I made two images concerning creationist arguments and I will explain why these arguments fail in greater detail below.
All secular arguments for creationism use the following reasoning:
- Either creationism is true or evolution is true.
- Evolution is false.
- Therefore, creationism is true.
There are at least two major problems with this argument:
Premise 1 is unjustified.
Premise 1 (that either creationism is true or evolution is true) is unjustified because it requires us to assume that creationism and evolution are the only two ways we can explain where complex life forms came from (and our observations about how they seem to change). There could be other hypotheses as well. For example, complex life forms might have always existed exactly as they exist now (and perhaps there was no beginning of the universe). Premise 1 commits the false dilemma fallacy and is only persuasive to people who engage in overly simplistic “black or white” thinking.
Premise 2 is totally unjustified.
Premise 2 (that evolution is false) is totally unjustified. No argument has ever refuted evolution, and the evidence for evolution is much stronger than the evidence for creationism.
We can also summarize the reason that creationists think evolution is false as the following:
Creationist Argument Against Evolution
- There are observations incompatible with evolution.
- If there are observations incompatible with evolution, then evolution is false.
- Therefore, evolution is false.
The main problem with this argument is that the first premise is false. There are no observations that are incompatible with evolution that we know about. However, we do have observations that seem to be incompatible with creationism. For example, we have a fossil record that seems to indicate that creatures that existed in the past changed over time until they became different creatures that exist now. We have a much better reason to reject creationism for being incompatible with our observations than evolution.
Let’s consider some of the so-called observations that creationists take to debunk evolution:
- There is a complex organism (or body part of a complex organism), but we don’t know how it evolved. For example, the eye was once taken to be such an example. However, we now have a good idea about how the eye incrementally evolved from various beneficial adaptations. Additionally, the fact that we don’t know how something evolves in no way proves it did not evolve.
- It is often claimed that something couldn’t possibly have evolved. For example, some people argued that the eye could not possibly evolve. However, we know of nothing that couldn’t have possibly evolved. Moreover, it is quite possible that evolution is true, even if some complex organisms didn’t evolve. Evolution does not claim that all complex organisms must have evolved. Perhaps we will find out how to create new complex organisms through genetic engineering.
- It is often said that evolution is false because there’s a “missing link.” However, there is no missing link. We have fossil evidence of several transitional species that show how an organism can change over time—including various apes that were similar to human beings. Moreover, it is quite possible for evolution to be true, even if no transitional species were ever discovered. There was no guarantee that we would ever find them because they existed long ago and their remains could have all been destroyed by now.
- It is often said that evolution must be false because monkeys still exist. “If we evolved from monkeys, then how come monkeys still exist?” However, there is a number of problems with this argument: First, there is no reason to think that the existence of monkeys is incompatible with the truth of evolution. Second, evolution does not state that an ancestral species that evolves into another species must become extinct. There was a point that an isolated group of fish evolved into amphibians, but that doesn’t mean all other fish became extinct. The same could be true of an isolated group of monkeys. Third, the monkeys that exist now are not the same creatures that we evolved from. We have a “common ancestor” with monkeys and apes that exist now.
Can we debunk evolution?
It might be possible to debunk evolution by showing how our observations would be better explained by creationism, but that’s never happened. I do not deny that this is possible, but it would be a very difficult task and biologists would be the best qualified people to make such an argument. At this point in time creationism seems to be incompatible with some of our observations rather than better supported by them than evolution.
Can creationism be proven to be true?
Keep in mind that even if evolution is debunked, that does not mean creationism is true. As stated above, there are other potential explanations for the existence of complex life forms. Creationists need to not only debunk evolution, but show that creationism is “better supported” by the evidence than any other alternative explanation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, creationists rely on poor reasoning that is easily debunked. The premises used by the current secular arguments for creationism are unjustified, and evolution has not yet been refuted.
Update (10/8/2012): I rephrased why creationists reject evolution and discussed the issue in greater detail.
Update (10/28/2012): I slightly rephrased why I reject the first premise of the first argument.
I like your argument, but I don’t see how it would work, if the creationist position is grounded in faith and belief. And the evolutionist is ground in reason, and evidence and logic. I don’t see how any argument could work unless, one values critical thinking skills, logic and evidence.
Comment by M. Rodriguez — October 19, 2012 @ 11:53 am |
I am talking about debunking “secular” arguments only. Perhaps no argument will work when a person is dogmatic and irrational. Many people seem to use “faith” that way.
Comment by JW Gray — October 19, 2012 @ 6:46 pm |
I have ‘faith’ that that bridge will remain standing while i drive across
i have ‘faith’ that my wife (dog?) loves me
both are based on experience only, as i am not a mechanical engineer
i am now divorced, but still have the dog.
i still drive over the bridge
this is not a koan
Comment by jon.e.whiteford — October 22, 2012 @ 1:19 am |
That use of “faith” could mean little more than “trust.” Such trust could be perfectly justified and rational, but not all trust is.
Comment by JW Gray — October 22, 2012 @ 5:57 pm |
Mr Gray,
I see you finally deleted my post. And that’s okay, this is your website. I would ask you, since it fits this argument perfectly, why you didn’t copy and paste it here? But, that’s okay, too, because it was not the only copy of a proofread novel that I had worked on for years. I can manufacture more.
You said, “Premise 1 (that either creationism is true or evolution is true) is false.” And your argument is that there might be another theory, that complex animals have remained the same. Ludicrous. Geneticists have determined that polar bears trace their genetics to a female brown bear about twenty thousand years ago in northern Europe. One can barely see a resemblace. Every living animal on this planet is experiencing evolution at a speed never before imagined. So the question of evolution is closed. But, your argument that a third possibility is naive for another reason. You failed to define “creationism”. Did you mean the philosophy that some god invented by ignorant goatherders actually created the universe, and that the earth is the center of a great chessgame being played by evil gods and angry jeolous good gods? Again, ludicrous. The bad news is: No, mankind was not created six thousand years ago, and no, the earth is not the center of the universe, and no, the flood never happened, and no, no one has ever been resurrected. But, while the simple truth is that organized religion is total bullshit, that fact sheds not a single shred of evidence to prove that the universe is an accident. Proving a premise to be false does not prove the opposit is true.
So back to creationism and it’s definition. I assume you were talking about the idiots who believe that a dubious compilation of ancient texts, translated, and retranslated, might contain the will of the one true god. What they contain is fabricated explanations of witchdoctors. But questions remain, and you can ignore them, but then you become a witchdoctor, too. One can argue that the sum of the universe is zero, that the sum of the negatives, and the sum of the positives must equal nothing. It is a very interesting theory, but pieces are missing. Inside the capsule of our universe, nothing is ever canceled out to nothing. A theoretical return to it’s origin. Nothing is either lost or created. Absolute rule of chemistry. That’s science, not religion.
So the next time you meet a freethinker who says something audacious, like, “I dont know”, stop and listen, you might learn something.
NeoWolfe
Comment by NeoWolfe — October 25, 2012 @ 2:06 am
It is possible that evolution is false. It is a falsifiable theory. Perhaps we are all dreaming right now and will wake up in a very different reality. I think evolution is justified and we should all believe it, but that doesn’t mean that no one is allowed to consider every possible explanation of our observations concerning DNA, the fossil record, etc.
My point is simply that even if we grant the Creationist that evolution is false, that would not mean that Creationism is true. Why? Because there’s other options! You did not prove my point to be wrong. The point is that the creationist argument is a type of “false dilemma fallacy.”
I would also consider “intelligent design” to be a type of creationism. There could be sci-fi scenarios involved rather than religious ones.
There are cosmologists who think they have a good idea about where the universe came from (or might have come from). I am not qualified to comment on that issue. That doesn’t mean no one is qualified to have a justified opinion about it.
You mentioned the law of conservation. Cosmologists know about it. My understanding is that matter can be created as long as anti-matter is also created.
Could the universe pop into existence from nothing? Perhaps it could. In that case the law of conservation might have exceptions or anti-matter might have popped into existence as well. However, my understanding is that most cosmologists don’t say that. They might say the universe has existed for as long as space and time has existed and so on. It was not “created out of nothing.”
Comment by JW Gray — October 25, 2012 @ 5:30 am
One point you want to make is that atheists should say “I don’t know” more than they do. I agree with that. Atheists don’t need to know everything. Theists can say “maybe God is needed for x, y, or z.” The atheist can simply respond that they don’t know why God would be needed for such things. Theists often demand that atheists explain why God was not needed — what the “best explanation” is in terms that lack the interference or existence of gods. However, atheists are not rationally compelled to have all the answers. Sometimes we simply don’t have the answers and we should not pretend to have them when we don’t. We shouldn’t just “make stuff up” and pretend to have answers.
Philosophically, we are interested in knowing if and when God might be needed to explain our observations. However, that generally only requires the atheist to come up with an “imagined” scenario where God is not needed. God is not conceptually necessary for an observation as long as we can conceive of some other explanation.
Comment by JW Gray — October 25, 2012 @ 5:55 am
James,
I am going to prove to you right here an now that I am your friend. First, as a debater, you kinda suck. Here is why I say that, as a friend, believe it or not, even when chemical science is based on a fact that you cannot create something out of nothing, the other side of the coin is any originator of the universe needs an explanation of its origin. Was it something out of nothing? You should add that to your argument. But, the fact still remains that if freethinkers want to win the world, you need to understand that moderate religionists can be swayed if you don’t call them idiots. Stop shooting yourself in the foot.
NL
Comment by NeoWolfe — October 27, 2012 @ 2:44 am |
Your reply does not have much of anything to do with my response. If you disagree with anything I said, then say so. So far nothing you said seems relevant at all. If you want to be good at debating, then you should make it clear what you think my argument is and why it fails. You did not do that. My arguments — assuming I made any — are completely unchallenged.
I didn’t call anyone an idiot here, and I don’t see how it is relevant to my response at all. If that is what you think my argument was, then you failed to understand what I was saying. You have not given a charitable interpretation of my response. If you want to continue talking to me, then I need to know how anything you are saying relates to anything I said. So far I don’t even think you understand what I am saying. If you have questions, ask them.
First, you said you would prove you are my friend, then you insult me. No, that is not what my friends do. Second, you didn’t give any constructive criticism relating to my reply. Friends would give constructive criticism. Third, you implied that I called someone an idiot. I did no such thing. That is not what a friend would do to me. Fourth, I see that you want to prove you are my friend. But no argument was given for me to think such a thing, and your actions would even indicate that you are not my friend.
Comment by JW Gray — October 27, 2012 @ 6:55 am |
I never said what was or was not a law of chemistry. I in fact did say that there is the “law of conservation.” Do you know what that is?
I talked about conceptually possible scenarios. What is conceptually possible is not necessarily consistent with our observations. A conceptual possibility can be unjustified — something we should not take seriously as what is true in reality.
I already explained this above. I already explained why this is philosophically important. It is important because creationists need to know that proving evolution false will not prove creationism is true. The reason is because it’s a false dilemma argument. There are other conceptual possibilities.
Sometimes we talk about what “might be true” in a way that actually conflicts with our observations. That is to discuss conceptual possibilities and to even imagine what it would be like for a scientific theory to be falsified. For example, Creationists want to imagine what it would be like if Evolution to be falsified — they think it would prove Creationism to be true. The reason it wouldn’t is because there’s other scenarios in which both evolution and creationism could be less justified than a third alternative.
All this was already explained both in the piece above and here. I advise you to read what I wrote again.
Comment by JW Gray — October 27, 2012 @ 7:12 am |
James,
It’s really hard to debate with you, when you delete my reply. But, that’s okay. That’s what religions do. Silence the dissenters. But, while you imply that I believe in gods, bullshit, I suggest atheism is a religion, not because it believes in gods, but because it adopts as belief that which has not been proven by science, the exact accusation you thrust upon organized religion. You are a hipocrit. Do you hope someday to become the pope of perversion of freethought? Or do you imagine that you can eventually coax humanity out of it doubts and spirituality by arguments that might be true. Good luck with that. That foot wound needs immediate medical attention.
NL
Comment by NeoWolfe — October 28, 2012 @ 1:53 am |
I didn’t delete your reply. Are you talking about our email conversation?
Your reply is here: http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/how-to-debunk-creationism/#comment-2838
Right now you are doing nothing but trolling. You are giving no arguments. I will start deleting your posts if you just want to say insulting things and waste my time.
Comment by JW Gray — October 28, 2012 @ 2:46 am |
NeoWolfe, you might want to check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Comment by Jim — October 28, 2012 @ 12:26 pm |
James,
You said, “I didn’t delete your reply. Are you talking about our email conversation?”
I posted a reply regarding your idea of justified belief, and I compared it with prisoners in the American justice system convicted by criminal courts, later exhonerated by DNA evidence. And added the point of how many innocent people are still behind bars because twelve jurors decided the evidence seemed to indicate guilt. I posted it, now it’s gone. Yes, that angers me, because it’s a very powerful argument that a human perception that the evidence seems to strongly indicate a particular conclusion, yet, occasionally it is very wrong with disasterous consequences. Yet you seem to defend the idea of an accidental universe as justified, without any evidence at all, just confidence that the evidence will eventually emerge. That’s not science, it’s religion.
You said, “A conceptual possibility can be unjustified — something we should not take seriously as what is true in reality.” Thank you, you just made my point for me.
You said, “Right now you are doing nothing but trolling”. Believe it or not, you are not the first atheist who has called me a troll. In fact, I hear that from atheists all the time. The second most popular term is “fundy”. I take it that as a conclusion that if I do not buy into your religion, that I am a heretic. Message recieved loud and clear.
I proved that I am a transparent freethinker, your friend, by putting forward that any argument regarding a designer of the universe must also stand the test of scruntiny. It must be faced if you want to open your mind to that possibility. What is the nature of it’s origin? The intellectual dilemma is even worse than an accidental universe. But, as a freethinker, when evidence is theoretical, or void, a true skeptic will say, “I don’t know.”
But, I have to respond to your link at wiki about personal attacks. While I did say your logic was bullshit, I stand by that, convincing evidence is not the same as positive proof. Belief based upon what you anticipate science will eventually prove is not science, it is religion. And it was you who called me a troll. The only personal attack of this conversation.
I am your friend, whether you understand that or not. Atheists are not my enemies, I just get frustrated by their arrogance, and how that cripples freethought from making inroads into moderate religionism. I only ask one favor of you, stop shooting yourself in the foot. Stop shooting me in the foot!!!! Is that too much to ask?
NeoWolfe
Comment by NeoWolfe — October 28, 2012 @ 11:38 pm |
What you said about DNA evidence was in our email conversation. You sent the email to me on October 26, 2012.
You said, “You said, “A conceptual possibility can be unjustified — something we should not take seriously as what is true in reality.” Thank you, you just made my point for me.”
Then you were arguing against me for no reason. You said what I said about premise 1 was false because I suggested that there are possibilities other than creationism and evolution. These are conceptual possibilities. We have no more reason to rule out those conceptual possibilities out of hand than we do creationism. The point was that the creationist argument for creationism is a false dilemma. It requires us to ignore all possibilities. Creationists want to say that evolution is false, so creationism has to be true.
You said, “I proved that I am a transparent freethinker, your friend, by putting forward that any argument regarding a designer of the universe must also stand the test of scruntiny.”
Sorry but that doesn’t prove you are my friend. How would that possibly prove you are my friend? It also does not prove you are a “freethinker” as far as I am concerned, but that might depend on what you think a “freethinker is.”
You said, “by putting forward that any argument regarding a designer of the universe must also stand the test of scruntiny. It must be faced if you want to open your mind to that possibility. What is the nature of it’s origin? The intellectual dilemma is even worse than an accidental universe. But, as a freethinker, when evidence is theoretical, or void, a true skeptic will say, “I don’t know.””
It is not clear what your argument is. Do you want to say that atheists are irrational unless they know for absolutely certain that a God didn’t create the universe? Do you want to say that atheists are required to believe that the universe is an accident?
You said, “But, I have to respond to your link at wiki about personal attacks. While I did say your logic was bullshit, I stand by that, convincing evidence is not the same as positive proof. Belief based upon what you anticipate science will eventually prove is not science, it is religion. And it was you who called me a troll. The only personal attack of this conversation.”
Read what you said again. You were very insulting and had posts of no relevance to our conversation.
You said, “Atheists are not my enemies, I just get frustrated by their arrogance, and how that cripples freethought from making inroads into moderate religionism. I only ask one favor of you, stop shooting yourself in the foot. Stop shooting me in the foot!!!! Is that too much to ask?”
This favor doesn’t make sense. I don’t know exactly what you want of me. I never said that belief in gods is necessarily irrational or that all types of religion are irrational.
Comment by JW Gray — October 29, 2012 @ 6:16 am |
James,
You said:
“What you said about DNA evidence was in our email conversation.” This I was a was a clearly aware of, as excerpts from the conversation were copied and pasted in a reply here. It was my interest to clear up for any observer, when you accuse me of not having a question you need to answer. Poof!!! It’s gone. I have no conclusive proof you deleted it . If the file was bigger than the wordpage limit, it might have puked it of it own accord. So, let’s make it simple and keep the debate here, for the planet to witness.
YOU said: You said, “You said, “A conceptual possibility can be unjustified — something we should not take seriously as what is true in reality.” Thank you, you just made my point for me.”
That’s from your post, now let’s read the real context, shall we:
“And added the point of how many innocent people are still behind bars because twelve jurors decided the evidence seemed to indicate guilt. I posted it, now it’s gone. Yes, that angers me, because it’s a very powerful argument that a human perception that the evidence seems to strongly indicate a particular conclusion, yet, occasionally it is very wrong with disasterous consequences. Yet you seem to defend the idea of an accidental universe as justified, without any evidence at all, just confidence that the evidence will eventually emerge. That’s not science, it’s religion.
You said, “A conceptual possibility can be unjustified — something we should not take seriously as what is true in reality.” Thank you, you just made my point for me.”
The point you admitted to, the point your made for me was that when humans think that evidence is apparently sufficient, they make stupid decisions with catastrophic results. While one can never reason that evidence available always leads to the wrong conclusion, a skeptic, and a freethinker will wait for the rest of the answers to come in, lest he has innocent blood on his hands. Is that point lost upon you?
You quoted me:
““But, I have to respond to your link at wiki about personal attacks. While I did say your logic was bullshit, I stand by that, convincing evidence is not the same as positive proof. Belief based upon what you anticipate science will eventually prove is not science, it is religion. And it was you who called me a troll. The only personal attack of this conversation.”
Then you said:
Read what you said again. You were very insulting and had posts of no relevance to our conversation.
You called me a troll. And your lack of intelligent responses has nothing to do with how relevent my questions are, or the issues I present. Your demeanor indicates you have been bested in this exchange. As my prize, I just ask that you stop shooting yourself in the foot. And stop shooting me in the foot. Stop preaching logic, and finally learn it.
NeoWolfe
Comment by NeoWolfe — October 30, 2012 @ 2:06 am |
What does innocent people being behind bars have to do with this argument.
You argued that I was wrong to object to the creationist premise that “either evolution is true or creationism is true” because I think it is clear that there are other possibilities that are left out. You thought that the other possibilities were unlikely to be true. But that is totally irrelevant. I explained why. The possibilities need not be any more likely than the possibility of creationism itself.
You now say something about innocent people being behind bars. How does that have any bearing on our “debate?” Do you agree with my objection to the creationist argument or not? If not, then I have no idea why not.
Comment by JW Gray — October 30, 2012 @ 4:10 am |
Hi, James,
I guess this is closing arguments. Okay, ready!
You said, “What does innocent people being behind bars have to do with this argument.?” I already explained that, but, I will do it again. That about once a month a wrongfully accused person is released from prison who has been there from seventeen to twenty years in prison, and DNA evidence has proved they are innocent. The jury was wrong. The point of this, is drawing a parallel between a jury that was wrong, and atheists. The jury thought that the testimony, and the evidence seemed to overpower any doubt. They wrongly ruined a person’s life, because the evidence seemed persuasive. That is what atheists do too. Because scientific evidence leaves no doubt that religious mythology is total bullshit, that that somehow leaves no other logical conclusion other than the universe is an explainable accident. That logic is flawed. It’s a viable theory that no one can disprove at this point in time, but if you believe it as fact without proving it, why not just believe in creation or the flood. Mix and match your new religion.
You said, “You argued that I was wrong to object to the creationist premise that “either evolution is true or creationism is true” because I think it is clear that there are other possibilities that are left out. You thought that the other possibilities were unlikely to be true.”
Yes and no. You presented the idea that species have remained the same forever. I didn’t say it was unlikely to be true, I said it was bullshit. I said that geneticists have concluded that polar bears are all descendants of a single female brown bear in northern europe twenty thousand years ago. And that therefore, the discussion about evolution was over. It’s not a theory, it’s a fact. And if I can add a point, a chihuahua, and a great dane are the same species(canis domesticus). Evolution is real, and humans have learned to manipulate it.
You asked, “Do you agree with my objection to the creationist argument or not? If not, then I have no idea why not.?”
If you are asking me if I think there is a Jehovah or an Allah or a Buddha, I almost feel insulted by the question, because I thought I had made it crystal clear. Caveman mythology that have been fanatically adopted by the huge percentage, is responsible for a huge part of insane human behavior. Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, Osama bin Laden, etc. insane behavior induced by fundamentalist religious belief. What freethinker would own a piece of that insanity? But, you nuance your question about creation. I will not walk away from you in your battle against the people wanting to creep religion into government. But, I will continue to advise you, that people who concieve of intelligent origin are not all insane. But, those who adopt a religion that believes they are insane, have shot themselves in the foot, and become insane. Out of touch with the solution.
Neo
Comment by NeoWolfe — October 31, 2012 @ 1:11 am |
You are saying what atheists do, but it has nothing to do with anything I said. You are changing the subject from what I wrote here to something else. You took something I said and replied to it with something totally off topic. That is not how you are supposed to debate.
This is how the debate should have happened: I give an argument. You object to my argument. I reply to your objection and hope to explain why I disagree with it.
What you did by replying to my argument with something totally unrelated is quite strange and confusing. It sounds like you have an agenda and want to twist the conversation back to your agenda.
I never said everyone who believes in a first cause are insane. I don’t think theism is necessarily irrational either.
You said something I said is “bullshit.” I already explained why it wasn’t. I didn’t say that we should believe that species don’t change. Imagine that we find out evolution is false. In that case we need to consider various “hypotheses.” The creationist argument requires us to totally ignore all hypotheses other than creationism given that scenario. Do you know what a false dilemma fallacy is? If so, please explain it to me.
Comment by JW Gray — October 31, 2012 @ 4:52 am |
Hi James,
You said, “You are saying what atheists do, but it has nothing to do with anything I said. You are changing the subject from what I wrote here to something else. You took something I said and replied to it with something totally off topic. That is not how you are supposed to debate.”
And, “This is how the debate should have happened: I give an argument. You object to my argument. I reply to your objection and hope to explain why I disagree with it.”
Well, you are certainly free to delete my response if you feel it is off topic, but the last time I checked the topic was, “How to Debunk Creationism in Two Minutes”.
I would certainly argue that everything I have presented fits well inside that parameter. Particularly if you, personally, consider that creationism is a failure to adopt the belief that the universe is an accident. I do reject that “belief” because it lacks evidence to prove its validity. I do not reject the theory as having no merit. On the issue, my input would be, “I don’t know”. The rub with me is that atheists seem to think that if you don’t buy into the belief, that you are a troll. Your word, but, I’ve heard it many times before. And they treat people who do not see the world through their religion as decieved by the (metaphoric) devil, which makes them the same as every other religion on the planet. What I have layed out for you in this debate is not just ways to back away from your religion, it is a way to form a union with agnostics and humanists, and most importantantly, the moderate religious, who feel there is something out there, they are just not sure what it is. Would that not be a huge step toward world peace? Toward sanity?
NeoWolfe
Comment by NeoWolfe — November 1, 2012 @ 12:09 am |
Creationism has to do with rejecting evolution. I explained that in the piece above. I am not talking about the big bang or origin of the universe.
The conversation we had was not merely about creationism. It was about my argument — weather or not my premises are all true. You started to talk about something other than that specific issue in the context of a debate about that specific issue.
Comment by JW Gray — November 6, 2012 @ 3:46 am |
The link in the image “Why Creationists Reject Evolution” image doesn’t work.
Comment by Andrew — November 13, 2012 @ 3:08 am |
Thank you for letting me know. It should be fixed now.
Comment by JW Gray — November 13, 2012 @ 3:38 am |
From the post:
“Keep in mind that even if evolution is debunked, that does not mean creationism is true. As stated above, there are other potential explanations for the existence of complex life forms.”
I believe ‘Chaos Theory’ is going to answer the question whether the cosmos is eternal or not. And it has to be eternal. Just cannot be anything else, in view of the mindboggling complexity that exists.
There’s a Richard Feyman video on youtube — in which he comments on the mindboggling, multidimensional complexity that exists, even in the simplest of situations.
We are dealing with infinite, endless complexity, in every moment.
Such amazing, elaborate complexity cannot possibly be created. Nor can it start from ‘nothing’.
“The inconceivable nature…of nature” — Richard Feynman.
Inconceivable, endless, bottomless. Words that will eventually pop up, while pondering the big picture of all that exists.
Feyman video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjHJ7FmV0M4
Comment by vikrammadan — January 24, 2013 @ 12:40 pm |