|
 |
On 20-4-2010 22:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/19/2010 12:54 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of
>>> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems,
>>> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing.
>>
>> Certainly. And even if you found an irreducible system that you could
>> *prove* could *not* have evolved on its own, that still doesn't point to
>> the necessity of a God.
>>
>> After all, we already have systems like that. Indeed, the whole
>> "watchmaker's" argument is predicated on the fact that the watch is
>> indeed irreducible enough to need to be designed. It doesn't follow from
>> that that God created watches.
>>
> Actually, think someone wrote as fairly simple gear program that
> torpedoed that too.
you mean the one in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0?
> What is necessary is that change between versions be
> *possible*, and that the thing in question produce such *copy versions*.
> Watches need watchmakers, not because they are irreducibly complex, but
> because watches do not copy themselves, with or without modifications.
> If they did, they wouldn't need watchmakers either.
perhaps also good to mention is that watches, like all technology, did
actually evolve. If you look at one of the latest mechanical watched
made, you can not understand how someone could design that from scratch.
In fact you would need to retrace part of the history to understand that.
Better, if you would try to make that watch or something similar from
scratch (i.e. while you would also need to build the equipment to make
the parts) you would probably fail.
Why I find this fascinating? because to build something so refined you
need to make tools and you need to make the tools to make the tools.
Etc. And for some of the technology needed, the skills have been lost
and left no fossils. Which gives an interesting twist to the watchmaker
argument.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
