« Free Audiobook: Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God | Main | Challenge: Jesus Was Only Dead for Three Days »

May 19, 2014


Very interesting listening to Greg's last sentence:

"And this is why we are justified in inferring design from the system because it just does not seem possible that randomness or chance or lawlike behaviour - necessity if you will - is adequate to explain the kind of complexity that we experience in the world."

This is an argument from incredulity. And therefore you aren't justified in inferring design.

Actually it is an argument from evidence.
And therefore he is justified in inferring design.

It is the atheist that argues from incredulity.
Dismissing all but natural causes before looking at the evidence.


If it's an argument from evidence, then can you explain what evidence you use to arrive at the conclusion "natural things are designed".

Greg's last sentence is clearly an argument from incredulity.

Which atheist are you referring to? Plenty of atheists have considered plenty of evidence and remain unconvinced of the existence plenty of gods. Nature often looks designed. That is not evidence. There is plenty of evidence to suggest there is no need for a supernatural creator. I am surprised Greg didn't give us a better argument.

Great Suprendo

There are good arguments that are not based on incredulity. I think Greg is knowledgeable enough to know that. The fact that ANY natural order exists at all requires there to be a cause that can bring about that order.

To say evolution is not random is not straining gnats.

It actually highlights a very basic aspect of the subject (whether you believe evolution is real or not).

Mutations are random.

But evolution is more than mutations.

It is also, for example, natural selection.

Evolution is not random because random connotes unpredictable and evolution is not unpredictable.

This connotation is especially strong in math and science contexts - so it is just wrong to say evolution is random.


"Evolution is not random because random connotes unpredictable and evolution is not unpredictable."

The two things that drive the evolutionary model is random mutation and natural selection. If we are to say that the mutations are random and it is that random process that kind of gets the ball rolling in making different features of an organism available to the selection mechanism, then the whole system rests on a random foundation. The whole point of randomness is that it is unpredictable. So, if this evolutionary model is in play...then there is no reason why evolution should not be unpredictable...in fact there is every reason why it should be utterly unpredictable. The only thing that is predictable in the whole thing is that selections will be made on the bases of features that are useful to survival, but that is such a broad range that it does little to nothing to reign in the unpredictability of the process in play. So, for all intents and purposes, evolution should be unpredictable if it is a reality. Your admission that it is not, is actually supporting the notion that this evolutionary model is not a reality.

The comments to this entry are closed.