TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

Complex design.

I am an Athiest or evolutionist, whatever.( A rose by any other name.) I agree with Richard Dawkins mostly , except in one instance. He goes on to say that any designer capable of designing something really complex, ( the design in nature.) has to be even more complex himself. What he has not taken into consideration is the species themselves. What could be a more simple explanation. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 13 2011: I thought Dawkins used the argument you listed above to argue against the existence of God in the first place? as far as I understood his quote supports what you're basically arguing for and you pretty much answered yourself with the question.
    • Jul 14 2011: Hello Zein, sorry I have not answered sooner; I haven't been too well. Dawkins says that to have a complex design means to have a more complex designer. His theory is; evolution is random and cannot have a designer, meaning God of course. I am an atheist but I disagree with him, I believe you can have one without the other. It's finding the means that nature has, to pass on that information to the process of evolution. Think; if there is a design where is the best place to look to find where it's coming from, it surely must be the species? I am not refferring to environmental mutations, it goes much deeper than that. My research goes into new territory; being new, I am getting a lot of negative response. It's my fault I should never attempted to try out new ideas on the web and I shall be more prepared next time. Hope this explains why I disagree with Dawkins. I have decided to withdraw from this debate because of the reasons I have given. Thank you for your imput.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.