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.

[metmom]

As in the days of Noah.

Then it was “and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” and that everything was corrupt and violence filled the earth. We may almost be to the Sodom and Gomorrah point but not the days of Noah yet. I fear it won’t be long with the way things are going, though.

[presently no screen name]

DG #189Leave the actual discussion to people who like to discuss things and are qualified to make arguments.

MM It’s just for the purposes of argument, not for sincere seeking.

SPOT ON, metmom! Casting pearls before swine comes to mind. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

And we see how that scripture has been fulfilled. We give out good in sincerity but....they trample.....

They don't believe The Word of God but they don't see how they are fulfilling what they don't believe.

[presently no screen name]

We may almost be to the Sodom and Gomorrah

If it weren't for the Restrainer, The Holy Spirit, keeping things at bay and prayers of the faithful - I think we would have passed the days of S&G.

[CottShop]

[[However, you both felt it was necessary to dismiss me as stupid or ignorant]]

oh comeon now, donm’t have such a low opinion of yourself- we didn’t dismiss you— we looked forward to more posts by you confirming the sense that we had.

j/k

[modican]

Orderly Universe: Evidence of God?

Orderly Universe = God
God = Orderly Universe
So, are we talking Buddism here. It surely has nothing to do with the biblical God.
For all practical purpose one can rename God to Singularity.
What is this here, La-La Land..?

[CottShop]

[[I’m looking forward to the discovery of fossil giant men.]]

Good news- Your wait ended long ago unbeknownst to you- there is some thouight that neanderthal was related to the nephilim

[Oztrich Boy]

there is some thouight that neanderthal was related to the nephilim

Also some thought that God was an alien from another planet.

Also some thought that George Washington was Adam Weishaupt

Some people even think Ben Affleck is an actor.

[CottShop]

[[I’m looking forward to the discovery of fossil giant men.]]

The bones of giants were on display for all to witness in the time of Josephus, a secualr scholar and historian- wasn’t any conspiracy about it- it was common knowledge

[[Flavius Josephus, the noted Jewish historian of the first century A.D., described these giants as having “bodies so large and countenances so entirely different from other men that they were surprising to the sight and terrible to the hearing.” (8) And he adds that in his day, the bones of the giants were still on display!]]

[[You won’t answer my questions, and because you can’t, you assume I’m evil.]]

We are all born into sin- you don’t particularly stand out amoung us- but cheer up, there’s good news! - we don’t have to reamin there.

[CottShop]

[[Also some thought that God was an alien from another planet.]]

Good for them. I didn’t say I agreed with hte neandetol/nephilim link, but I certainly wouldn’t rule it out conciderring man and neandertol lived alongside each other at one point and were supernaturally strong-

[[Also some thought that God was an alien from another planet.]]

I don’t care what folks who believe in an evidenceless false god think- My God has far more evidence than their God for His existence.

[[Some people even think Ben Affleck is an actor]]

I don’t care what opium addicts think

[Cvengr]

I enjoy studying math and science, and even moreso when shared with othe believers who relish those studies through faith in Him. On the contrary, the most miserable advocates of science I have ever met, are those who seek to use science as a crutch to avoid any faith through Him.

[presently no screen name]

those who seek to use science as a crutch to avoid any faith through Him.

I agree. So well said!

[metmom]

I think we’ve passed there in SOME places. SF and the Netherlands come to mind.

[reasonisfaith]

You are free (by the sovereignty of free will, although not necessarily by the standards of sincerity nor by the boundaries of logic) to make passive suggestions that the flood accomplished nothing. But to proceed from such a precarious position to implying that God’s intelligence should be questioned is very weak.

[reasonisfaith]

“Why do you think God is smarter than you?”

Before answering this, let’s examine the question, why do you think 1 is greater than 0? (It’s the same question in simpler form.)

[reasonisfaith]

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

I’m glad you asked.

Careful attention reveals the fact that the most significant underlying idea in your post is the sentiment “I don’t like God’s plan.” It doesn’t even touch the question of divine existence. It merely describes God’s actions as unappealing. (My apologies to the Christopher Hitchenses of the world for any hurt feelings, but they will be much better off in the long run if they can understand this.)

This is an argument from aesthetics, and it represents one of two general categories describing almost all atheist propositions. The second category contains the arguments from empiricism. Neither form of argument is ultimately viable under the light of reason.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Me too!

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

9 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:19-21)

16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1:16)

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:3)

So now that we know that God repeatedly said that He made the universe, and the earth, and has said that men can look on His creation and know that He exists, and we know that He has said that man has no excuse for looking at His creation and denying Him, I suppose it is on each of us to believe God or not; and, knowing that we will be held responsible for our beliefs, consider seriously whether or not the chance that the theory of evolution and the theory that all of this happened by sheer chance is wrong is worth the consequence.

[Cvengr]

http://www.icr.org/article/376/

Also, Arthur Custance has some great works regarding science and faith.

For example, this book on evolution or creation, is a dcent work. http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/index.html

He also has an outstanding 453 page book considering the Virgin birth and how it correlates to Scripture and physical genetics.

[null and void]

"The argument goes like this : "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."

Douglas Adams' contention is that God is nothing without faith, and that is why He allows no convincing proof of His existence.

Perhaps that is backwards. Perhaps it is we who are nothing without faith?

[metmom]

Douglas Adams is wrong, but that’s no surprise from someone who hates God as clearly as he does.

God goes out of His way to prove His existence and give us reason to trust Him. Scripture is loaded with stuff about proving He exists (post 216) and letting us know that it proves He exists.

[VOA]

bump