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.

[null and void]

Ummmmm. Take a breath. When your beliefs are threatened your spelling goes all to heck. Please spell check to make it easier for my old tired eyes to follow what you are saying.

Earth to null and void, the early muslims (Before militant islam took over) had great libraries of scientific books, not just religous.

Nearly all were copies of Pagan Greek, Pagan Roman, and Pagan Hindu texts, all of which predated the Christian European invention of the scientific method. Fortunately the early Arab (and Irish) scholars preserved these historical records during the Church induced Dark Ages in Europe.

Not all scientists were God fearing saved people but simply men who professed to be so,

Agreed.

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’’.

Galileo's own writings confirm that he struggled to fit what he saw with what he read. It was a struggle precisely because of his pre-existing faith.

Bruno was burned alive because, unlike Galileo, he refused to deny what he observed. (Although even Galileo murmured 'But it moves, still' after he recanted to avoid the stake.)

I’ve yet to see anythign that conflicts with hte bible-

I never doubted that for an instant. Nor do I think that you are capable of seeing anything that might fit into that category.

Verifiable FACTS? How were they ‘verified’?

Where to begin? Gravity? So far every time I've dropped something, it fell. Maybe that isn't 'factual' or 'verifiable' enough for you, but it is for me.

Me thinks you are mind reading long dead folks.

Minds? No. Writings? Yes.

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.

Speaking of mind reading...

I bet you’re wrong,

That puts you in a rare group.

but I also bet this won’t stop you from assigning false accusations to me in the future either.

Feel free to correct any errors I make when I guess I think it is fair to logically conclude what your beliefs are.

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.

Do you deny the existence of the Galilean satellites?

Is not the fact that another planet, a bare dot in our sky, has bodies that orbit it, and not us, proof that we are not the very center of all of God's creation, like the Bible says?

While you are perfectly allowed to beleive anythign you like,

Thanks!

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.

Like the stories someone wrote in a book? Do tell! What empirical evidence supported the Biblical account of creation before cosmic background radiation and telescopic observation lead to the Big Bang Theory of the last century?

You are however free to suggest whatever you like, but doing so will meet with the truth that refutes your assertions.

Such as?

[footnote: there was no 'Before militant islam took over' Islam was born in blood, lives in blood, and glories in blood. It's first acts of faith were at the edge of a sword, and to this day they follow the same formula that fueled their growth from day one: Convert or die.]

[null and void]

3rd try....What does religion have to do with the universe? You still haven't answered that.

I have answered it.

[null and void]

As Deep As God demands

I think we can agree that that is all the deeper it needs to be.

EVERY person born is responsible for murdering Christ in a horrific manner

Ummmmmmm, I wasn't there. Next you'll be lobbying for Reparations.

We don’t ‘earn’ God’s grace- Grace is a FREE gift open to everyone.

*ahem* in your book, we can only earn it by accepting Christ as our personal Saviour...

[CottShop]

[[[footnote: there was no ‘Before militant islam took over’ Islam was born in blood, lives in blood, and glories in blood. It’s first acts of faith were at the edge of a sword, and to this day they follow the same formula that fueled their growth from day one: Convert or die.] ]]

Yes there was- They were a peaceful tolorant group who lived alongside Christians and other religious groups in harmony, not bloodshed as happened AFTER Muhammahd came on the scene and hijacked an already established relgious group.

[[Ummmmm. Take a breath. When your beliefs are threatened your spelling goes all to heck. Please spell check to make it easier for my old tired eyes to follow what you are saying]

Working harder to read works the brain cells and improves the mind- you dshould be thnakinging me,

[[Nearly all were copies of Pagan Greek, Pagan Roman, and Pagan Hindu texts, all of which predated the Christian European invention of the scientific method. Fortunately the early Arab (and Irish) scholars preserved these historical records during the Church induced Dark Ages in Europe.]

Muhamahd ordered them destroyed, vast libraries of knowledge were lost ofrever.

[[Bruno was burned alive because, unlike Galileo, he refused to deny what he observed.]]

Bruno was burned alive because he refused to cave in to peer pressure and infact did beleive his eyes, not some imaginary scenarios proposed by folks with absolutely no scientific evidence to support their assumptions.

[[I never doubted that for an instant. Nor do I think that you are capable of seeing anything that might fit into that category.]

In all my years of arguing for ID on the net, in many different forums, all the coutner arguments boil down to assumptions about past events and are entirely without scientific support concering the so called macroevolution.

[[Where to begin? Gravity? So far every time I’ve dropped something, it fell. Maybe that isn’t ‘factual’ or ‘verifiable’ enough for you, but it is for me.]]

Gravity proved old earth age? Ealy Christians denied gravity? If soem did (which I’m sure htere were secularists that did too) it certainly wasn’t denied based o nthe bible- it was denied by people who obviously didn’t know any better- to try to assert that science indicted the bible because soem peopel might have denied gravity is disingenious. Those Christians who did infact beleive somethign such as Gravity of course wouldn’t be mentioned by those who try to indict htose hwo beleive in the bible. (and just for hte record, the early “Church of Rome wasn’t infact lead by true Christians but by peopel prophessing to be such, and by people who worshipped hteiro wn power over God- The early church was a corrupt organization who was more cocnerned with politcal weight and power than they were abotu obeying God. They were not God’s representatives despite hteir claism to be so.

[[Is not the fact that another planet, a bare dot in our sky, has bodies that orbit it, and not us, proof that we are not the very center of all of God’s creation, like the Bible says?]]

First of all, geoncentrists have eivdnece which makes a case for hteir idea- I donm’t take a stand on this one way or hte other as there are controversies about hte situation that are ongoing- sdecondly, I’m not aweare that bible states that we are the center, Where the evidenc3 isn’t solidified, but rather controversial, I don’t indict folks for having a different itnerpretation on issues of no real relevence. If the bible infact states that we are hte center, and isn’t open to interpretation, then one has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are infact heliocentric, not geocentric. From what I know, Helicentricity has strong points to support it’s case, and so does Geocentric. I’m almost positive that in the time of Gallilaeo, there certaintly wasn’t sufficient evidences one way or hte other, and htose stating heliocentricty were doing so purely on their opinion abotu hwat they saw, and other dissagreed. Differneces of opinion have always existed on many issues of uncertainty. Soem Christians may indeed have ofrmed an opinion about hwat was seen, but to state that it was a ‘deseprate attempt’ to reconcile the observances with the bible, one has to show that the bible indeed states in no uncertain terms that we’re the center.

[[Thanks!]]

Don’t mention it.

[[What empirical evidence supported the Biblical account of creation before cosmic background radiation and telescopic observation lead to the Big Bang Theory of the last century?]]

Divine revelation. God’s word was proved tiem and time again to those He apepared to. They gave witness to the revelations, and whether you agree it happened or not, it did accordign to their own writings and the verifications and certainties garnered from the lives of the prophets and writers. As well, We have followed the geentic evidnece back throug time showing htat people did descend from a single person, further strengthening the evidence from revelation, and we know through genetics that species are discontinuous, further solidifying the idea that species are uniquely created and can’t ‘morph’ beyond hteir own kinds. There is enough evidences to establish a high degree of certainty- there is no logical reason to dismiss the revelations of htose who wrote abotu creation as God has proven Himself as Truthful, as have htose who He revealed Hismelf and His word to- one can ONLY dismiss the historical records based on bias- opinion.

[[Such as?]]

Everythign stated so far.

[CottShop]

[[Ummmmmmm, I wasn’t there. Next you’ll be lobbying for Reparations.]]

Nope you weren’t- but you and I ARE responsible for Christ’s death because WE are born in sin and are at enmity with God. The only way sin could be forgiven was through the perfect final sacrifice of a perfect sacrifical being- Christ. Enmity is what caused the need, and we STILL have enmity wioth God. We are STILL all rsponsible for Christ havign to die because we lvoe sin more htna we love God. Christ’s death covered ALL sin for those who accept past present and future.

[[*ahem* in your book, we can only earn it by accepting Christ as our personal Saviour...]]

*Ahem*- no- we don’t ‘earn’ anything- we accept it or not. This issue also lies in the realm of predestination and election, but we’ll not get into that for now. Christ was th3e ONLY one who earned anything- He earned our redemtpion through His obedience to God and the demand of righteousness.

[Leroy S. Mort]

[[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.

So the fact that the universe is apparently "orderly" neither proves nor disproves the existence of God?

[presently no screen name]

Where? You either post ‘something’ that certainly isn’t an answer or you direct me to what someone else said.

I’ll leave it alone - it’s obvious you won’t answer because you can’t.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...You are implying that there is something wrong with a theist's thinking..."

You miss the point of the post entirely. The argument that was presented was INDEPENDENT of whatever mythical being you might wish to discuss. The argument presented applied EQUALLY WELL to ANY mythical being you "filled in the blanks" with.

Since many mythical beings are "mutually exclusive", ie, if Jehovah exists then Odin does not, and since the argument works for ANY of them, then the ARGUMENT is worthless, and using it to butress the belief in the existance of any particular supernatural being is FAULTY REASONING.

I am not "implying" that there is something wrong with ALL theist's thinking. I am EXPLICITLY pointing out the faulty reasoning of the specific argument presented. Anyone, regardless of their spiritual beliefs, using that argument is engaged in demonstrably faulty logic, and should be corrected.

As far as your further questions regarding epistimology, one might begin by supposing that something is "functioning as it is supposed to" when it operates in harmony with reality. Absent any other information, if you met a person on the street ranting and raving that "the Invisible Space Aliens" were about to get him, you would rightly conclude that he was in need of some corrective treatment. However, if you subsequently noticed footprints appearing in the snow with no visible person making them, this new information might make you re-evaluate your initial assessment of the person.

[null and void]

Nope. It is obvious that you do not recognize, much less understand, the answer.

[mdmathis6]

As I’ve read in scripture, I’ve seen little evidence of the worst of men being “converted. There is a time and place in each life that men may be given a chance to say yes or no. Yet consciences can be so seared that they will not respond to the Holy Spirit’s wooing, thus the Spirit ceases striving with them.

A thief was saved on the cross, the other was not. A pharoah’s heart was hardened leading to decisions that destroyed a sinful people but freed a chosen people. David committed grievous sins but was forgiven despite the national damage done.King Saul simply gave in to covetousness and tried to bribe God instead of destroying a certain people to the uttermost, thus causing God to reject him as king.

Christ spoke of the severe consequences pending against those who would specifically harm the little children he was blessing one day. God is fair and just and desires faith and truth in our inward parts. But he is always looking to save those who would be willing!

As for the depraved that you mention, while the promises regarding salvation apply to all men because of the blood spilt by Christ covers all sins, how many of such would actually come to the light so that they might be saved?...To attempt to do so would expose their inner selves and their deeds to such penetrating light that the shear enormity of their wickedness would be too frightening for them to confront in themselves, not to mention the sinister enjoyment they derive from their dark deeds. Such men are their own true gods, do you think they would allow God to be their true master?

Salvation starts with the wooing of the Spirit,and if certain depraved, particularly vicious men are saved, it is only because there was a spark of faith and desperation for the light of God that could be fanned into flame. Such a man was Saul who became Paul, who was guilty of the imprisonment and outright murder of members of the new sect of Christians just coming into being! He also received many beatings,inprisonments, and eventually execution in the name of the Christ he had once persecuted!

So you see, even some murderous evil men, while having been saved don’t always escape the consequences of their past lives!

[null and void]

Yes there was- They were a peaceful tolorant [sic] group who lived alongside Christians and other religious groups in harmony, not bloodshed as happened AFTER Muhammahd came on the scene and hijacked an already established relgious [sic] group.

Islam did not exist before Mad Mo crawled into a hole to be enthralled by the hissings of The Serpent.

Muhamahd ordered them destroyed, vast libraries of knowledge were lost ofrever [sic].

True. As was the new world version of the Bible. It was a little different that the one The Church used, and the padres assumed it was satanically inspired. Given the culture that they found, one can hardly blame them!

Bruno was burned alive because he refused to cave in to peer pressure and infact [sic] did beleive [sic] his eyes, not some imaginary scenarios proposed by folks with absolutely no scientific evidence to support their assumptions.

Yes, he refused to cave to The Church's peer pressure, and believe the imaginary scenarios in that book they worship.

In all my years of arguing for ID on the net, in many different forums,

All that practice, and this is all the better you can do?

all the coutner [sic] arguments boil down to assumptions about past events and are entirely without scientific support concering [sic] the so called macroevolution.

Talk to me, what exactly do you think the term 'macroevolution' means?

Gravity proved old earth age?

Never said that. You asked How were they ‘verified’? I merely gave an example of the verification process. That is one tests the hypothesis with physical tests.

First of all, geoncentrists [sic] have eivdnece [sic] which makes a case for hteir [sic] idea- I donm’t [sic] take a stand on this one way or hte [sic] other

No doubt.

sdecondly [sic], I’m not aweare [sic] that bible states that we are the center, Where the evidenc3 [sic] isn’t solidified, but rather controversial, I don’t indict folks for having a different itnerpretation [sic] on issues of no real relevence [sic].

I've seen nothing that indicates that the Bible says the earth is it, you have stumbled on my whole point: science improves the understanding of God's creation.

From what I know, Helicentricity [sic] has strong points to support it’s case, and so does Geocentric.

Geocentric is a perfectly good enough model for throwing a baseball.

It starts to fail for aiming an ICBM, and is utterly useless for sending a probe to another planet.

I’m almost positive that in the time of Gallilaeo [sic], there certaintly [sic] wasn’t sufficient evidences one way or hte [sic] other, and htose [sic] stating heliocentricty [sic] were doing so purely on their opinion abotu [sic] hwat [sic] they saw, and other dissagreed [sic].

*sigh* Galileo DISCOVERED the facts, verifiable by anyone willing to look through even a low powered telescope, that the earth was not the center of every orbit (that's why the 4 biggest moons of Jupiter are called the Galilean Moons) and that the heavenly bodies aren't perfect.

People no less intelligent than you and I looked at the blotchy surface of the moon, and blandly decreed that all heavenly bodies were perfect. It simply never occurred to any of them, over thousands of years, that the same level of blotches on a face would be horribly disfiguring!

Galileo looked and said, ummmmmm, guys? Result? He narrowly escaped with his life!

So please don't say "I’m almost positive that in the time of Gallilaeo [sic] , there certaintly [sic] wasn’t sufficient evidences one way or hte [sic] other,". It sounds as ignorant is if you had said: "I’m almost positive that in the time of Columbus, there certainly wasn’t sufficient evidences one way or the other, to say there was a 'new world' on the other side of the Atlantic."

Divine revelation.

Maybe He routinely talks to you, but He's been notably silent on the world stage lately for the rest of us.

As well, We have followed the geentic [sic] evidnece [sic] back throug [sic] time showing htat [sic] people did descend from a single person,

Source please?. Last I heard there were seven distinct Eves based on mitochondrial DNA evidence.

and we know through genetics that species are discontinuous, further solidifying the idea that species are uniquely created and can’t ‘morph’ beyond hteir [sic] own kinds.

To be a separate species, something has to be genetically discontinuous with other species, otherwise they'd be the same species, wouldn't they?

Also, the second half: "and can’t ‘morph’ beyond hteir [sic] own kinds." doesn't necessarily follow from the first half.

[null and void]

Very well said and reasoned!

Thanks!

[Dog Gone]

Your search “josephus nephilim” did not match any products.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-1485588-9889543?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=josephus+nephilim&x=10&y=19

[presently no screen name]

It is obvious that you do not recognize, much less understand, the answer.

I said I would drop it and did so, graciously. Then you come back with I DON'T understand/recognize something when you are the one who CANNOT answer the question - it should be a very simple question since it's your belief. Fourth time - what does religion have to do with the universe.

Your one reply had NOTHING to do with the question I asked. You would appear smarter if you just admit you didn't know instead of skirting the issue and blaming someone else for not understanding. Ego screams from your non response and/or admitting you don't know or perhaps were wrong in stated what you do. Basically, you don't know what the h**l you are talking about or don't even know what you believe.

[jwalsh07]

The Universe is not 'orderly' by any stretch of the imagination.

Did somebody repeal the SLOT?

[null and void]

Fourth time - what does religion have to do with the universe.

If God created the universe, quite literally everything.

Understand the artwork, understand the artist.

Ego screams from your non response and/or admitting you don't know or perhaps were wrong in stated what you do.

Not what I said, or meant. My belief is that we, you and I, are approaching the same elephant and are busy trying to describe it as a rope or a wall to each other, and have so little in common, that we simply cannot understand each other, let alone an elephant.

Basically, you ... don't even know what you believe.

Unfortunately, that is accurate. I'm just another schmoo trying to splic the inexplicable.

[presently no screen name]

have so little in common, that we simply cannot understand each other,

There are many I have little in common with or vice versa but that doesn't prevent me/them from answering a question that one understands it. Unless, of course, one is speaking in Spanish.

If God created the universe, quite literally everything.

You associated religion w/the universe in your much earlier post. Your reply now is way different than your original statement.

Thanks.

[null and void]

¿Que?

Da nada...

[presently no screen name]

*ahem* in your book, we can only earn it by accepting Christ as our personal Saviour..

It is impossible to 'earn' salvation. Admitting that one is a sinner and need a Savior is not 'earning' salvation. Its, merely, telling the truth.

[presently no screen name]

Que?