Commenting on ID
This is a comment on a youtube video where someone argued in favor of ID.
I couldn't handle the text limit there, so I put my answer here...
The video, BTW, is here.
1. "You have to listen very carefully, Jim, to every word, Jim, I say because,
Jim, this is very complicated" is a rhetorical device and a (pretty simplistic)
try at a hypnotic induction routine.
2. Physical entities, Jim, need a cause, so there must be a cause outside of
physical reality. So why would the rule of causation not apply to that outside
cause? Who created god?
3. You assume, Jim, that complex things are created by design, because that is
your everyday experience. There is, however, Jim, no logic in assuming that
this applies to every thing, much less, Jim, everything.
4. The possibility, Jim, of the enzyme is incredibly low (as some Dr. Prof.
John Doe, SSC NLP XZE calculated). That does NOT, Jim, mean that it is
impossible. And also, the fallacy is exactly what Dawkins mentions in his
book: The possibility of complexity emerging in one single generation is,
indeed, Jim, incredibly low. However, the possibility of complexity emerging in
very, very small steps over thousands of generations is extremely high. Jim.
IOW: This guy is using very clever language and rhetoric devices to throw sand
in his audience's faces, but his logic is clearly flawed. It's actually pretty
easy to see through, if you want to. If I can debunk it, so can you! Don't get
fooled by ID. It's not scientific at all.
I couldn't handle the text limit there, so I put my answer here...
The video, BTW, is here.
1. "You have to listen very carefully, Jim, to every word, Jim, I say because,
Jim, this is very complicated" is a rhetorical device and a (pretty simplistic)
try at a hypnotic induction routine.
2. Physical entities, Jim, need a cause, so there must be a cause outside of
physical reality. So why would the rule of causation not apply to that outside
cause? Who created god?
3. You assume, Jim, that complex things are created by design, because that is
your everyday experience. There is, however, Jim, no logic in assuming that
this applies to every thing, much less, Jim, everything.
4. The possibility, Jim, of the enzyme is incredibly low (as some Dr. Prof.
John Doe, SSC NLP XZE calculated). That does NOT, Jim, mean that it is
impossible. And also, the fallacy is exactly what Dawkins mentions in his
book: The possibility of complexity emerging in one single generation is,
indeed, Jim, incredibly low. However, the possibility of complexity emerging in
very, very small steps over thousands of generations is extremely high. Jim.
IOW: This guy is using very clever language and rhetoric devices to throw sand
in his audience's faces, but his logic is clearly flawed. It's actually pretty
easy to see through, if you want to. If I can debunk it, so can you! Don't get
fooled by ID. It's not scientific at all.