Does the theory of evolution actually decrease the probability of the theory of intelligent design being more viable?
I hear a lot of people say something to the effect of:
"Intelligent design is a less adequate theory for the origin of life because Evolution explains how all of life could spontaneously assemble"
Does that statement actually make logical sense?
I think this line of thinking needs to be evaluated more thoroughly.
This article is written to discuss and analyze the theory of intelligent design in comparison to the theory of spontaneous assembly.
Typically intelligent design (not involving evolution) is compared to spontaneously assembly (involving evolution). However, in this article, intelligent design (involving evolution) is compared to spontaneous assembly (involving evolution versus spontaneous assembly without evolution).
The main point being argued is that the attribute of something with evolution capacity is SO complex that its existence becomes MORE improbable, and this improbability amplifies the validity of the theory of intelligent design. Life would be LESS incredible/complex if it did not involve evolution.
Consider this analogy: imagine walking around the base of a volcano and finding 8.7 million different intricately formed statues. No stone-mason is in sight currently. An individual named Bob states that statues do not constitute evidence of a stone mason because it is possible that the statues could have all formed spontaneously through billions of years of volcanic eruptions. Bob then determines that this spontaneous assembly is more probable than there being a stone mason because he cant see one, so there is no evidence of one in light of the possibility of spontaneous assembly.
Just then a robot is observed. The robot is carving the finishing touches of a complex scene of emotion and beauty onto a statues face. Bob then theorizes that this statue forming robot must have spontaneously formed from the volcano and concludes that all of the statues came from the robot.
In case you haven't figured it out, in this analogy, evolution is the "robot" that has the capacity to create 8.7 million species (statues).
Which is more probable:
1). The spontaneous assembly of a robot which makes statues.
2). The spontaneous assembly of 8.7 million different statues.
Maybe it would be better to think of it like this: which would be harder and more advanced to create:
1). 8.7 million different functional video games or
2). a robot that engineers 8.7 million functional video games.
The "harder" and more advanced thing is estimated to be less likely to occur through spontaneous events.
-- okay, back to what I was going to say earlier: The attribute of evolution is so complex, so improbable and so intricate that it could be thought of as being MORE complex than the difference between a statue and a statue making robot. Let me explain.
Just to Model the Simplest Microbe in the world, you need 128 computers. That is just to "model" it-- that isn't trying to actually "replicate" it. To replicate this kind of insanely intricate and complex technology is so far beyond what the most powerful supercomputers and most intricate machines could even come close to accomplishing. Remember that we are talking about THE MOST SIMPLE LIVING THING IN THE WORLD. Humans are incomprehensibly and insanely MORE complex than this living organism.
There are 8.7 million different living species on earth, and many more predicted that are currently extinct. Designing this many different species is a feat beyond comprehension.
Now imagine designing a model in which the simplest microbe in the world evolves into 8.7 million different species.
Some people say that the possibility of evolution unmakes the reasonable necessity of an intelligent designer. I argue that this is the opposite of the case. Lets think about those 128 computers it takes just to model the simplest microbe in the world and imagine what kind of processing power it would require to model a system in which more than 8.7 million the different kinds of living organisms have the ability to completely be altered, allowing them to survive and adapt to different conditions. This unbelievably complex attribute of evolution does not "simplify" the requirements necessary to explain away life as a more reasonably explained to be a spontaneous event, but rather it further makes it infinitely more improbable that millions of designs of such intricate complexity could have such a complex and intricate survival capacity technology. If it takes 128 computers to model the simplest microbe in the world, I theorize that it would take at least a few trillion times more super computers in order to simulate a scenario in which a single celled organism could evolve into a much more complex one.
Restating what I said earlier:
The complex attribute of having evolution capacity is so complicated and incredible that it could be argued that it is more probable for more than 8.7 million different species to separately have just randomly/spontaneously formed into existence on their own-- separately (without evolution), than that ANY of them have such a complex capacity to evolve into different species. The attribute and event of evolution is that amazing and incomprehensible.
In conclusion: evolution is a VASTLY more complex design than a design that does not involve evolution (comparable to a statue vs a robot that makes statues) and therefore the existence of evolution would make spontaneous assembly MORE unlikely and improbable to occur-- comparable to a volcano spontaneously forming 8.7 million statues being more likely to occur than the probability that a volcano spawned a robot with the capacity to form 8.7 million different species.
In short: Life thru evolution is a greater evidence of intelligent design than the existence of life without evolution.
"Intelligent design is a less adequate theory for the origin of life because Evolution explains how all of life could spontaneously assemble"
Does that statement actually make logical sense?
I think this line of thinking needs to be evaluated more thoroughly.
This article is written to discuss and analyze the theory of intelligent design in comparison to the theory of spontaneous assembly.
Typically intelligent design (not involving evolution) is compared to spontaneously assembly (involving evolution). However, in this article, intelligent design (involving evolution) is compared to spontaneous assembly (involving evolution versus spontaneous assembly without evolution).
The main point being argued is that the attribute of something with evolution capacity is SO complex that its existence becomes MORE improbable, and this improbability amplifies the validity of the theory of intelligent design. Life would be LESS incredible/complex if it did not involve evolution.
Consider this analogy: imagine walking around the base of a volcano and finding 8.7 million different intricately formed statues. No stone-mason is in sight currently. An individual named Bob states that statues do not constitute evidence of a stone mason because it is possible that the statues could have all formed spontaneously through billions of years of volcanic eruptions. Bob then determines that this spontaneous assembly is more probable than there being a stone mason because he cant see one, so there is no evidence of one in light of the possibility of spontaneous assembly.
Just then a robot is observed. The robot is carving the finishing touches of a complex scene of emotion and beauty onto a statues face. Bob then theorizes that this statue forming robot must have spontaneously formed from the volcano and concludes that all of the statues came from the robot.
In case you haven't figured it out, in this analogy, evolution is the "robot" that has the capacity to create 8.7 million species (statues).
Is it appropriate to compare something as complex as a robot to something as simple as a statue? My argument is that the process is evolution is MORE complex than the structure of DNA. I argue that the relative complexity of evolution is SO MUCH more advanced than the structure of DNA that comparing a robot to a statue is not adequate enough make up for the difference in complexity. I will explain in a moment. But first, let me summarize the argument in the form of a question:
1). The spontaneous assembly of a robot which makes statues.
2). The spontaneous assembly of 8.7 million different statues.
Maybe it would be better to think of it like this: which would be harder and more advanced to create:
1). 8.7 million different functional video games or
2). a robot that engineers 8.7 million functional video games.
The "harder" and more advanced thing is estimated to be less likely to occur through spontaneous events.
-- okay, back to what I was going to say earlier: The attribute of evolution is so complex, so improbable and so intricate that it could be thought of as being MORE complex than the difference between a statue and a statue making robot. Let me explain.
Just to Model the Simplest Microbe in the world, you need 128 computers. That is just to "model" it-- that isn't trying to actually "replicate" it. To replicate this kind of insanely intricate and complex technology is so far beyond what the most powerful supercomputers and most intricate machines could even come close to accomplishing. Remember that we are talking about THE MOST SIMPLE LIVING THING IN THE WORLD. Humans are incomprehensibly and insanely MORE complex than this living organism.
There are 8.7 million different living species on earth, and many more predicted that are currently extinct. Designing this many different species is a feat beyond comprehension.
Now imagine designing a model in which the simplest microbe in the world evolves into 8.7 million different species.
Some people say that the possibility of evolution unmakes the reasonable necessity of an intelligent designer. I argue that this is the opposite of the case. Lets think about those 128 computers it takes just to model the simplest microbe in the world and imagine what kind of processing power it would require to model a system in which more than 8.7 million the different kinds of living organisms have the ability to completely be altered, allowing them to survive and adapt to different conditions. This unbelievably complex attribute of evolution does not "simplify" the requirements necessary to explain away life as a more reasonably explained to be a spontaneous event, but rather it further makes it infinitely more improbable that millions of designs of such intricate complexity could have such a complex and intricate survival capacity technology. If it takes 128 computers to model the simplest microbe in the world, I theorize that it would take at least a few trillion times more super computers in order to simulate a scenario in which a single celled organism could evolve into a much more complex one.
Restating what I said earlier:
The complex attribute of having evolution capacity is so complicated and incredible that it could be argued that it is more probable for more than 8.7 million different species to separately have just randomly/spontaneously formed into existence on their own-- separately (without evolution), than that ANY of them have such a complex capacity to evolve into different species. The attribute and event of evolution is that amazing and incomprehensible.
In conclusion: evolution is a VASTLY more complex design than a design that does not involve evolution (comparable to a statue vs a robot that makes statues) and therefore the existence of evolution would make spontaneous assembly MORE unlikely and improbable to occur-- comparable to a volcano spontaneously forming 8.7 million statues being more likely to occur than the probability that a volcano spawned a robot with the capacity to form 8.7 million different species.
In short: Life thru evolution is a greater evidence of intelligent design than the existence of life without evolution.
Comments
Post a Comment