3 ms·

Just because something looks "engineered", doesn't mean it is. A perfect example is the eye. An organ of great complexity, but one that is very easily explaine

Just because something looks "engineered", doesn't mean it is. A perfect example is the eye. An organ of great complexity, but one that is very easily explained by logical evaluation, as well as existing living creatures and fossils: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E If you're a software engineer, I hope you understand how procedural systems and algorithms can transform data and functions. Similar processes take place via chemistry and biological interaction. Conway's Game of Life is a good example of a simple system giving rise to complex interaction and patterns. Complex beauty can arise from the interaction of systems, but if you say to yourself that it "must have been engineered by something greater than me", you settle in your mind, and shortcut around critical thinking and never progress toward understanding. And that's a great, great shame.

swamp40 13y ago
I'm a hardware engineer. I agree with you about patterns and mathematics - also beautiful, but cold (sorry, best I can explain it). But when we see a complex physical problem, and then see a nicely designed and implemented real-life solution - there I think my "engineered" theory has as good a chance at being correct as does the theory that says it just sprang up from 100 million years of evolution and random mutations (both of which I agree do occur).
pygy_ 13y ago
What more, the vertebrate eye has a flaw: its blind spot. The fibers of the optic nerve and the central retinal blood vessels irradiate in front of the retina. You may think that it is a necessary defect, but the squid eye, which evolved independently to end up almost identical to its vertebrate counterpart doesn't have it. The nerve fibers and blood vessels run behind the retina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye
beauSD 13y ago
As a software engineer, when I see an algorithm that transforms and processes data using instructions and symbols, I reasonably assume that someone created that algorithm. When I'm told the algorithm is really just a random collection of instructions, assembled through an unguided process, that just happens to be work...that strains belief. But even accepting that, I'm still left with instructions, language, symbols, and interpretation. And these can only be produced by intelligence. Something as simple as the characters we use to write code means nothing unless meaning is ascribed to them, and meaning can't arise from a strictly meaningless process (evolution, chemical interactions, etc). I think the simpler, and truer explanation for why these systems appear engineered, is because they are.

swamp40 13y ago

I'm a hardware engineer. I agree with you about patterns and mathematics - also beautiful, but cold (sorry, best I can explain it). But when we see a complex physical problem, and then see a nicely designed and implemented real-life solution - there I think my "engineered" theory has as good a chance at being correct as does the theory that says it just sprang up from 100 million years of evolution and random mutations (both of which I agree do occur).

pygy_ 13y ago

What more, the vertebrate eye has a flaw: its blind spot. The fibers of the optic nerve and the central retinal blood vessels irradiate in front of the retina. You may think that it is a necessary defect, but the squid eye, which evolved independently to end up almost identical to its vertebrate counterpart doesn't have it. The nerve fibers and blood vessels run behind the retina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye

beauSD 13y ago

As a software engineer, when I see an algorithm that transforms and processes data using instructions and symbols, I reasonably assume that someone created that algorithm. When I'm told the algorithm is really just a random collection of instructions, assembled through an unguided process, that just happens to be work...that strains belief. But even accepting that, I'm still left with instructions, language, symbols, and interpretation. And these can only be produced by intelligence. Something as simple as the characters we use to write code means nothing unless meaning is ascribed to them, and meaning can't arise from a strictly meaningless process (evolution, chemical interactions, etc). I think the simpler, and truer explanation for why these systems appear engineered, is because they are.