Posted on 03/07/2008 4:40:38 PM PST by 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.
Yes, it is, and that is exactly how--stretch of the imagination.
The Universe is an extremely disordered, random, and dangerous place.
Implying that things move in stately orbits in a calm, orderly fashion isn't accurate. There's more crap whizzing randomly around the Solar System than anyone could shake a stick at.
Stars explode, solar systems and even galaxies collide and are torn apart, planetary debris is being shot around the galaxy like so many pinballs, and even the 'empty' space between galaxies isn't 'empty'.
It's full of chunks of stuff shooting through space being pulled to and fro by the gravity of whatever objects they pass.
It's literally impossible to find any 'order' in it. People have been trying to do that since the time of Copernicus. All have failed.
L
Nope. I did it for the same reason you quote the Bible. (Which, by the way, is what Amendment 10 did)
I did it because the definitive answer was well, clearly and concisely stated.
But if you insist on my more awkward wording:
God has authored several Testaments, one written in words on parchment, one written in fossils in rocks, one written in the stars in the sky, one written in molecules in a double helix, one written in the very core of every atom, one written...
Why would anyone limit themselves to seeing only a sliver of His Word?
Order is in the mind, that is, subjective, that is, in the imagination.
You’ll all be please to hear of what I just caught the end of the crawl on Fox.
Apparently, The Church has a new list of Sins.
For some of us that means we’re going to Hell after all.
For some that means we have a whole new list of sins to try out.
For some that means we now have new and improved reasons to look down our noses at everyone else...
So are Unicorns. That doesn't mean they actually exist.
Sorry to quibble, but this whole 'order in the Universe proves that there is a God' thing is hokum. I don't deny the existence of God, but saying that the Universe is orderly is just not true.
L
That unicorns exist in the mind doesn’t say other things can’t.
Carolyn
[[Earth to CottShop, Science was founded in the west by men of Faith. Anyone who had any education got it from reading the Bible first. Some didn’t publish for decades, as they frantically tried to fit what they were seeing into a Biblical context.]]
Earth to null and void, the early muslims (Before militant islam took over) had great libraries of scientific books, not just religous. Not all scientists were God fearing saved people but simply men who professed to be so, and early scientists didn’t ‘frantically’ attempt to do fit hte eivdnece to the bible- the evidnece already fit on it’s own- there was no need for coercing it to do so- it was those hwo rejected God that frantically tried to fit what they a priori beleived about what their eyes saw ie: everythign ‘looks old’’.
[[What would you do if you saw [naaah, let me use a loaded word:] What would you do if you personally witnessed something that conflicted with your understanding of the Bible?]]
I’ve yet to see anythign that conflicts with hte bible- all I see are assumptions by those who reject anythign but natural explanations, and I’m sure that smarter folks than I in the past were even more convinced that the assumptions of God-rejecting macroevolutionsits/old agers were based on nothign but unsupported guesses. And I’m equally sure that those folks saw the same old age conflicting evidneces that we see today and were just as amused at hte dismissive explanations as we are today.
[[That was the crisis of Faith these men endured. They came to the reluctant conclusion that their understanding of the Bible was incomplete, that verifiable facts are facts,]]
Verifiable FACTS? How were they ‘verified’? When were they determiend to be ‘FACTS’? Crisis of faith? Me thinks you are mind reading long dead folks. Religious scientists, those who were truly saved, I think it is fair to logically conclude, were not put off by thsoe who ‘professed to be God’s children’ who abandoned God based solely on nothing more than peer pressure and assumptions and imaginary scenarios proposed by folks who display a tenacious bent toward NON objective science.
[[I bet you think Darwin said where life came from too]
I bet you’re wrong, but I also bet this won’t stop you from assigning false accusations to me in the future either.
[[I suspect you would deny your own lyin’ eyes.]]
I suspect you severely underestimate the logic abilities of both myself and past investigators of evidences. Who declared their eyes were lying? And with what do they use to declare such? Established FACTS? No- we’ve already discussed that they were NOT idneed facts, but were nothign more than conjectures, guesses and a priori dogmatic devotion to naturalism. While you are perfectly allowed to beleive anythign you like, what you aren’t allowed is generalizing about the past and htose who were alive by attempting ot show that everyone was so ignorant that they should abandon their belief in God’s creation based simply on assumptive imaginary scenarios that lacked ANY empiracle evidences to support. You are however free to suggest whatever you like, but doing so will meet with the truth that refutes your assertions.
[[You’ll all be please to hear of what I just caught the end of the crawl on Fox.
Apparently, The Church has a new list of Sins.
For some of us that means we’re going to Hell after all.]]
You’ll all be pleased to hear that the Church doesn’t determine who goes to hell or not- God does, and God has clearly stated that the ONLY thing that will cause eternal damnation is rejection of His Son’s Salvation work on the cross. you’ll also all be pleased to know that there are no ‘lists’, and that it isn’t by our own works that we are saved, but by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Once salvation is completed through the asking, it is done for eternity. you’ll all also be pleased to know that we’re ALL sinners but God is open to ANYONE who simply asks honestly.
[[For some that means we now have new and improved reasons to look down our noses at everyone else...]]
If that’s what you wish to do- then whatever-
Pretty amazing stuff, no?
[[Yet the foulest mass murdering, baby killing, child rapist would go straight to Heaven, if they managed to accept Christ as their personal Savior in the last milliseconds of life. How deep is that root?]]
As Deep As God demands- God is no respector of persons. His offer is open to everyone. The simple white lie or bad thought is equally evil as any other sin, and is enough to prevent a person from goign to heaven. We are ALL born into sin and ALL are at enmity with God, whehter we are ‘good people’ or not- God sees the heart and judges on that- Is the heart an enemy of God? Or will it humbly bow before God and ask forgiveness? EVERY person born is responsible for murdering Christ in a horrific manner, hanging Him on a cross until his lungs collapsed in excruciating pain fro mthe weight of His body. Our enmity with God caused Christ to becoem a willing sacrifice for hte remission of our sins. Whiel we can point ot evil people and say God should never forgive them, we do so ignoring our own reprehensible culpability for the death of Christ.
Christ came ot save sinners- ANY sinner that falls before Him in true repentance. The Apostle Paul before He was saved, was cheif amoung hte murderers, being responsible for haivng peopel stoned to death for hteir faith in Christ, Yet God’s mercy, being freely open to sinners, was accepted by Paul- a mass murderer.
Suppose htere are two as yet unsaved people- one a wicked evil person, murderer, rapist, and all around wicked person- the other is a highly respected person- giving ot charities, helping peopel whenever they can, always looking out ofr others best interests above his own. Which is closer to God? The naswer is neither one! They both just as lost, just as unsaved! Christ came to save sinners! Salvation is NOT based on our works, it is Based on God’s merciful grace to ALL people! It is based NOT on what we do, but on unmerritted grace! We don’t ‘earn’ God’s grace- Grace is a FREE gift open to everyone.
bump
[[As opposed to, oh, say, Religion which relies on the assumption that the Bible is true,]]
it’s not an assumption- it is a certainty based on eyewitness accounts, on the fact that 100’s of prophesies prove that it was God’s word that was spoke, and it’s based on certainties that are justified through the science.
[[Who where the witnesses for the first 5 days?]]
Those to whom God gave the revelations.
[[Ummmmmmmmm, is this a bad time to point out the BY DEFINITION every Biblical miracle violates nature?]]
What does a violation of nature have to do with the fact that people witnessed the events and recorded them? Naturalists who beleive in the imaginary scenario of Macroevoltuion have no such eyewitness accounts- ALL they have are someone’s assumptions about past unsupported events.
If the universe was chaotic, would that be proof of no God?
[[‘Predict’ is the scientifically loaded word, and ‘Prophesy’ is the religiously loaded word, for the same phenomena: saying what will happen before it happens]]
predict isn’t the same as prophesy- with predictions- you take known variables and make a logical guess- prophesies are revelations about complete unknowns 1000’s of years down the road
Pedict isn’t ‘scientifically loaded’, it’s a guess- Prophesy is a revelation (often accompanied by visions) about future events. Those who lived after the prophesies, and durign hte time the prophesies came true, had confirmation that God’s word was absolutely true.
[[If the universe was chaotic, would that be proof of no God?]]
Why woudl you think that? There is no mandate that I know of that declares everythign shall be in order for their to be a God. God is omnipotent, and is hte God of everythign. He is bigger than both order and disorder- Both order and disorder are subject to Him.
The notion of "proper" noetic functioning also implies the corollary notion of improper noetic function. You are implying that there is something wrong with a theist's thinking, in the same sort of way that there is something wrong with the thinking of a person who believes in the existence of imaginary, mythical leprechauns. But how do you account the your notion of something functioning, or not functioning, as it ought to in the first place, resting as it does on the supposition that byproducts of brain chemistry are themselves nothing but the accidental byproduct of chance/necessity, and natural selection? How could evolution not function as it ought to? What sense does it make to attribute properness to something that chemistry can't help doing in the first place?
Cordially,
Carolyn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.