Rhaedas comments on Off the Rails

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 64 points 10 months ago (14 children)

"Intelligent design"

Oh, I don't think so.

Is that phrase even used anymore, or did it run its course of insanity and die off?

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 27 points 10 months ago

A super fun counter argument I heard once is that if it's intelligent design, surely it's not for humans. The universe is BIG with lots of empty space, lots of massive elements to it. Surely it was designed for something much bigger than humans.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 23 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I haven’t heard of since there was a clear explanation of how the eye evolved - since that one was a specific example they were referring to

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Considering the human eye is basically backwards, I always found it funny people would try to use it as an example of an intelligent creator

Like we seriously have all the working bits in the path of light, permanently blocking our vision in spots. We just hide it with some post-production brain magic, and I'm supposed to believe that's evidence of an intelligent creator?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Kepion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 10 months ago

'We'll fix it in post' has been plaguing us longer than expected.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 10 months ago

While you're right, it's also funny to say that god was a software developer under deadline pressure

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 9 points 10 months ago

When the bible says "created in god's image" it was originally talking about octopus, it just got mixed up in transcription at some point.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 points 10 months ago

Dawkins' book "Climbing Mount Improbable" is a great and easy read to introduce the idea of making something complex and seemingly designed for its purpose a much more probable thing to happen if broken into small changes over huge amounts of time. And it's like 30 years old, so probably outdated with more and better evidence now.

There is an old Youtube video by cdk007 (that's still up!) that tackles a related fallacy, where finding a watch on the beach implies a watchmaker because nothing complex can evolve. He created a simulation using watch parts and evolutionary rules to show complexity does arise with the right conditions and enough time.