Is the argument from complexity a dead argument?

[Aloysium]

What is complex is the structure of the universe that includes causality. The organization of that structure is understood in terms of physical laws. The laws are so precise and regular that what may be considered random is not. In a universe governed by laws, that is to say one that has a structure that can be known, there must be a cause to not only that structure but also the capacity to know it. It seems to me that the argument from complexity is not dead at all. That someone is in denial does not destroy the argument, it impacts only on their abiliity to understand.

 

[IWantGod]

So I would like to point out that since no one here is even bothering to discuss “complexity” anymore, I think that it is fair to say that the argument from complexity is in fact dead. Instead, it seems that the “argument from laws” or “the argument from regularity” is preferred.

For abiogenesis to be true and natural, a very complex system of moving parts and functions would have to spontaneously come together all in working order.

Thats very hard to believe. It makes more sense to think that an intelligence of some kind is the cause of it.

 

[inocente]

I am sorry if you find the articles difficult to follow and would just like to make a few more comments so you know where I am coming from.

The upfront abstracts of these papers say that many proteins can carry on the jobs.Then buried on the inside of the paper is the proportion of functional proteins, which is one in 10^63 in the Reidhaar-Olson and Sauer paper (I did not buy it but ordered it by interlibrary loan and have read it myself). There are a great number of proteins that can do the job, it is true, but as Dr. Axe describes, the problem is in the “search” for the ones which work. One protein with 100 amino acids has 10^130 possible combinations. There may be 10^65 that do the job, a huge number, but then still only 1 in 10^65 would do it. It is considered that only 10^50 organisms could have lived on the Earth even if it is billions of years old. All the organisms of life could not keep sifting through the gene combinations for proteins to find the thousands needed to do their jobs with proportions such as these.

Yockey is significant, no matter how old the paper, in that he was the first to predict this extreme improbability of proteins by comparing a particular protein in various species by information theory. This prediction has been validated in the experiments such as done by Dr. Axe and others.

I realize there is a lot of jargon in scientific papers which is why I am trying to explain things in a more understandable way to those who are not accustomed to reading the facts about biological complexity. I hope that some of my illustrations in the booklet gave you an idea of how complex biology is and how proteins and DNA work. My booklet is aimed basically for non-experts. Some may feel that Christians give a skewed account of science, but we feel we are trying to give the truth. For example, the Reidhaar-Olson paper should be easily accessible to the public as many important papers are. The abstract should have had that 1 in 10^63 number in it. These are the types of things that are not easily found and we get the idea the facts are not being shared as they should to the public.

I don’t want to get in trouble with the moderator – I hope I’m still staying within the lines. If you have more questions or comments about my booklet perhaps you can ask them on my blog (link at bottom of signature). Thanks for your interest and keep learning.

I doubt the research papers are difficult as such, but they contain a lot of jargon, and they’re sufficiently specialized that a degree in microbiology is required to assess the significance of the results. I’ve met very few creationists with any relevant accreditation. Indeed most don’t seem at all interested in microbiology except for where they’ve been told there’s a Big Problem by the small number of accredited people such as Axe. And can’t help thinking that as his job relies on creationism, he may or may not have an axe to grind.

In the critique, Dr Sonleitner refers to various evidence to support the view that there is no Big Problem.

In addition, these papers are not exactly hot off the press, yet there’s no sign that the microbiology community has been in meltdown over them for the last twenty years. Indeed, you yourself have linked sites indicating support for extending the current standard model.

Don’t see why you’d get in trouble, you’ve done nothing wrong. As you know, just be careful with the banned topic. Thanks for the conversation .

 

[fisherman_carl]

From what I said earlier with the lotto 649 example the argument from complexity is related to the probability of our particular implementation of the universe. As an illustration, what is the probability that the wind and the waves would create a sand castle with little flags on top of it? Whenever, you see a logical order to something it implies logic behind it. For surely, the possibility of an ordered and structured sand castle is increasingly reduced the more ordered and structured it is. At some point, unless one is completely stubborn, one has to concede there is an ordered mind behind it. If everything was chaotic then one would not think there to be a logical order. It is no wonder that many look at the wonder of creation and conclude that there is some sort of not only logic but divine artistry behind it. Nature continues to inspire artists and other nature lovers. But this goes into the argument from beauty.

 

[inocente]

When will you traveling in outer space to verify relativity for yourself?

I would bet that most of the scientific things have not been personally verified by you. Nor can all scientists verify every other scientists work. Therefore, some things are taken based on authority and credibility of the scientist. Nonetheless, this requires faith, since you did not personally observe their work.

I’ve read Einstein’s papers and looked through the experiments. In addition, it’s cool that GPS had to be designed for relativity or it just wouldn’t work.

There’s no need to accept anything on authority in science. If you’ve interested in something, learn about it and make up your own mind. Otherwise what’s the point?

My faith in God doesn’t rely on any scientific hypotheses or on arguments from complexity or fine-tuning or whatever, so authority isn’t relevant there either.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I’ve read Einstein’s papers and looked through the experiments. In addition, it’s cool that GPS had to be designed for relativity or it just wouldn’t work.

That’s great. But, That still requires you to put faith in the experiments that someone else did. Or to believe an article you read about GPS is correct.

There’s no need to accept anything on authority in science. If you’ve interested in something, learn about it and make up your own mind. Otherwise what’s the point?

While in theory it is possible to conduct any experiment yourself, in actual practicality it would be impossible for any one person to do all of them. I don’t for instance have a large hadron collider in my back yard. Nor do I have access to human brain tissue to study. There is a certain amount of trust and faith that we must put into other scientists simply because we can not do everything.

My faith in God doesn’t rely on any scientific hypotheses or on arguments from complexity or fine-tuning or whatever, so authority isn’t relevant there either.

How is authority involved in the argument from complexity? Isn’t faith as a result of hearing God’s Word?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So I would like to point out that since no one here is even bothering to discuss “complexity” anymore, I think that it is fair to say that the argument from complexity is in fact dead.

It’s not a fact that the argument is dead except in your mind.

You will also have to consider the first reaction of Francis Crick to his discovery of the DNA molecule. He believed the complexity of the molecule so grand that he could not imagine it having arrived by natural processes, but rather that extra-terrestrials had planted the first living organisms on earth.

No one since Crick has presented a viable theory of how the first living cell came to be.

So much for your notion that complexity is a dead issue.

 

[inocente]

“Complex:characterized by a very complicated or involved** arrangement** of parts, units, etc”.

Molecules randomly moving around and randomly bumping into each other exist within a framework of order and regularity. What occurs at the macroscopic level is incomparably more significant because otherwise life wouldn’t exist and nothing would make sense. Absurdity doesn’t rule the universe…

To repeat, you said “Complexity presupposes natural laws” and I replied “Natural laws are not a priori, they are instead inferred from the behavior of phenomena.”

You have totally ignored the principle of economy which implies a null hypothesis. Null = Of or relating to a set having no members or to zero magnitude. In any realm of knowledge there is nothing more economical than nothing!

Please cite a public definition of null hypothesis which means that, and since you say it applies to metaphysics, please cite a couple of examples of the term being used in a metaphysical setting.

Our existence is totally irrelevant to the issue of complexity.

Good, at least we two agree that the argument from complexity is dead.

*The phrase “of all existence” is redundant. A total void is a possibility that cannot reasonably be ignored. There is no logical reason for believing otherwise.The onus is on you to prove that something must exist, remembering that we are not necessary neither is anything else except the Supreme Being. *

Hang on, you said “the most economical hypothesis” is that “there need not be any universe at all” and I asked you to prove that there need not be any universe at all. Even when garnished, your opinion is your opinion, not a proof.

The Abrahamic religions are an example of the belief that there is a Necessary Being, “He Who Is” - and that Being is superior to human beings who are made in His image with* the power of reason*** and the capacity for creative love.

You said “hypotheses presuppose at least one rational mind” but the Abrahamic religions have never made God an hypothesis.

“wiser” and “stronger” are the key words. Christ Himself taught us that God is a loving Father who creates the beauty in the world and expects us to follow His example by treating everyone as our brothers and sisters. Love is not irrational but eminently reasonable because it is the source of unity and harmony. It is apparently foolish but in reality it leads to joy and fulfilment in heaven.

Perhaps you should read the passage again. Paul never says it’s apparently foolish to anyone, he says it’s foolishness to non-believers and wisdom to believers.

You said “hypotheses presuppose at least one rational mind” and Paul says “we preach Christ crucified”. We do not preach worldly wisdom, we do not preach hypotheses.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That’s great. But, That still requires you to put faith in the experiments that someone else did. Or to believe an article you read about GPS is correct.

This is true, but if you follow the path you’ve laid out too aggressively, you might end up making assertions like “well you still have to put your faith in the people who tell you that microwaves heat up food” and you don’t want to be the guy arguing that its an accident that our microwaves work at all, and they actually run on magic.

I don’t believe it is possible to defeat a purely skeptical line of inquiry, but at the end of the day there is a need for pragmatism. The pragmatic justification for believing in microwave radiation is that microwaves actually heat up our food, and the pragmatic justification for the correctness of GPS is that it gets us where we want to go.

 

[inocente]

That’s great. But, That still requires you to put faith in the experiments that someone else did. Or to believe an article you read about GPS is correct.

*Faith:

1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.*

Neither applies. I don’t have complete trust in GR since all scientific theories are provisional, GR could be found limited tomorrow, and it’s not a spiritual conviction.

*While in theory it is possible to conduct any experiment yourself, in actual practicality it would be impossible for any one person to do all of them. I don’t for instance have a large hadron collider in my back yard. Nor do I have access to human brain tissue to study. There is a certain amount of trust and faith that we must put into other scientists simply because we can not do everything. *

Nope, I was taught that if it’s important then go through it for yourself and make up your own mind.

How is authority involved in the argument from complexity? Isn’t faith as a result of hearing God’s Word?

These are two totally separate questions.

Arguments from complexity claim that some biological systems could not be the result of natural selection. I’ve only see arguments in the microbiological domain, mostly made by people who rely on authority as they have no formal or informal training in microbiology.

Your second question, “Isn’t faith as a result of hearing God’s Word?” appears to contradict what you said above about putting faith in scientists, but otherwise, agreed.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It’s not a fact that the argument is dead except in your mind.

You will also have to consider the first reaction of Francis Crick to his discovery of the DNA molecule. He believed the complexity of the molecule so grand that he could not imagine it having arrived by natural processes, but rather that extra-terrestrials had planted the first living organisms on earth.

No one since Crick has presented a viable theory of how the first living cell came to be.

So much for your notion that complexity is a dead issue.

So by making this a God of the Gaps argument you can keep it alive, but you’ve also stamped it with an expiration date.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

For abiogenesis to be true and natural, a very complex system of moving parts and functions would have to spontaneously come together all in working order.

Thats very hard to believe. It makes more sense to think that an intelligence of some kind is the cause of it.

It took me a minute to recognize where my objection to this lay, but I believe it is exactly the same objection I raised earlier:

The problem lies in the difference between the colloquial use of “pure chance” and the actual science of stochastic systems. In a truly and purely random assemblage of matter, then the structures we see would indeed be astronomically unlikely. But we’ve never had such a scenario, and people who appeal to such a scenario are essentially attacking a straw man.

Your post was tricky because it hid the concept of randomness inside the word “spontaneously” which has connotations that are not usually associated with randomness.

If I were to drop a ball, then claim that the ball spontaneously fell to the floor, people would presumably not find this hard to believe, although you might object to the use of the word “spontaneous.” If I were to tell people that I had a computer program that traded on the stock market, and that it spontaneously bought Apple stock, people would probably not find that hard to believe. So why do people find it hard to believe that a system which does chemistry (i.e. the universe) spontaneously did a particular chemical reaction (i.e. the one which led to life?)

As I said earlier, I think the reason has to do with how we think about randomness. In the “ball” example, we wouldn’t even consider randomness at all. The example is so common and well understood, that the “spontaneous” motion of the ball towards the planet is simply a fact of life.

The stock market example is similar, but because it’s the stock market we’re already primed to think about randomness. Buying Apple stock is a very “ordinary” event. Even if the trading system just picked stuff at random, we wouldn’t be surprised that it happened to choose Apple stock.

So what is different about chemistry? I think it is twofold:

1. People still (subconsciously?) cling to Vitalism and therefore don’t completely believe that chemistry alone can give rise to the phenomena we associate with “life” in the first place. This automatically makes “abiogenesis” an extraordinary claim, unlike the Apple stock example.
2. People think that whatever chemical reaction that gave rise to life must be somehow privileged and therefore either highly unlikely or impossible without some external influence.

While I think the CC still teaches that animals have souls, I’m not sure of their position on bacteria or other single celled organisms. Therefore, I am simply going to assume that the people here can at least agree that it is in principle possible to completely describe simple organisms by their chemistry alone.

The second point is, I think, the real crux of the issue with abiogenesis. I am even inclined to agree, that the chemical reactions which gave rise to life most likely required very special conditions to occur, and that they are therefore rare and unlikely. Indeed, the difficulty scientists have had so far in producing plausible candidate reactions is probably weak evidence for that assumption. The issue is that without more specific info about what those reactions are we can’t actually tell how unlikely they are. Nevertheless, the universe is a big place and so it shouldn’t be too surprising that unlikely things happen. Therefore, the argument from complexity requires us to assert that the chemistry of abiogenesis is rarer than the universe is large, and the counter is to simply assert that the universe is larger than abiogenesis is rare. Therefore, the deciding factor will simply be a clear picture of the chemistry involved in abiogenesis, and the corresponding probability.

 

[yppop]

The answer to the question is both yes and no. The path of complexity is a slowly rising curve intersected at several points during which complexity underwent an extraordinary increase in a relatively brief period of time, a virtual discontinuity that had the appearance of a creation event.

There were four main creation events associated with material complexity, each followed by long periods of the slowly rising complexity, the stasis periods. In addition to the main creation events, we can also identify a number of smaller discontinuous increases that occur during the stasis periods, for example the formation of the oceans during the pre-geological or the eukaryotic cell during the microbiotic period.

This chart represents an enormous amount of information and knowledge and there is more than one way to formulate an argument that God was directly involved in the creation events (the yes) and indirectly in the stasis periods during which plausible natural mechanisms such as the theory of evolution can be applied (the no).

The direct involvement of God can best be proven with complexity by concentrating on the fourth event, the creation of multicellular organisms. I call it somagenesis because it so befuddles evolutionary biologists that they haven’t given it a specific name. They have proposed several hypotheses but none that comes close to an answer to the problem of ontogeny.

Ontogeny is the transformation of a single fertilized cell, the zygote, into a multicellular organism. The transformation requires mechanisms that cause cell differentiation, cell growth, and morphogenesis to be available before somagenesis can occur. Before the first zygote appeared the basic materials from which it emerged had to include genders and sexual mechanisms. And if that isn’t enough to require the involvement of divine intervention, then the realization that the production of the zygote and its subsequent nurturing during the ontogenetic process required a “parent”, a multicellular organism that could only have come from another zygote. Yes, only God could figure out the answer to the grand old question, “What came first, the chicken or the egg” and we aren’t even counting the rooster!
Yppop

 

[fisherman_carl]

Faith:

1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Neither applies. I don’t have complete trust in GR since all scientific theories are provisional, GR could be found limited tomorrow, and it’s not a spiritual conviction.

That definition is a bit of a cop out. Do you have complete trust in God? 100%? Are you being honest? If not then according to this definition you do not have faith. I would say that complete trust is a bit of a rarity. Remember what doubting Thomas said? ‘I believe, help me overcome my unbelief.’ Did Thomas have complete trust?

I would submit to you that what we are talking about is knowledge, i.e., how we can know something. If you know something then you do not need faith. For example, if I know that God exists because I can see him and observe him I do not need faith to believe he exists. The only way that we can know something in the strict sense is if we can personally observe and verify something for ourselves. I can for instance see the keyboard I am typing on and therefore I know I am using a keyboard. You can not see
me typing on the keyboard so you do not know that I used a keyboard. I may have used dictation software or be an automated bot for all you know. It may make sense for you to believe me when I say that I used a keyboard to type this, since why would I lie, but you do not know in the strict sense because you can not personally observe the keyboard.

So unless you personally did the scientific experiments, not just read about them, and had the same results, you do not really know in the strict sense that the results are in fact valid. It requires some faith in the scientists ability and credibility who did them, and, perhaps faith in the scientific method itself.

Nope, I was taught that if it’s important then go through it for yourself and make up your own mind.

So, when are you going into space?

These are two totally separate questions.

True, but I was in a hurry. You said your faith wasn’t based on the complexity argument. I would agree with you. There probably isn’t very many people who’s faith is based on a single argument. So, my question is what is your faith based on? I was thinking you might say that faith was based on hearing the Word of God because that is what Scripture says.

SOME] Arguments from complexity claim that some biological systems could not be the result of natural selection. I’ve only see arguments in the microbiological domain, mostly made by people who rely on authority as they have no formal or informal training in microbiology.

Ok.

Your second question, “Isn’t faith as a result of hearing God’s Word?” appears to contradict what you said above about putting faith in scientists, but otherwise, agreed.

It doesn’t contradict because the theological virtue of faith is different than natural faith. The theological virtue is a gift of grace from the Holy Spirit. It is of supernatural origin. It is somewhat of a mystery because it comes from outside ourselves. Whereas, natural faith comes from ourselves. For instance, we may have natural faith to believe that God exists just from looking at all the evidence and arguments for God’s existence. We may not know he exists in the strict sense because we can not directly observe him. Thus, faith is required here, but there was no supernatural gift needed to believe in the existence of a God.

Unless, you know and can verify everything yourself you gotta have some faith. You gotta have some faith in your car and that you won’t be killed in a car accident when you go for a drive. Otherwise, you probably would not go.

 

[IWantGod]

It took me a minute to recognize where my objection to this lay, but I believe it is exactly the same objection I raised earlier:

Your post was tricky because it hid the concept of randomness inside the word “spontaneously” which has connotations that are not usually associated with randomness.

If I were to drop a ball, then claim that the ball spontaneously fell to the floor, people would presumably not find this hard to believe, although you might object to the use of the word “spontaneous.” If I were to tell people that I had a computer program that traded on the stock market, and that it spontaneously bought Apple stock, people would probably not find that hard to believe. So why do people find it hard to believe that a system which does chemistry (i.e. the universe) spontaneously did a particular chemical reaction (i.e. the one which led to life?)

As I said earlier, I think the reason has to do with how we think about randomness. In the “ball” example, we wouldn’t even consider randomness at all. The example is so common and well understood, that the “spontaneous” motion of the ball towards the planet is simply a fact of life.

The stock market example is similar, but because it’s the stock market we’re already primed to think about randomness. Buying Apple stock is a very “ordinary” event. Even if the trading system just picked stuff at random, we wouldn’t be surprised that it happened to choose Apple stock.

So what is different about chemistry? I think it is twofold:

1. People still (subconsciously?) cling to Vitalism and therefore don’t completely believe that chemistry alone can give rise to the phenomena we associate with “life” in the first place. This automatically makes “abiogenesis” an extraordinary claim, unlike the Apple stock example.
2. People think that whatever chemical reaction that gave rise to life must be somehow privileged and therefore either highly unlikely or impossible without some external influence.

While I think the CC still teaches that animals have souls, I’m not sure of their position on bacteria or other single celled organisms. Therefore, I am simply going to assume that the people here can at least agree that it is in principle possible to completely describe simple organisms by their chemistry alone.

The second point is, I think, the real crux of the issue with abiogenesis. I am even inclined to agree, that the chemical reactions which gave rise to life most likely required very special conditions to occur, and that they are therefore rare and unlikely. Indeed, the difficulty scientists have had so far in producing plausible candidate reactions is probably weak evidence for that assumption. The issue is that without more specific info about what those reactions are we can’t actually tell how unlikely they are. Nevertheless, the universe is a big place and so it shouldn’t be too surprising that unlikely things happen. Therefore, the argument from complexity requires us to assert that the chemistry of abiogenesis is rarer than the universe is large, and the counter is to simply assert that the universe is larger than abiogenesis is rare. Therefore, the deciding factor will simply be a clear picture of the chemistry involved in abiogenesis, and the corresponding probability.

Natural Abiogenesis is like a wind blowing through a scrap yard and out pops a jumbo jet. You are dealing with spontaneous complex functional activity that didn’t exist before and also we are dealing with processes that behave just like we’d expect if they had been infused we teleological information (reproduction) - its just like a program accept we didn’t write it. Its not the same thing as ice turning into water. If the concept of “chemical reactions” alone was all that was needed to make sense of such an event we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I think you are down playing how ridiculous the idea of natural abiogenesis really is.

We have examples of natural evolution, but with evolution we already have complex systems in place which allow evolution to occur. We have zero examples whatsoever of Abiogenesis.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So by making this a God of the Gaps argument you can keep it alive, but you’ve also stamped it with an expiration date.

What is the expiration date and how do you know that is the correct date?

It’s not really a God-of-the-Gaps argument.

Crick was an atheist, but, because of the complexity of DNA he was willing to believe a superior intelligence seeded life on earth … some kind of terrestrial.

So would you call that the Terrestrial-of-the-Gaps argument?

 

[cfauster]

Philosophically and theologically, it matters little what success scientists have had, and will have, in explaining the origins of the earliest living things (life from non-life).

If the complexity found in living things comes from the order in chemistry, where does the order in chemistry come from?

If the order in atoms and molecules comes from the properties of subatomic particles, where do the properties of subatomic particles come from?

If the properties of subatomic particles come from some more fundamental conditions of the natural world, where do those fundamental conditions come from?

Scientifically, of course, these are very interesting and significant questions.

If a particular question remains stubbornly open (unsolved), we can’t tell whether that’s because:

1. we’re just ignorant and the explanation is there and waiting - albeit maybe indefinitely - to be discovered,

or

1. the explanation really isn’t there to be discovered, no matter hard long/hard we try and no matter how much our descendants might discover and learn, because the open question really is, inherently and fundamentally, an unfathomable mystery for science.

Since we can’t know a priori which is the case, we have plenty of motivation to keep trying to learn what we can through science. We can’t really predict that scientists will find the answers (naturalism of the gaps). We can’t really predict that scientists won’t (supernaturalism of the gaps). Thus, it’s unwise to use the presence or absence of such gaps to argue for or against divine action.

 

[tonyrey]

"Complex:characterized by a very complicated or involved** arrangement**

You have evaded the fact that there is **a framework of order and regularity **which enables us to understand that natural laws are more fundamental than the random movements of molecules.

You have totally ignored the principle of economy which implies a null hypothesis. Null = Of or relating to a set having no members

• or to zero magnitude. In any realm of knowledge there is nothing more economical than nothing!

Please cite a public definition of null hypothesis which means that, and since you say it applies to metaphysics, please cite a couple of examples of the term being used in a metaphysical setting.

The truth does not depend on public definitions but is composed of** facts** such as “In any realm of knowledge there is nothing more economical than nothing.”

Our existence is totally irrelevant to the issue of complexity.

Good, at least we two agree that the argument from complexity is dead.

False deduction. Complex organisation is not a product of heterogeneous events like the random movements of molecules. To reject Design is to deny that God has a plan for the universe and its inhabitants.

The phrase “of all existence” is redundant. A total void is a possibility that cannot reasonably be ignored. There is no logical reason for believing otherwise.The onus is on you to prove that something must exist, remembering that we are not necessary neither is anything else except the Supreme Being.

Hang on, you said “the most economical hypothesis” is that “there need not be any universe at all” and I asked you to prove that there need not be any universe at all. Even when garnished, your opinion is your opinion, not a proof.

It is not an opinion that we or the universe are not necessary but a fact because everything is contingent except the Necessary Being, i.e. He Who Is. The onus is on you to prove that something or some one in the universe must exist.

The Abrahamic religions are an example of the belief that there is a Necessary Being, “He Who Is” - and that Being is superior to human beings who are made in His image with** the power of reason**

and the capacity for creative love.You said “hypotheses presuppose at least one rational mind” but the Abrahamic religions have never made God an hypothesis.

A belief and a hypothesis are not mutually exclusive because neither claims logical certainty.

“wiser” and “stronger” are the key words. Christ Himself taught us that God is a loving Father who creates the beauty in the world and expects us to follow His example by treating everyone as our brothers and sisters. Love is not irrational but eminently reasonable because it is the source of unity and harmony. It is apparently

foolish but in reality it leads to joy and fulfilment in heaven.Perhaps you should read the passage again. Paul never says it’s apparently foolish to anyone, he says it’s foolishness to non-believers and wisdom to believers.

You seem to spend your life quibbling! Do you expect every statement to spell out all the implications? Did I even imply that it is apparently foolish to anyone?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Then please quote the text in On the Origins which makes predictions beyond the scope of the book.

Darwin writes that natural selection/evolution accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by God and he refers to “…the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world.”

When referring back to the very first original life form, he talks about the "ages which have elapsed since the first creature" [and] "the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants… as being a “created” life form.

This seems to widen the scope of the book to include the Creator (Darwin uses an upper case “C”) and to include the entire story of life from non-life.

…seems pretty obvious if you are interested in the ‘origin’ that you need to include Genesis.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You will also have to consider the first reaction of Francis Crick to his discovery of the DNA molecule. He believed the complexity of the molecule so grand that he could not imagine it having arrived by natural processes, but rather that extra-terrestrials had planted the first living organisms on earth.

No one since Crick has presented a viable theory of how the first living cell came to be.

What is the expiration date and how do you know that is the correct date?

It’s not really a God-of-the-Gaps argument.

Crick was an atheist, but, because of the complexity of DNA he was willing to believe a superior intelligence seeded life on earth … some kind of terrestrial.

So would you call that the Terrestrial-of-the-Gaps argument?

I mean… You are literally making an argument of the form “scientists have been unable to explain it, therefore God.”

And the God of the Gaps is literally:

“God of the gaps” is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God’s existence.

The expiration date for any God of the Gaps argument is precisely the day when scientists fill in the gap you’re attributing to God. If you’d like, we could make a friendly wager about when that will happen. How about this:

1. I will admit that DNA is strong evidence for God and become a theist if, by the year 2036, no one has presented a “viable theory of how the first living cell came to be.”
2. You will admit that a naturalistic view is a superior method for explaining the world around us than a theistic one if a “viable theory of how the first living cell came to be” is discovered at any time prior to 2036.