Orderly Universe: Evidence of God?

ABC News ^ | March 2, 2008 | John Allen Paulos

[2ndDivisionVet]

Since writing my book "Irreligion" and some of my recent Who's Counting columns, I've received a large number of e-mails from subscribers to creation science (who have recently christened themselves intelligent design theorists). Some of the notes have been polite, some vituperative, but almost all question "how order and complexity can arise out of nothing."

Since they can imagine no way for this to happen, they conclude there must be an intelligent designer, a God. (They leave aside the prior question of how He arose.)

My canned answer to them about biological order talks a bit about evolution, but they often dismiss that source of order for religious reasons or because of a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.

(See Complexity and Intelligent Design for my Who's Counting discussion of biological and economic order and complexity arising out of very simple programs.)

Because the seemingly inexplicable arising of order seems to be so critical to so many, however, I've decided to list here a few other sources for naturally occurring order in physics, math, and biology. Of course, order, complexity, entropy, randomness and related notions are clearly and utterly impossible to describe and disentangle in a column like this, but the examples below from "Irreligion" hint at some of the abstract ideas relevant to the arising of what has been called "order for free."

Necessarily Some Order

Let me begin by noting that even about the seemingly completely disordered, we can always say something. No universe could be completely random at all levels of analysis.

In physics, this idea is illustrated by the kinetic theory of gases. There an assumption of disorder on one formal level of analysis, the random movement of gas molecules, leads to a kind of order on a higher level, the relations among variables such as temperature, pressure and volume known as the gas laws. The law-like relations follow from the lower-level randomness and a few other minimal assumptions. (This bit of physics does not mean that life has evolved simply by chance, a common mischaracterization of evolution.)

In addition to the various laws of large numbers studied in statistics, a notion that manifests a different aspect of this idea is statistician Persi Diaconis' remark that if you look at a big enough population long enough, then "almost any damn thing will happen."

Ramsey Order

A more profound version of this line of thought can be traced back to British mathematician Frank Ramsey, who proved a strange theorem. It stated that if you have a sufficiently large set of geometric points and every pair of them is connected by either a red line or a green line (but not by both), then no matter how you color the lines, there will always be a large subset of the original set with a special property. Either every pair of the subset's members will be connected by a red line or every pair of the subset's members will be connected by a green line.

If, for example, you want to be certain of having at least three points all connected by red lines or at least three points all connected by green lines, you will need at least six points. (The answer is not as obvious as it may seem, but the proof isn't difficult.)

For you to be certain that you will have four points, every pair of which is connected by a red line, or four points, every pair of which is connected by a green line, you will need 18 points, and for you to be certain that there will be five points with this property, you will need -- it's not known exactly - between 43 and 55. With enough points, you will inevitably find unicolored islands of order as big as you want, no matter how you color the lines.

A whole mathematical subdiscipline has grown up devoted to proving theorems of this same general form: How big does a set have to be so that there will always be some subset of a given size that it will constitute an island of order of some sort?

Ramsey-type theorems may even be part of the explanation (along, of course, with Diaconis' dictum) for some of the equidistant letter sequences that constitute the bible codes. Any sufficiently long sequence of symbols, especially one written in the restricted vocabulary of ancient Hebrew, is going to contain subsequences that appear meaningful.

Self-Organization and Order

Finally, of more direct relevance to evolution and the origin of living complexity is the work of Stuart Kauffman. In his book, "At Home in the Universe," he discusses what he has termed the aforementioned notion of "order for free."

Motivated by the idea of hundreds of genes in a genome turning on and off other genes and the order and pattern that nevertheless exist, Kauffman asks us to consider a large collection of 10,000 light bulbs, each bulb having inputs from two other bulbs in the collection.

Assume that you connect these bulbs at random, that a clock ticks off one-second intervals, and that at each tick each bulb either goes on or off according to some arbitrarily selected rule. For some bulbs, the rule might be to go off at any instant unless both inputs are on the previous instant. For others it might be to go on at any instant if at least one of the inputs is off the previous instant. Given the random connections and random assignment of rules, it would be natural to expect the collection of bulbs to flicker chaotically with no apparent pattern.

What happens, however, is that very soon one observes order for free, more or less stable cycles of light configurations, different ones for different initial conditions. Kauffman proposes that some phenomenon of this sort supplements or accentuates the effects of natural selection.

Although there is certainly no need for yet another argument against the seemingly ineradicable silliness of "creation science," these light bulb experiments and the unexpected order that occurs so naturally in them do seem to provide one.

In any case, order for free and apparent complexity greater than we might naively expect are no basis for believing in God as traditionally defined. Of course, we can always redefine God to be an inevitable island of order or some sort of emergent mathematical entity. If we do that, the above considerations can be taken as indicating that such a pattern will necessarily exist, but that's hardly what people mean by God.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University, is the author of the best-sellers "Innumeracy" and "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper," as well as of the just-released "Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why The Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up " His "Who's Counting?" column on ABCNEWS.com appears the first weekend of every month.

[Dog Gone]

Here’s another question that I have, and for this one I have no answer in my back pocket.

If God is so smart, all-knowing; the future, past, and present are all known to him, why did he create earth?

Sure, it all suppposedly turns out great in the end, but in the meantime, there are billions and billions of people who suffer greatly, all die, and tons of horrible stuff happens.

God does a Flood which accomplishes nothing. He sends part of the Trinity to earth to enlighten people and to get tortured and executed.

Why not just think, “I think I’ll just pass on creating this planet? It’s not going to turn out so well, and there will be a whole lot of sorrow that can be avoided. I don’t really need to see throats slit in the name of Allah.”

[CottShop]

[[“Any thoughts as to what God was doing for infinity prior to creating the universe?”]]

Playing checkers

[null and void]

Any thoughts as to what God was doing for infinity prior to creating the universe?

Playing solitaire

We wouldn't be here if he didn't cheat...

[AndrewC]

With enough points, you will inevitably find unicolored islands of order as big as you want, no matter how you color the lines.

Well, duh again? "Enough" == "Sufficient". Now use the same reasoning to calculate the quantity of reagents necessary to inevitably randomly produce a specific 200 residue protein within the present age of the universe.

[presently no screen name]

what we can see and try to make sense of it.

Using our natural senses cannot give us Supernatural answers. The Universe was spoken into existence by The Creator, The Almighty. Can we use your natural senses to understand that kind of Power?

Take a apple seed, within that seed has life - life to create a tree that produces many many apples and within those apples are more seeds. Take a lemon, pear, flower seeds - each seed has life with it's 'own' flavor, appearance, and more seeds. Can we truly understand how a little seed has life and when mixed w/dirt it grows into something magnificent for all to enjoy. Take a sperm seed - within it has the life of a child. It comes forth complete w/hair, fingers and nails, etc.

Can we truly understand how it works or where did that seed get it's life? No. Once we plant the seeds, the miracleous is happening - what God designed it to do - while we wait for that first tomato to come forth and enjoy. While God feeds us with natural things we can enjoy w/our 5 senses, He, also, wants to feed us with His Seed/His Word and once that is planted and grows in our heart, we get to KNOW Him - we can't understand how it happens but His Seed/His Word has life within It.

There are two classes - one spending their time and effort to DISPROVE God who they DON'T KNOW and one that spends their time getting to KNOW God. It's to them that He reveals Himself to. And He does it through a Seed, His Living Word.

Pride caused Lucifer to be changed into satan. By his pride he got the exact opposite of what he wanted. From good to evil. While we can point to someone who exhibits pride, you can't 'see' pride for itself. It's in the spiritual realm. You know it exists but can't see it with our 5 senses. Pride/sin will do the same for us - take us where we don't want to go and faster than we want to go.

Bottom line - God IS God, He WAS always God and WILL BE always God, The Creator, The Almighty. Accept Him by faith and get to know Him instead of 'trying' to disprove Him with our natural sense. It can't happen - one is, merely, spinning their wheels with pride in every spoke.

[RightWhale]

The Universe was spoken into existence by The Creator

LOL

[AndrewC]

Assume that you connect these bulbs at random, that a clock ticks off one-second intervals, and that at each tick each bulb either goes on or off according to some arbitrarily selected rule. For some bulbs, the rule might be to go off at any instant unless both inputs are on the previous instant. For others it might be to go on at any instant if at least one of the inputs is off the previous instant. Given the random connections and random assignment of rules, it would be natural to expect the collection of bulbs to flicker chaotically with no apparent pattern.

It might be natural, but still wrong. No matter how you arrive at the final configuration of the circuit, it has a definition. It will act according to that definition. Now if you change the wiring and the rules at each time frame, you will get a chaotically acting group of lights.

[CottShop]

[[If God is so smart, all-knowing; the future, past, and present are all known to him, why did he create earth?]]

To give htose who love and obey His Salvation request an eternity of great joy and peace alongside Him. To share His Godship with htose who freely choose Him

[[God does a Flood which accomplishes nothing.]]

Sure it did., it wiped out an obination that occured in the human race as fallen angels bred with humans in an attempt to thwart the line of Christ by corrupting the bloodline. It also allowed a pure blooline to continue- just as God forordained and forsaw would happen- Satan was defeated in His attempt to defeat God.

[[He sends part of the Trinity to earth to enlighten people and to get tortured and executed.]

Aint it great that Your Creator decided to endure that for you? His perfection and death satisfied the perfection of the law and was the final sacrifice that covers all sin for htose hwo choose to accept His great sacrifice for us. He did this out of complete and sefless love for You and I

[[Why not just think, “I think I’ll just pass on creating this planet?]]

It’s turnign out fine. Evil was already present when Satan and some angels fell from grace. Those of us who do evil will be repaid in like- those hwo choose God do so despite their circumstances or ills of htis world, and htus show that their love for God is true and NOT based on what God can ‘do for us”- We show God our love isn’t conditional, that is, that we freely and absolutely love Him and our love doesn’t depend on what we get, but what we give to God.

Sure, God coulda just not created us, but then niether He would know a TRUE love from creatures created in His image, nor would He be able to show and share His Godship with us creatures of truly free will.

Evil sucks for sure, but there can be no true love without the chance to choose either the good or the evil- without the ability to choose hte evil, love is stagnant and forced. With hte abilty to reject God, those hwo do love Him do so completely and fully- and htere is no greater thing than TRUE selfless love.

Lou Whitworth has given what I think is a very good answer to these questions. He states “But even if He reveals evidence of Himself only to benefit us, why isn’t He more forthright about it? This much seems clear: If He made His presence or the evidence too obvious, it would interfere with His demonstration, which is intended to draw out or reveal the true inner character of mankind. We know from several passages of Scripture that this is part of God’s purpose for maintaining a relative silence. For example, in Psalm 50:21-22 we read, “These things you have done, and I kept silence; you thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you, and state the case in order before your eyes.” From these statements we come to see that God is not struggling desperately to gain man’s attention. Actually He is restraining Himself in order to demonstrate to human beings something about our inner character, or tendency to evil. We might call this “the Sheriff in the tavern” principle–people tend to be good when they think they are being watched by an authority. If a sheriff wants to find out or reveal who the troublemakers are in a tavern, he must either hide or appear to be an ineffective wimp, otherwise the bad guys will behave as well as everyone else.” (You can find his full article here: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evidence1.html ... )

[CottShop]

[[Possibly a result of applying science of laws where descriptive science should apply.]]

science of laws is empiracle law- strict science- science of descriptions is assumptions based ‘sciecne’ ie: Religious belief. ID practices empiracle forensic science, while Macroevolution is the practice of assumptions and a priori belief that doesn’t jive with hte evidence. All the ‘filler science’ that is proposed is purely descriptive in nature, and speculative, and also must be pointed out, violates known severe, hypothesis defeating, empiracle forensic evidences. Thus we get statements from Macroevolutionists like “Snowflakes show that negaTive netropy occurs, thus Macroevolution is valid dispite the second law”

[Dog Gone]

Sure it did., it wiped out an obination that occured in the human race as fallen angels bred with humans in an attempt to thwart the line of Christ by corrupting the bloodline. It also allowed a pure blooline to continue- just as God forordained and forsaw would happen- Satan was defeated in His attempt to defeat God.

Even assuming fallen angels were seducing our women, and having one night stands with them, how did the Flood stop that practice?

[CottShop]

[[Using our natural senses cannot give us Supernatural answers.]]

Well you’re kind of right. We can gain a high probability and strong certainty by examining the evidences, and we can gain a more htorough understanding of hte how. How God created, what laws He used or superceeded, how He forsaw and caused cooperation betwen systems within species- how those cooperations work and synchronize etc. We can use our senses to gain a great deal of information which strengthens certainty to a point hwere the theory of ID is the most probable scenario- especially when compared to the severe lack of evidences, and law violating, statistic violating evidence-less assumptions associated with Macroevolution

[RightWhale]

empiracle law

a priori belief

Kind of high gibberosity rating there.

[CottShop]

The offspring were wiped out and hte fallen angels banned from doing so again- God allowed Satan preflood to try to do His best, and God once again showed He is greater than evil. Satan is trying to prove He is greater than God- this has been an ongoing battle since Satan first decided He wanted to ‘be like God’. The battle is nbot meaningless to us as a whole, as God’s Godship is proven to all naysayers, As God’s Godship is revealed through His triumph over the Evil One. This is a deep theological issue, and one I’d need to tackle on a bit fresher mind- but basically, these are hte cards that are being played.

[CottShop]

Thatr’s all you can manage to take from the post? I meant science of laws is empiracle science, not law, and macroevolutionsits have always undertaken ‘science’ with an a priori belief that everythign must have a natural explanation- there simply is no room for any other explanation in their world, and htey go to great lengths to explain away the severe insurmountable problems with hte hypothesis

[RightWhale]

Words mean things. Common useage of technical terms conveys nothing.

[Dog Gone]

The offspring were wiped out and hte fallen angels banned from doing so again

So God allowed fallen angels to sleep with our women up until the time that he decided to flood the earth.

And then he banned them from doing that, although he could have banned them from doing that at the start, since he's all-knowing and everything, or maybe the whole thing didn't happen BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

I want the scriptural reference to where the Flood also involved a ban on fallen angels from taking our women out for a drink and getting into their pants.

[RightWhale]

Thatr’s all you can manage to take from the post?

No, not at all. Thatr's all I respond to.

[Dog Gone]

I sure would like to discover the fossil remains of one of those descendants of fallen angels and our loose women.

Would thay have wings? Horns? Maybe a tail?

[Dog Gone]

This much seems clear: If He made His presence or the evidence too obvious, it would interfere with His demonstration, which is intended to draw out or reveal the true inner character of mankind. We know from several passages of Scripture that this is part of God’s purpose for maintaining a relative silence.

And the Flood fits that strategy in what way?

Or maybe lighting Elisha's cow on fire on Mt. Carmel?

Parting the Red Sea?

[Dog Gone]

Actually, I think it was Elijah’s cow. Either way, it was a heck of a way to start a BBQ.