The assumption of design from complexity.

120 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
The assumption of design from complexity.

ROYISM (creationists)

How does complexity evidence design?

How does design evidence a deity?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Valiya's picture
How does complexity evidence

How does complexity evidence design?

Complexity does not evidence design. Specified complexity evidences design. Specified complexity is the arrangement of primitive parts in a highly specific arrangement in order to accomplish a task. This can happen only through the agency of intelligent planning. And hence design.

How does design evidence a deity?

As specified complexity is amply witnessed in nature, and as the intelligence in nature couldn't have given rise to itself, it's logically deducted that there must have been an intelligence independent of nature. This we say is God.

Seek3R's picture
Then God in ALL his GLORY

Then God in ALL his GLORY must be unimaginably complex for creating such complexity. Isn't it? That means God was designed too because his intelligence couldn't have given rise to itself either. Now the question is, who designed the designer?

xenoview's picture

Gods mommy and daddy created him.

Sheldon's picture


I didn't ask you to define complexity, I asked how it evidenced design?

Your claims for logic are simply assertions, as is that last hilarious sentence. Try again...

How does design evidence a deity? I suggest you look up logic, and the word evidence before you continue.

David Killens's picture


"Specified complexity is the arrangement of primitive parts in a highly specific arrangement in order to accomplish a task. This can happen only through the agency of intelligent planning."

I do not agree with the conclusion because it may not be the only answer. You are stating that this can happen only via an agency of intelligent planning.

For example, in the creation of life, if you have the right materials, the energy, and enough time (possibly billions of years and attempts), the correct action required to assemble amino acids occurs.

Cognostic's picture
@ROYISM : Why don't you read

@ROYISM : Why don't you read a book? At least then you will stop making ignorant comments in the threads.

"Specified complexity is a concept proposed by William Dembski and used by him and others to promote the pseudoscientific arguments of intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept can formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex, where in Dembski's terminology, a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance. Proponents of intelligent design use specified complexity as one of their two main arguments, alongside irreducible complexity.

Dembski argues that it is impossible for specified complexity to exist in patterns displayed by configurations formed by unguided processes. Therefore, Dembski argues, the fact that specified complex patterns can be found in living things indicates some kind of guidance in their formation, which is indicative of intelligence. Dembski further argues that one can rigorously show by applying no-free-lunch theorems the inability of evolutionary algorithms to select or generate configurations of high specified complexity. Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent—a central tenet to intelligent design, which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory. Specified complexity is what Dembski terms an "explanatory filter": one can recognize design by detecting "complex specified information" (CSI). Dembski argues that the unguided emergence of CSI solely according to known physical laws and chance is highly improbable.[1]

The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.[2][3][4] A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6]"


toto974's picture


Will you one day look at all the scientific works that show Intelligent Design is a bollocks idea?

Sheldon's picture
ROYISM "Specified complexity

ROYISM "Specified complexity evidences design."

Are you ever going to answer my question as to how? Or did you think the ludicrous evasion of adding the word specified would bamboozle us?

ROYISM "the arrangement of primitive parts in a highly specific arrangement in order to accomplish a task. This can happen only through the agency of intelligent planning. And hence design."

Still a lie ROYISM as all the objective evidence over 160 years years of global scientific research shows just such complex patterns have evolved, and occur as natural phenomena. Though again and to repeat my OP question you keep dodging, how does such complexity evidence design, simply claiming it can't occur - therefore design is just an appeal to ignorance fallacy?

Sheldon How does design evidence a deity?

ROYISM "the intelligence in nature couldn't have given rise to itself, it's logically deducted that there must have been an intelligence independent of nature. This we say is God."

You see the words how and evidence in that question right? I count three bare claims, but not one word to evidence any of it? Nor can you predicate logic on an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Nyarlathotep's picture
ROYISM - Complexity does not

ROYISM - Complexity does not evidence design.


ROYISM - Complexity is a strong evidence of design...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Nyar

@ Nyar

Hypocricy and terminological inexecatitudes are not strangers to Royism....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Eve in if complexity and a

Eve in if complexity and a designer were correlated to prove a creator of the universe it would make no difference to the competing claims of theists for their creator gods.
Each claimant would have to evidence that it was their particular deity that was the creator god.

Should be fun.

Btw it is very unlikely it would be the recent inventions of YHWH or Allah, much more likely to be closer to the Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime personages or the Babylonian pantheon, or the Mother of the World which all predate the Abrahamic fantasies.

David Killens's picture
Richard Dawkins demonstrates

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye

Calilasseia's picture
That the whole "design"

That the whole "design" assertion is replete with inconsistencies and internal contradiction, apparently never occurs to the fanboys of this assertion. Nor do any of them understand what it takes to convert this assertion into something other than the product of their rectal passages. And no, I'm not going to do their homework for them, let's see if any of the fanboys can step up to the plate and do their own homework in this vein.

Randomhero1982's picture
So when the chain of natural

So when the chain of natural causality reaches an endpass in current scientific knowledge, it must be an invisible cosmic wizard?

What sort of bollocks is that?!

This is why I have absolutely zero respect for theism.

Where everything in the world was once explained by religion and their deities, science has absolutely demolished everything they have had to say.

Now we are left with contradictory logical arguements, that ironically rely on science (which they tend to get wrong) and commit a bucket load of fallacies.

No evidence though... as much empirical evidence as the Easter bunny or Russell's teapot.

Sheldon's picture
Randomhero1982 " So when the

Randomhero1982 " So when the chain of natural causality reaches an endpass in current scientific knowledge, it must be an invisible cosmic wizard?

What sort of bollocks is that?!"

It's clearly a god of the gaps bollocks, but ROYISM is simply ignoring the question for evidence, and making a string of unevidenced assertions.

I ask "how does complexity evidence design" ROYISM answers " This (design) can happen only through the agency of intelligent planning. And hence design." Hilarious...

I ask "how does design evidence a deity" ROYISM answers "the intelligence in nature couldn't have given rise to itself," therefor god...

Again hilarious, I do wonder sometimes if he's trolling?

boomer47's picture
Sorry to be a noodge

Sorry to be a noodge. Evidence is not a synonym for proof. It is literally anything provided in support of a claim . Evidence MAY be proof , but not necessarily. Hence the Bible, 2000 years of personal accounts, the argument from intelligent design are ALL evidence. What they are not, together or singularly, is proof ,

"Intelligent design / irreducible complexity are versions of perhaps the most popular argument for the existence of god, Also known as the Teleological or ' ' watchmaker argument.' It has been thoroughly debunked. Some theists keep using it because their anti intellectualism means they are incapable of reasoned argument ;

As for respect of theism Worth remembering we atheists are in the minority ,the vast majority of humanity have some kind of theistic belief. This is expressed in literally thousands of different belief system.

My position is that of structural functionalism . This means that such things as religious belief systems serve a purpose ;they meet at least one need, and usually have a survival benefit;

Religious beliefs meet needs of; making sense of the world. Imposing a sense of order, ,meaning and even control;Eg the universal practice of sacrifice, to effect the behaviour of the god(s). Common beliefs can also impart a sense of belonging, of community, and this can (could) improve one's chance of physical survival.

Perhaps the best known example is the Jews. Their Holy Books and Mosaic law* , the belief they were god's chosen people, helped them survive as a people for 2000 years.

*Mosaic Law law consists of 613 commandments, not just 10. They cover every aspect of life. The are collectively known as 'The Mitzvot" andcan be found in the Torah, which consists of the first five books of the told testament.

Of course, times change ,and so do religions. Basic tenets may remain the same , but daily l focus varies enormously. This is certainly true of the Abrahamic Faiths of Judaism , Christianity.

By all means judge whoever, whatever you like as unworthy, or less than. That is your right. I will however, repeat a caveat; in my opinion, generalisations, especially about people , are at the core of bigotry.

Sheldon's picture


I understand what you're trying to say, but firstly I asked how complexity evidences design? ROYISM like all creationists has offered no evidence, only the bare claim, which is of course an appeal to ignorance fallacy at it's core, and then tried to claim he's offering a logical argument. It is axiomatic that nothing that contains known loogical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam can be asserted as rational. Yet he has not even tried to address this even once, instead lying that I have ingored his fallacious arguments. I also asked how design would evidence a deity, again ROYISM has merely asserted this, and in his response just repeated that bare assertion. As for what constitutes evidence if we are going to devalue it to the point where bare assertions are to be considered evidence then try this:_

I saw unicorn shit outside my door earlier, therefore I have evidenced the existence of unicorns.

I think we can all see where the line is, which is why I always ask for objective evidence, and nothing convinces me that creationists don't see this line they play word games with, ROYISM in particular.

I agree about bigotry, but bare in mind ROYISM has championed paedophilia and the rape of children as young as nine as moral. In one of his last exchanges he asked me what if I was happy to accept the age of consent in the UK as 16,, and I added the caveat that at almost 54 I would consider it immoral for me to have any sexual contact with someone that young, but yes I thought it struck a balance between protecting emotionally immature people from exploitation, whilst not unnecessarily criminalising vulnerable young people.

His vile lie in response was to call me a paedophile because other countries have a higher age of consent. Now I shall leave it to others to decide if he's really so stupid as to not see how dishonest his wile lie was, but I have little enough time for anyone that dishonest, let alone someone who champions paedophilia as moral. Lets not forget that the majority of theists come here, and like ROYISM preach at us arrogantly, while adopting faux piety and pretending they want discussion and to learn. I won't speak for others, but I have said many times that nothing boils my piss more than theists preaching at me.

JohnLFrazer's picture
If the complexity evidences a

If the complexity evidences a very complex designer, then the vast number of errors and kludges and vast amounts of matter and vastly greater amounts of wasted space are evidence that he's a klutz, an imbecile, or very nasty.
Presence of fossils going back billions of years when it was in fact made only recently to host us, shows that he's evil and deceptive.
Or, if it was billions of years and 99+% of species having already gone extinct, shows ineptitude and waste.

Nothing worth worshipping there. If the incentive to worship is that he'll punish us for not doing so, shows that he's a monster. Still nothing worth living there.

Calilasseia's picture


The understanding in rigorous circles, is that proof is reserved for formal systems, within which it is, in principle, possible to possess complete knowledge of the abstract entities manipulated within said systems by relevant rules of inference. Pure mathematics being, of course, the canonical example.

Proof, therefore, only applies to formal systems and the abstract entities contained therein.

When one is dealing with concrete entities, on the other hand, the benchmark is correspondence with observational data.

This is a distinction that supernaturalists either don't understand, or wilfully abuse. In the latter case, said wilful abuse of the requisite concepts, is usually performed in the pursuit of duplicitous goals, principal among these being to grant unwarranted and unearned discoursive privileges to their vacuous apologetics.

Sheldon's picture

A massive archive resource of the evidence that establishes the scientific fact of species evolution.

What's more it thoroughly refutes the usual cliched creationist canards. The creationist propaganda lies ROYISM has rehashed are destroyed thoroughly on that site.

toto974's picture
This is a very good website,

This is a very good website, things are clearly explained, scientific works are linked, and they have a long index of creationist claims and their rebuttals.

Sheldon's picture


The talkorigins website is very good, and navigation is easy from the main site map. As you say, as well as having a massive reference library of scientific evidence for evolution, it also systematically lists and debunks creationist propaganda claims. It's well worth a look.

Sheldon's picture
Still waiting for ROYISM to

Still waiting for ROYISM to explain how complexity evidences design, and his design evidences a deity.

So far just a repetition of his earlier bare claims.

"Specified complexity can't occur without design" is a bare claim, it doesn't remotely tell us how specified complexity evidences design, it simply repeated the creationist mantra he used earlier. What's more we already know that such complexity has occurred without any evidence of design, evidenced and explained by the scientific theory of evolution.

When asked how design evidences a deity ROYISM's response was even more hilarious, when he adds two more unevidenced assertions that this design (note the begging the question fallacy here) requires an outside agent, and he calls this agent God.

You could call it Zeus of course if you wanted, this doesn't remotely tell us how design evidences a deity.

It's hard to believe that he, or anybody at all, really find such nonsense compelling?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Specified complexity is

Specified complexity is pseudo mathematics.

Calilasseia's picture
Even Dembski has now

Even Dembski has now abandoned this, though it took twelve years of being roundly schooled by real mathematicians on the subject before he did.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Calilasseia - Even Dembski

Calilasseia - Even Dembski has now abandoned this, though it took twelve years of being roundly schooled by real mathematicians on the subject before he did.

Better late than never I suppose.

Sheldon's picture
Claim CI101:

Claim CI101:
Complexity indicates intelligent design.

This is a quintessential argument from incredulity. Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.

Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.

In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.

Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations.

Complexity is poorly defined.

Two of ROYISM's creationist arguments refuted on the talkorigins website.

Say bye bye to Michael Behe's claim that irreducible complexity can't evolve:

Say bye bye to the creationist claim that specified complexity indicates design:

Say bye bye to Paley's Watchmaker fallacy:

Calilasseia's picture
I note with interest that

I note with interest that when visiting those links, among the papers referenced is Hermann Joseph Müller's 1918 paper in Genetics, which destroyed Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument before he was even born, and which I covered in a previous post.

Oh, and as for the idea that the bacterial flagellum constitutes the "poster child" for Behe's canard-riddled version of "irreducible complexity" (as opposed to Müller's exposition thereof), I have something like 15 papers covering the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. I can bring relevant material here if required ...

David Killens's picture
I do not believe that is

I do not believe that is required Calilasseia. ROYISM made just one post, and like hungry fish in a bowl, we have been snapping it that one morsel. We have been trolled.

Sheldon's picture
David Killens "I do not

David Killens "I do not believe that is required Calilasseia. ROYISM made just one post, and like hungry fish in a bowl, we have been snapping it that one morsel. We have been trolled."

Damn it, every time I open my heart.

From now on I am a rock, I am island. That sounds quite catchy, make a good song...

FWIW, I think ROYISM, like many theists who come here and get turned inside out, resort to trolling in an attempt to save face. I mean we all remember AJ777, Breezy, and I'd include Ferguson but he was clearly crazier than a box of frogs.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.