this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
334 points (88.8% liked)
Videos
14328 readers
246 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to [email protected] instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both [email protected] and [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not sure if he used the actual words but he was definitely making the point that it is extremely complex and any less complex version of it could not function. Which is exactly the concept of irreducible complexity
Edit: see @scarabic 's comment for a transcript of that part of the video
He asked if the complexity could be reduced or not, so he raised the topic. But he didn’t imply that the thing is too complex and can’t be reduced therefore god. He stopped short of that.
And it is a fair topic for anyone to think about. I’m an “atoms bouncing around” guy and I too want to know if the complexity can be reduced because if not, that means we must have waited a long long time for some of these assemblies to appear.
Maybe I am too paranoid from people "just asking questions" all the time but actually pushing something they are too afraid to say out loud, but to me it seemed like exactly that behaviour. If he was actually interested in providing information on that "debate" he could have talked about it with the actual experts in his video but he just leaves it as an open question. To my understanding this openness is a strong misrepresentation of the scientific consensus because this exact motor has been used by creationist for a while and their arguments have been debunked by scientist for years.
I think you’re right to be skeptical. And I think he’s at least a half step more honestly curious than most of the “just asking questions” douchebags. But there is a lot more to talk about on this subject that’s more interesting than whether or not “god did it.”
Ultimately I think of him as an engineer, and not a scientist. I think engineering is much more compatible with religion, because they cover orthogonal material. Engineering is all about “how” and religion is “why.” And the image of the great-engineer-in-the-sky is tempting to them, I think.