The design argument

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
690 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Sep 28, 2008

Why William Dembski's idea of Specified Complexity in Intelligent Design is a bad argument for the existence of God

Category:

Education

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 1 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (TheLittleDonkey)

  • Newton's law says anything that exsists or happens, has a cause that sets it in motion. No matter which way you cut it science can only explain things so far in this "observable universe". The laws of our universe were supposedly set in place by the big bang. In order to explain what caused the big bang you have to tap into newtons laws which didn't exsist before the big bang. The bible claims that God created time and lives outside of it and uses that along with natural resources he created.

  • ehum, no. Newtons' laws does cover "what exists or happens".

    If you want to claim that God is supernatural, that's fine. This video doesn't address that.

  • It's been said but why would an intelligent designer allow for millions of species only to have them go extinct. Is he (she?) so cavelier or inmpotent that they operate only once in Earth history? Why not give nature a helping hand now and then?

  • That is a vaild point

  • awesome!!!!

  • Thank you sir

Video Responses

This video is a response to Evolution is not Abiogenesis, or The Big Bang
see all

All Comments (7)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Holy craptastic! I liked Dumbski when I first heard of ID, but misusing mathematics is sacrilege in the house of january. I hope I never meet this fool on the street... I ended up researching cutting-edge hypotheses on emergence to falsify his math... then went back to Godel's Incompleteness... which these fools seem to love, but actually turns them into fools.. then went into philosophy, and now I wonder what Godel was on about... what is "false?" I'm gonna do some intelligent undesigning... ;)

  • I remember coming to this exact conclusion back when most creationists were peddling that lame example of finding a painting in the forest, or finding writing in the sand and saying you know it was designed. The hilarious irony being that these examples only point out the obvious distinction between that which is designed, and isn't. I wanted to ask them why there was a difference between the painting and the forest they find it in.

  • Yes, but so is evolution.

    The point here is that even if ID was science, and design by God could be detected, and there was a creator God, it should detect design in everything, including snowflakes.

    Thanks for your comment

  • Another rebuttal might be an example of things which are both highly complex, yet obviously formed naturally, such as snowflakes.

    In fact, the probability against the exact crystal formation of any individual snowflake is astronomical.

    Nevertheless, the chemistry behind crystal formation in freezing water is fairly well understood.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more