Thursday, June 5, 2008
unscientific science
Argument
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations. It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexityThe eye is a famous example of a supposedly irreducibly complex structure, due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another. It is frequently cited by intelligent design and creationism advocates as an example of irreducible complexity.
Counter argument
There has also been a theory that challenges irreducible complexity called facilitated variation. The theory has been presented in 2005 by Marc W. Kirschner, a professor and chair of Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, and John C. Gerhart, a professor in Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley. In their theory, they describe how certain mutation and changes can cause apparent irreducible complexity. Thus, seemingly irreducibly complex structures are merely "very complex", or they are simply misunderstood or misrepresented. - wikipedia
The above is an example of how scientists argue and counter argue on evolution. “Natural selection among species” can be accepted as an undeniable fact only if there is direct evidence through direct observation or fossil records.
Scientists counter argue against intelligent design by conducting mutations inside their own labs (controlled environments). In other words, they replicate nature by intervening at the genetic level. So what then is so natural about this process? It is artificial selection of the gene pool in a controlled environment that requires higher intelligence. So no matter how valid evidences they collect, it is all artificial.
The scientists, then, make a huge leap of faith by saying this occurs randomly in nature naturally over millions of years and with this narrow frame of mind go out in the fields to collect fossil records (neglecting other types of evidences they actually find which are diametrically opposite to their hypothesis).
This is neither scientific nor common sensical…now if this is not blind faith, then what is? and this is being taught to children in school as fact?
Hare Krishna
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I have also thought like that. Materialistic scientists claim that it is unscientific to propose that there is a God because it cannot be theoretically disproven, in other words that there is no way to test the null hypothesis.
However, it is also not possible to test the null hypothesis for the idea that life arose from matter without any assistance from a pre-existent intelligence or person. They cannot go back to the distant past when they propose that life began, and they also cannot set up an experiment without at least the influence of human intelligence.
Therefore their proposal fails the same criteria for scientific investigation as does the proposal that matter came from life. The difference, of course, is that they cannot reasonably explain the Vedas without some kind of superhuman intelligence; and there are also many other shortcomings to their challenges to theism. Hare Krishna.
Post a Comment