Sunday, April 17, 2011

Programs Without a Programmer

Physical science shows that a designer is not needed to account for design in physical nature in the same way computer science shows that a programmer is not needed to account for design in software.

Put another way: The fact that I don't (and shouldn't expect to) find Will Wright somewhere in my PC when I play a game of Spore does not mean A) Will Wright plays no role in explaining Spore, B) that Spore was not designed, or C) that Spore, in and of itself, cannot strongly point towards the existence of some designer.

I honestly wonder if and suspect that many of these 'advances of science that show God isn't necessary as an explanation' are essentially of the same form as assuming that for Will Wright to design Spore means I'd better find him in my PC, whatever that would mean. In other words, a kind of explanation even the most sloppy, anthropomorphic theists weren't typically expecting.

4 comments:

Crude said...

And before someone points out that the example assumes a mechanistic universe, I'll simply reply: Sure, I suppose there's a way you could read it to say that. But then that just illustrates the problem atheism has with even a mechanistic universe.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

I was going to post the citation from ST here, but then it became the latest (real) post at my blog. Have a look, if you habn't alriddy.

Crude said...

Checked out. I'll comment some later on, interesting write-up.

Though my post here was more wide-reaching than evolution, since I hear this kind of crap from physicists as well. Well, atheist physicists.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Sure, I just thought it was serendipitous how your post ~related to my the eye-popper I read in ST. I'm writing less these days since I'm reading a lot more and, especially, cracking ass to "really" learn Latin.