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.
Well, you sure seem to have missed a lot of what most Christians I know accept as true.
Everything I’ve heard is that God is eternal, the material, physical universe is not, and not only does it have a beginning, but the universe as we know it will end someday, too.
That bit about how we only use 10% of our brain is an old wives’ tale.
I haven’t read this book but Innumeracy was good.
This math professor fails to answer one question that’s perplexed many: Why does the universe seem to be capable of being understood mathematically?
An interesting thing, randomness. No one can look at something fresh and say "it's random". You can't really know. For example, is the number 53304 random?
To you maybe. To me is a direct representation of something.
If a scientist looks at the locations of some particles and says, "it's a random set" he can't really know, he may only say, "if there is some reason for this set, I don't know it."
In case no one has mentioned yet, fractals are like this. A very simple equation, with the output fedback to next imput, results in incredible complexity, ordered complexity.
Now the question still remains, "why is this so?"
I think it was Einstein who said the question he wondered about the way creation worked was "Did God have a choice?"
the reality is them saying 'Since there is no God... or ...since God couldnt create it, we must find the chain of organization in this chaos' ...
the only way to be a god is if there is no God...
Thank you so much for sharing your insights!
math is a tool that CAN explain relationships between things in observations - order and randomness
the observations - order or randomness - are NOT foundational to the source of the things whose relationships are observed
Which is why I find these threads humorous. People attempting to discuss subjects about which they know nothing.
Hey! Nobody knows how it all started and we never will.
And then arguing with each other about it!
har
these type of secular purists are no different
to me
than those who think it is necessary to believe, or not believe in Yeshua being born of a virgin
they have no faith
no intuitive human faith, that knows, the fullness of GOD and of creation is beyond human comprehension, and with faith that fact does not concern you and the only belief you need to take from such things is that when God deems it time for our understanding to be opened, greater than it is, it will be - the answers, yea or nay, in the meantime are not needed to know to those who have faith
The Law of Entropy states everything reduces to its basic, or simpler, form. Therefore to believe complex things can evolve from simple things is impossible unless an outside force acts upon it. Example: The Empire State building couldn’t have evolved from a pile of rocks. Unless someone built it. There is no more devastating argument for God’s existence without arguing theologies.
Yes, people like John Allen have been making the assinine argument for years that innert irrelevent examples of order mean that higher and higher complexities can occure naturally in an ‘open system’ - poor John Allen Paulos are dupes of ‘scientists’ like Tom Schnieders who wrote his case for life (posted on talkorigins) originating from purely natural means simply because ice crystals (which are non living by the way- incase John Allen doesn’t recognize this distinction) can form orderly patterns out of ‘disorder’
For anyone that wants to see scientists liek Tom Schnieders get spanked for beleiving such assinine dogma, take a look at the butt kicking Tim Wallace gave Schneider (which made Tom stomp off like a jilted schoolgirl whining all the way to his own website where he continued to whine thereafter)
http://www.trueorigin.org/9907.asp
Here’s a quick preview
“*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law…
Perhaps the reader should be reminded (or informed) at this point that not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described self-creation myth. Yet very ironically, it’s the only origins account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular beliefs.*”
Schneider starts out tryign to make an argument that life ‘could violate the second law’ because ‘examples exist in nature that show negative entropy’ and hwen he fails miserably, He then reverts to the tired out merrygoround symantics game, tryign to trip up wallace, but wallace expertly hands him his butt on a platter- it was quite an exchange- which if yopu have hte time, be sure to read his otehr exchanges on the subject too- fascinating to watch grown scientists cry when they can’;t defend their absurd beliefs.
[[Quite right. The same topics, the same answers crop up over and over on this website. Once in a while a fresh idea is introduced, but it is soon forgotten like it never happened. So we’re still citing the Second Law of Thermo or a paraphrase that isn’t really the Second Law after all.]]
We’re still citing the law because we have yet to hear how ice crystals and gas molecules equates to dynamic living structures of immensly more complex nature that were supposed to violate the law at trillions of steps in higher and higher complexities and organizations- especially in light of hte fact that we have nothiugn to show for self organization beyond simplistic irrelevent to hte issue inorganic materials that follow hteir own natural laws which are seperate from living structures. just because ice crsystals follow simple geometric patterns doesn’t mean the sun beating down on a pile of wood in an ‘open system’ is going to result in the creation of a woodshed- it’s only going to result in wood rot as the pile obeys the second law perfectly (As does every other living structure)
[[How can anyone explain DNA and its encoded information as coming about by random chance which the theory of evolution holds to?]]
They can’t explain it, that’s why they try to bog you down in symantics and word games-= the whole process of the mythical Macroevolutionary sequences breaks down scientifically right from the very beginnign all the way to hte end products, so they argue abotu ice crystals and gas alignements as ‘proof that Macroevolution ‘could’ violate hte second law ‘in an open system’’
[[In which case you could ask, which came first the cell or the DNA? Answer: You have to have both at the exact same time.]]
They know that- but their answerr is “We just haven’t discovered how it all happened yet, but by golly someday we ‘might’’
begining bump
So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."
"Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
"But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.' (Not umpteen eons later; after lots of Evolution takes place!)
18. Pray that this will not take place in winter,
19. because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now--and never to be equaled again.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
20. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
21. that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
8. Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9. and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
16. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
4. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
5. because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.
Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world.
26. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, "Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens."
27. The words "once more" indicate the removing of what can be shaken--that is, created things--so that what cannot be shaken may remain.
28. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,
29. for our "God is a consuming fire."
They will say, "Where is this `coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
NIV Deuteronomy 4:32
Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of?NIV Psalms 89:47
Remember how fleeting is my life. For what futility you have created all men!NIV Psalms 104:30
When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.NIV Psalms 139:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.NIV Psalms 148:4-5
4. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.
5. Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created.NIV Isaiah 40:26
Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name.NIV Isaiah 41:19-20
19. I will put in the desert the cedar and the acacia, the myrtle and the olive. I will set pines in the wasteland, the fir and the cypress together,
20. so that people may see and know, may consider and understand, that the hand of the LORD has done this, that the Holy One of Israel has created it.NIV Isaiah 42:5-6
5. This is what God the LORD says-- he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
6. "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand.NIV Isaiah 43:1
But now, this is what the LORD says-- he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine.NIV Isaiah 43:6-7
6. I will say to the north, `Give them up!' and to the south, `Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth--
7. everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."NIV Isaiah 45:7-8
7. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
8. "You heavens above, rain down righteousness; let the clouds shower it down. Let the earth open wide, let salvation spring up, let righteousness grow with it; I, the LORD, have created it.NIV Isaiah 45:12
It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.NIV Isaiah 45:18
For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other."NIV Isaiah 54:16-17
16. "See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to work havoc;
17. no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me," declares the LORD.NIV Isaiah 57:16
I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me-- the breath of man that I have created.NIV Isaiah 65:17-18
17. "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.
18. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy.NIV Ezekiel 28:13-15
13. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
14. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.NIV Malachi 2:10
Have we not all one Father ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?
If the author were consistent in his mental rigor, he would ask himself, 'why is it that that they believe in Him first, while those who don't believe in Him, believe in their own thinking first?' Both groups believe in inerrancy. The Christian in the inerrancy of the Word of God, and the unbeliever in the inerrancy of the human heart.
I find it intriguing that a person who claims to believe God really doesn't exist, would spend so much time and effort trying to prove He doesn't exist.
If he had erased his initial and final paragraphs, his article would have had positive value.
Instead, even as a supposed mathemetician, his summary sloppily uses the phrase, "In any case". Even a junior high school student is able to comprehend the difference in the used of a colloquialism, an existential quantifier, and a universal quantifier. So he sets himself for being simply disproven by any single counterargument.
"In any case?" OK, let's try the case of reality, where God created all things and He existed before any created thing ever existed, which has been documented and observed by man since all recorded human history. Hmmm, seems the wise mathematician doesn't consider that case.
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.