> Hogwash. Genes didn't spring fully formed. Or cells (there's a movie
> where the main protagonist decides to believe in God/creation because a
> 'cell' couldn't have sprung into existance), or even DNA/RNA.
>
> These kinds of computations implying complete knowledge of all
> mechanisms and their complexity, obviously not present three decades
> ago.
Stephen (and everyone else on Fork). What are your thoughts on the theory
of "Irreducible Complexity"? For those of you who are unfamiliar with it,
it basically says that some mechanisms are more than sum of their parts, and
therefore, hold information that their parts could not have otherwise held.
Subsequently, "Irreducible Complexity" tries to prove that there is a God
based on this assumption.
Has anyone done any reading on this? What do you guys/gals think about
this?
R
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 08:04:39 PDT