[cap-talk] Off-topic: watchmaker argument

[Sam Mason]

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 02:47:52PM -0800, Mike Samuel wrote:
> The core claims of ID are that there is a non-empty set of existing
> irreducibly complex artifacts and that these must have been designed and
> that a design is evidence of a designer.
> 
> The clip you cited makes a compelling case that the irreducibly complex set
> is smaller than one might believe, but it does not prove it's empty.  And I
> don't think it's easy to prove that it is empty -- many directed search
> algorithms have real trouble with local minima and so it is quite reasonable
> to believe that an arrangment of local minima in a search space could make
> it hard for a directed search algorithm to transition from one region in the
> search space to another i.e., that there are many structures that are
> vanishingly unlikely to be produced by evolution.  Proving that none of
> those structures exist in nature is hard.

As it's the proponents of ID that postulate the presence of a designer,
I find it slightly counterintuitive that we should be trying to prove
this set is empty.  In my mind the onus is on supporters of ID to find
examples of "designed" things.  Once an example is found then I'll be
prepared to accept the presence of a "designer".


-- 
  Sam  http://samason.me.uk/