tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post5677399617043063408..comments2023-10-07T02:16:16.507-07:00Comments on The Primate Diaries: Parsimony and the Origin of Life in the UniverseEric Michael Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01272418277524164040noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-34899543793192961882007-10-10T09:40:00.000-07:002007-10-10T09:40:00.000-07:00Jeremy,As I'm sure you're well aware, the tautolog...Jeremy,<BR/><BR/>As I'm sure you're well aware, the tautological argument is from the religious proponents. "How do you know there's a God? Because the universe appears designed. Why does the universe appear designed? Because a design needs a designer, therefore God." Pointing out that a designer is necessarily more complex than the design is not a tautology, it's a logical truism. Even if you're assuming a deist God who sets up a few physical principles and never intervenes again, this entity would still require enough complexity to envision what these physical properties would eventually lead to. Intelligence is complexity, so where did this complexity come from? It's more parsimonious to assume elemental particles sprung into existence by yet unknown physical principles than it is to assume an advanced intelligence sprung into existence. Or if you want to assume that God always existed, what's the difference in just assuming that the universe always existed? Without evidence whatsoever suggesting a supernatural origin of the universe (and personal incredulity is not a valid argument) than the parsimonious assumption must be that the universe had it's origin through natural principles.Eric Michael Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01272418277524164040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-2634826492658219442007-10-08T14:09:00.000-07:002007-10-08T14:09:00.000-07:00I'm trying to figure out what notion of complexity...I'm trying to figure out what notion of complexity you have in mind. Dawkins gives a strange argument much like this in his recent book on religion, and I couldn't figure out what he had in mind there either.<BR/><BR/>The classical view that God is absolutely simple is perfectly consistent with the view that God has a providential plan covering every event that happens in history across all time. So I'm not sure at all why you and Dawkins think such a view requires God to be more complex than the designed thing. It surely requires God's plan to be more complex than individual parts of that plan, but that's nearly tautological, and it doesn't imply that God is more complex or that God is complex at all. It's just a <I>non sequitur</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-21912569555763463822007-09-06T10:44:00.000-07:002007-09-06T10:44:00.000-07:00"(Behe accepts human ancestry with apes but thinks..."(Behe accepts human ancestry with apes but thinks God intended humans to emerge)."<BR/><BR/>Behe, and just about every other proponent of ID. This makes it very interesting that Creationists would in any way tie themselves to ID! They don't believe THAT. It shows their desperation to have anyone on their side who speaks in ANY way against Darwinian evolution.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I heard someone (and I THOUGHT it was Behe) just recently trotting out the old flagellum again. Maybe it was Dembski.John Evohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868904051881865159noreply@blogger.com