantly more development than their ancient ancestors though. The addition of mitochondria are one example. You can get a nice summary from Dr. Paul Willis
here with a link showing our connection to rhesus monkeys.
@Steve
You wrote a lot, and I'm going to try and answer you without quotes. If I miss something please let me know. You make comparisons of the original self replicating protein strings and computer code. You also compare it to words and sentences. However this is still not an apples to apples comparison. The proteins are Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Thymine (T), Cytosine(C) and Uracil with Uracil. These aren't really letters, and they aren't the on and off repetition of computer code. They are physical substances with inherent properties that include the ability to combine and replicate.
Now, we do not currently know how the first molecule replicated, or how many tried it took to get one that survived. However science has demonstrated that these molecules do form naturally in the correct conditions and we have even succeed in creating ones that replicate. Evidence
here.
The self replicating RNA is no more in need of a designer than crystals. Both form complex structures, even replicating structures, naturally.
To further underscore the difference between DNA and RNA and letters and code, if I rearrange the letters and spaces in your sentence, "Surrender Earthlings" to "hlinGsndes urRereart" We don't have information anymore, just a jumble of letters. However proteins cross in replication and still come out with functional replicating cells. The order isn't critical to anything like the same degree. Instead of your stones spelling words it would be like pointing to three stones that happen to fall within a line and insisting they mean something about a star constellation they may point to. (Notice I changed the order, capitalization and spacing. language also has punctuation which further differentiates it from the proteins that are also colloquially called "information". Comparing genetic "information" with language is the same kind of category error we get when theory (an idea you may have about something) is offered as a synonym to a scientific theory such as gravity.
You used the phrase specified complexity a lot. From my reading this leads to William Dempsky's book "No Free Lunch."
The material in that book is addressed by people far more competent than I
here, and if you really want to go digging through rebuttals, additional links
here where talk origins has a whole FAQ dedicated to his work.
@Jason I'm just now reading your post. So if it's too similar I may refer you to the above. In any case feel free to respond to stuff I didn't address specifically to you. (Everyone should).
Jason wrote:I appreciate you engaging with these ideas, which I’m sure you’ve heard enough times to induce nausea. My goal was not to present novelty but to explain why I feel atheists don't give adequate weight to these arguments. They are passed over much too easily, and without sufficient warrant, in my opinion. Your reply is fairly standard (though well-articulated) but I could have predicted such objections. I guess a small part of me was hoping to hear an objection I had not formerly known, which may be unreasonable given that my own arguments are so well-worn. But I’d like to discuss your points and perhaps shed some light on why I don’t find them as compelling as you do.
This may be the crux of our problem. It is not just the arguments that sway me but the evidence supporting them, just as the god hypothesis has to fight my bias from all the other baggage that comes with it. We might have more luck looking at why we find our various arguments more compelling. I'd personally like to see responses to my points that go beyond the opinion of finding them unconvincing.
Design,
You said,
Jason wrote:But you and I both know that arranged complexity is evidence of design in any other area of inquiry and only gets discounted when it comes to the God discussions.
This is not a true statement. I do not infer design from arranged complexity. If I did I would have to attribute crystal formation to design, rather than to the physical properties of crystal forming elements. I would have to attribute design to snowflakes. Trillions and trillions of snowflakes. When I am evaluating an artifact for design I look at the environment, and history, and similar artifacts. In the case of your lens I can find people producing lenses. In the case of RNA I can find a biological process replicating RNA haphazardly through systems with no external manipulator. Or with a manipulator as in the case of breeding selection, where we get all our different kinds of dogs. However even in the case of dog breeders, or genetic engineers, I can show the difference between manipulating biological systems and the pure artifice of lens creation. Psychologists have demonstrated the human tendency to pattern seeking, and I distrust my own pattern identification, until is is supported by additional evidence.
Is there a concise link you can offer for your claims about the fossil record? Are there any mammals in the Cambrian for instance? That would be a death blow to evolutionary theory. I agree that science is practiced by humans, and that they often defend bad ideas until the death, you can see this in the opposition to germ theory. However in the long run good science wins. As the old guard die off and new scientists come at the data with less bias. I know of many ID proponents who have lost jobs and faced persecution, what I don't know of is any specific data point offered which has not been refuted. If you have one I'd really like to see it.
Prime Mover,
Your point makes sense, but dies to practicality. I can not entertain the possibility of a hypothesis until it is supported by evidence or argument, sufficient to rule out other possibilities. Science looks at natural explanations not because they are natural, but because they are verifiable. There is no verifiable data for a god. That is why an appeal to god is called a god of the gaps, it's not an expansion of our explanatory power, it's just a different way to say, "I don't know." Try substituting "I don't know" with "God did it" in any sentence. They are interchangeable. However if we are talking about how cells get nutrient and you say "I don't know" and I offer "Protein folding" I can back up protein folding. Once something offers explanatory power "I don't know" ceases to be an analog.
As an example, you tell me that a god created the universe, and I ask you what is a god, and you then have to come up with multiple properties that this god has to have. However, while you can show those properties are necessary for the god you are describing to do what you say it can, that is no better than when Stephen Hawking described the properties Dilithium would need to have to make warp drive work. It didn't demonstrate that warp drive or dilithium are real or should be considered possible things to find. It is no better a theory than my stating it wasn't a god, but universe creating pixies.
The universe might be created, might be a really complex design made to look like a series of natural processes, might even have been the work of a being called Loki. However until someone can offer a very strong reason for me to add magical ideas to my list of things that are possible I dismiss them because, as Hitchens said, that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Though I would expand it to a really good argument can also count. If you can provide an argument that rules out natural processes and requires a god then I'll likely convert back to deism.
Ethics,
There are two things going on here (I think). 1, How can we derive an ought from opinion. 2, The universe doesn't care.
1, Would you agree there is such a thing as health? That the opinion of a doctor, on how to maintain health, backed by research and evidence is more credible than the opinion offered by a homeopath who argues for undemonstrated properties of water? If you can see that not all opinions are equal, then I ask only that you divorce yourself of the toxic associations you have for the word opinion. Opinion is a synonym for belief and kin to the word knowledge, where knowledge is belief with certainty or belief supported by evidence.
I've tried repeatedly to explain how an objective moral code can be established, with understanding that implementation can not be flawless. I think my description is a pretty accurate appraisal of how we deal with questions of morality in the real world and why absolutist statements like "Lying is wrong" fail when situations are described where lying is right. It's not that I wouldn't like to have a true objective morality, it's just that I see no evidence for one. So this is the best we can currently do. (Unless someone can offer better)
2, I agree. The universe doesn't care. I'm not sure it would even if it could. I don't need it to. In fact I would find it kind of weird if something as vast as the universe were paying attention to me. On that scale I am less than inconsequential. It would be more absurd than if I worried about how the dust mites in the seat cushion I'm sitting on were getting along with each other. I have more important things to do. However I don't see that as an indictment on the morality or value I can access. I don't like mint chocolate chip ice cream because someone told me I have to. I like it because I do, and I eat it when I can. That pleasure is a small part of the enjoyment I get from living my life. I don't understand why you want the universe, or a god, to care. To me that seems like hubris. I think it should be enough to be important to ourselves, our friends and families and those whose lives we impact. Is that not enough for you? If not, why? Does it lead into a fear of death?