Scientific Argument for a Creator?

[Perfection]

Complex physical things require a creator

Why? I so no evidence to the validity of that statement

 

[Ayatollah So]

Why? I so no evidence to the validity of that statement[that "Complex physical things require a creator"]

Indeed, especially when it has just been agreed that "complex things require a creator" would be false. What is it about physical things that gives them this extra requirement?

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Just wanted to say cool name. You created it, so that is my argument for a 'creator'!

 

[Stapel]

I find the whole idea that complex things need a creator a bit childish. If something is so complex, that it has a million unsolved questions, it is so hopelessly easy to exchange these million questions for one that is simply responsible for all of them.

It doesn't solve a thing. The creator must stand above the complexity, and thus need another creator. And so on. And so on. And so on. And so on.

 

[Gothmog]

They all say (in one way or another) that the overwhelming complexity of the universe and the various life-sustaining qualities it exhibits are signs that the universe must have been created. A common analogy is that if you found a watch, you would be led to the conclusion that it was created on the basis of its complexity, rather then it just fell together that way.

This is not a scientific argument unless it makes testable predictions about the nature of the physical world.

This is not a useful scientific argument unless it has made successful predictions about previously unknown aspects of the physical world (as well as explaining the known aspects).

Thus, as a scientist, ID is totally uninteresting to me. It may be true, but from a scientific point of view… who cares?

Many of the philosophical aspects of the question have been discussed already in this thread. I’ll just add this:

The observer cannot be separated from the observed, thus we have learned nothing by saying that the universe is ideally suited to life as we know it. If it were not, who would be asking the questions? Who would be doing the observation?

 

[Fifty]

Biologists shoot back that many of these "machines" have many flaws, like the blind stop of the eye, where the nerves of the eye converge. Indeed, Richard Dawkins, founder of sociobiology, wrote a book titled The Blind Watchmaker.

This thread need not continue. Your specific question, even utilizing the example you used, has been answered by the book "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. Boring as hell, but informative.

Blind Watchmaker. Richard Dawkins. All the science you need.

Ok, you guys win!

I just ordered The Blind Watchmaker from a giftcard and shoudl get it within a few days

 

[ybbor]

Ok, you guys win!

I just ordered The Blind Watchmaker from a giftcard and shoudl get it within a few days

you concede by them telling you to read a book? at least wait till you read the book.

 

[Fifty]

you concede by them telling you to read a book? at least wait till you read the book.

I was quoting the section in which they told me to read the book... I was conceding the fact that they convinced me to read the book. Don't take everything so serious!

I suppose it is traditional to add a few of these:

 

[Sims2789]

What is the counter-argument to this, since all of these God books seem to rest on that line of reasoning.

1) No, it just means that the Universe is probably really old and took a while to become what it is today, or it just always was. They said the same thing before the space age, except with eyes. They claimed that eyes are so complex that they must be the work of God, as opposed to slowly becoming more complex over time, as we know they do today.

2) Or, you could say, "Even if it was created, how do we know that God did it?" Of course, this isn't a good argument, as it treats the sudden creation of the Universe as fact.