The reason I picked that one is because it so easily demonstrates the ridiculousness of the whole premise. As far as dismissing self-organisation out of hand - not so. I dismiss it because it is unconvincing, science-wise. It is an example of “science by wishful thinking”. Somebody thinks self-organisation will surmount the grave problems with purely naturalistic origins, therefore that MUST be the answer to our scientific conundrum.
” I dismiss it because it is unconvincing, science-wise. “
Except in the lab and in nature, at various levels - from the molecular to the system.
simple Self-Organization examples in nauture can in no way account for the massive organizations actually found in nature itself- the ‘self-oranization’ that evos love to cite include controlled INTELLIGENCE INDUCED experimentations:
“Second, Patterson’s acknowledgment of the “challenging question” as to how spontaneous generation is possible in the face of the second law is neither denied nor effectually diminished elsewhere in his text, which I “conveniently neglect” to cite (indeed, a concession that “we must leave the realm of classical thermodynamics to seek explanation” speaks for itself). His venture into the realm of statistical physics and instability principles and their purely theoretical application to self-organization (read: spontaneous generation), holds little relevancy, despite his reference to an “overwhelming majority” of evolutionists (who else?) who buy into Prigogine’s hopeful—and still very theoretical—ideas.
I readily apologize if my citation of Patterson appears to misrepresent his views, for it was not my intention to do so (or I wouldn’t have pointed out that he is an evolutionist to begin with). In any case, all things considered, it is quite a stretch for you to accuse me of “the old creationist trick of quoting out of context.”
>>“...These [dissipative] structures can be induced merely by imposing strong temperature, pressure, or composition gradients. Indeed, those formed in certain laboratory-simulated, prebiotic broths have caused a rat deal of excitement because of their remarkable similarity to the simplest know forms of life.”<<
Patterson’s inference that a laboratory-induced “dissipative structure” might reflect a “remarkable similarity to the simplest know[n] forms of life” is an exaggeration of the highest order. What little resemblance such a product might have to a scrap of biological material furthermore qualifies only as certain evidence of what is possible when intelligence is applied to a goal-oriented project in a controlled environment.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/9801.asp
Also Behe responds to critics who cite ‘sefl-organization’ as proof that evolution could produce specified complexity:
“Although it produces some complexity, the self-organizing behavior so far observed in the physical world has not produced complexity and specificity comparable to irreducibly complex biochemical systems. There is currently little reason to think that self-organizing behavior can explain biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting cascade.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe06.asp
Those posting about the spaghetti monster it seems would rather deny the obvious design features and beleive a lie and cast all their hopes in a hopeless broken hypothesis of Random mutations and simple self-organizations as the vehicles through which the marvelously somplex, irreducibly complex biological marvels came from.