How do you plan to measure complexity?

[AndrewAxland]

But reading this thread maybe ID is a more complicated theory?

That would be a mistake. ID is not a theory, and trying to understand it as “science” or"philosophy" will get you nowhere, as it is just plain blither.

ID was a political ploy to fool judges, legislatures and the public into allowing “creation science” to be taught in public schools in the United States. That is all it is, and all it every will be.

 

[rossum]

ID was a political ploy to fool judges, legislatures and the public into allowing “creation science” to be taught in public schools in the United States. That is all it is, and all it every will be.

Correct. See “cdesign proponentsists” (sic) for more details. Apart from anything else, a wonderful example of a transitional stage.

rossum

 

[AndrewAxland]

See “cdesign proponentsists” (sic) for more details.

Exactly, that and their statements in court reveal that there is nothing else at all behind ID except a relabeling of “creation science” nonsense.

 

[Richca]

One such measure I believe is from simple observation of the world around us, namely, the distinction between living things and non-living things. We do not observe living or animate beings even the most simple single celled bacterium emerging from inanimate substances such as rocks, soil, or water. Evidently, it is beyond the natures, powers, and forces of inanimate substances here on earth such as rocks, soil, and water even under the influence of the sun’s rays of light and warmth to produce living things otherwise we would be observing it.

Consequently, there are whole days devoted in the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2:3 to the creation and forming of the various kinds of plants and animals from out of the earth and of the various kinds of marine animals and birds from out of the waters by the Word of God through whom all things were made (cf. John 1). However, prior to these works of God, God created the earth and seas, the material as it were from which the Word created and formed the living things. Accordingly, the simple elements of earth and water in Genesis, which today we understand to be composed of as yet more simple elements as those found on the periodic table, were also all created by God for He created the earth and the waters or seas. He also created the heavens and all their hosts, namely, our sun and moon, the planets, stars, all galaxies, and all angels.

 

[Gorgias]

Zeno’s paradox was founded on the incorrect assumption that an infinite series is always “divergent”.

No, it’s not. It’s based on the observation that there are infinite series which converge toward, but never reach, a particular value. But hey… if you think that the series ∑1∞ (1/2)n diverges, then I think we’re done here…

 

[rossum]

One such measure I believe is from simple observation of the world around us,

Not a good criterion. From “simple observation” the earth is static while the Sun moves round it. You need more than “simple” observation, you need complex observation if you want to avoid errors.

We do not observe living or animate beings even the most simple single celled bacterium emerging from inanimate substances such as rocks, soil, or water. Apparently, it is beyond the natures, powers, and forces of inanimate substances here on earth such as rocks, soil, and water even under the influence of the sun’s rays of light and warmth to produce living things otherwise we would be observing it.

Bacteria are already everywhere, so if any new primitive life form did arise then it would be eaten by the first bacterium that found it. How well would a newborn baby do against a hungry adult tiger?

You are also forgetting the difference between a planet with a reducing atmosphere (like the early earth) and one with an oxidizing atmosphere (like modern earth) which has a big impact on what chemical reactions do, and do not, occur.

Consequently, there are whole days devoted in the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2:3 to the creation and forming of the various kinds of plants and animals from out of the earth and of the various kinds of marine animals and birds from out of the waters by the Word of God…

Unfortunately Genesis is wrong because it has birds and whales on day 5 before land animals on day 6. Show me a fossil of a bird or whale dating from before the first appearance of land animals in the late Devonian. We have fish fossils from earlier in the Devonian, so that part of Genesis is correct: fish did appear before land animals, but neither whales nor birds did so.

rossum

 

[Sophia]

No, it’s not. It’s based on the observation that there are infinite series which converge toward, but never reach, a particular value. But hey… if you think that the series ∑1∞ (1/2)n diverges, then I think we’re done here…

The ancient Greeks had no idea about the intricacies of calculus (of limits of series), and I am not interested in explaining the properties of convergent and divergent series, especially since they have nothing to do with “simplicity” vs. “complexity”. But it looks like that you are uninterested in discussing the actual topic of the thread, so I will gladly bid goodbye to your attempts of derailments.

 

[Sophia]

One such measure I believe is from simple observation of the world around us, namely, the distinction between living things and non-living things.

Rossum already gave an excellent response to this, so I will just add something simple: “there is no sharp dividing line between ‘living’ and ‘inanimate’ organisms”. Are “viruses” alive, or just “crystalline” structures which lack some aspects we associate with “living” organisms?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

As far as I am aware, Dr. Dembski defined Complex Specified Information (CSI) as a measure. See Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information . I am not aware of who added the “Functional” part, or how it changes any calculations.

Hi Rossum; I’ve had a go at your reference, but it seems to quantify information solely in terms of probability. There’s a lot more about the difference between specified and unspecified information, in easily understood terms of an archer firing an arrow at a target, but it is not quantifiable, and it is not at all clear how relevant the analogy is to biology. I look forward to somebody - maybe Richca? or Buffalo? - telling me how to find out whether an oak tree has more FCSI than a biscuit.

I always took Intelligent Design to simply propose that God started creation?
Because I consider myself to hold to ID.

Hi 0Scarlett. You may not be aware that the phrase “Intelligent Design” and the word “Designer” were substituted for “Creation” and “Creator” between two pre-publication drafts of “Of Pandas and People” simply in order to make a Creationist text-book lawful under US education law. The attempt was challenged and defeated in a celebrated trial, which means that legally, at least, there is no difference between “Intelligent Design” and “Biblical Creationism.”

However, although Intelligent Design cannot be considered Science, it can, of course, be considered Theology, and no one who honestly believes in it should be castigated merely for his/her belief. Buffalo is ID’s most vehement champion on this site (if not this thread), and if he could explain what he believes and why he believes it honestly, without misrepresentation, misquotation and obfuscation, we could have a sensible discussion and, probably, agree to disagree.

 

[Richca]

Not a good criterion. From “simple observation” the earth is static while the Sun moves round it. You need more than “simple” observation, you need complex observation if you want to avoid errors.

This is nonsense. It’s a brute fact of reality we don’t observe living things emerging out of inanimate things now matter how you may try to spin it.

Bacteria are already everywhere, so if any new primitive life form did arise then it would be eaten by the first bacterium that found it.

Maybe, but I don’t find it reasonable. But, this neither proves that any single celled bacterium can emerge from the inanimate such as rocks, soil, or water or any combination of them or disproves the fact that we don’t actually observe nor have ever observed such happening.

You are also forgetting the difference between a planet with a reducing atmosphere (like the early earth) and one with an oxidizing atmosphere (like modern earth) which has a big impact on what chemical reactions do, and do not, occur.

This is all conjecture and just proves that we don’t observe the living emerging out of the non-living.

From Richca: Consequently, there are whole days devoted in the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2:3 to the creation and forming of the various kinds of plants and animals from out of the earth and of the various kinds of marine animals and birds from out of the waters by the Word of God…

Unfortunately Genesis is wrong because it has birds and whales on day 5 before land animals on day 6. Show me a fossil of a bird or whale dating from before the first appearance of land animals in the late Devonian. We have fish fossils from earlier in the Devonian, so that part of Genesis is correct: fish did appear before land animals, but neither whales nor birds did so.

rossum

The Genesis 1-2 creation narratives need to be interpreted or even should be interpreted so in the way your doing it here as if the sacred writer was giving a ‘scientific’ or precise historcial record of the creation and appearance of the various kinds of either plants or animals, land, marine, or bird. What is of the substance of the creation narrative in Genesis 1-2:3 is the creation by God of all the various phenomena described in the six days work including Gen. 1: 1-2. The actual historical appearances of the various kinds of plants and animals and some other phenomena is ‘accidental’ as it were to the substance of the narrative. Yesterday, I wrote some posts on another thread titled ‘Any Young Earth Creationists Out There’ beginning about the #1872-3 post explaining this according to the teaching and exegesis of the Church fathers and doctors and St Thomas Aquinas. Personally, I favor ‘progressive creationism’ which I explain in those posts over young earth creationism. You may want to read what I wrote in those posts to see what I’m talking about here.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The Genesis 1-2 creation narratives need to be interpreted or even should be interpreted so in the way your doing it here as if the sacred writer was giving a ‘scientific’ or precise historcial record of the creation and appearance of the various kinds of either plants or animals, land, marine, or bird.

I quite understand that in order to fit Progressive Creationism into the bible you have to suppose that the six-days were not literal days and the order of creation was also not literally true. This is exactly what Evolutionists suppose as well. What makes you think that that your interpretation of Genesis is better than mine? You seem to be claiming that various “Church fathers”, including St Thomas Aquinas, would agree with you. I don’t think they would. I think they largely believed in a literal six-day interpretation, but that if they could by brought back to life today (especially Thomas Aquinas), they would support Theistic Evolution over Progressive Creationism to a man.

 

[Bradskii]

I think you are suggesting that abiogenesis is a common occurence.

Don’t be fooled by thinking that as the earth is saturated with life, then life itself can emerge quite easily. We only know that it has emerged once. On this planet a little under 4billion years ago. It is not the case that it has been springing up everywhere on the planet since.

It is quite probable that however it started, that one spark of life spread exponentially and eventually covered the earth. It almost certain that at some point, life existed in just one small pocket of the planet where conditions were exactly right to kick start the process whereas the rest of the world remained sterile.

Just as humans rose only in one specific place and spread across the world, so it would have been with life.

So unless you can reproduce the exact conditions from 4 billion years ago in isolation and run the exact sequences of events and are prepared to wait a few hundred million years, then I’m sorry, you won’t see anything happening at all.

 

[Richca]

Richca:

The Genesis 1-2 creation narratives need to be interpreted or even should be interpreted so in the way your doing it here as if the sacred writer was giving a ‘scientific’ or precise historcial record of the creation and appearance of the various kinds of either plants or animals, land, marine, or bird.

I quite understand that in order to fit Progressive Creationism into the bible you have to suppose that the six-days were not literal days and the order of creation was also not literally true. This is exactly what Evolutionists suppose as well. What makes you think that that your interpretation of Genesis is better than mine? You seem to be claiming that various “Church fathers”, including St Thomas Aquinas, would agree with you. I don’t think they would. I think they largely believed in a literal six-day interpretation, but that if they could by brought back to life today (especially Thomas Aquinas), they would support Theistic Evolution over Progressive Creationism to a man.

I am not claiming that the Church fathers including St Thomas Aquinas would agree with me and progressive creationism. I am claiming that this is what they did actually teach and believe if one reads their writings. It’s an historical fact. It’s not like I’m making this stuff up as if I’m presenting a novel interpretation of Genesis 1 without any connection with the Church’s theological Tradition or as if I’m the only catholic or christian alive today who believes in progressive creationism. One only has to read for themselves the Genesis 1-2:3 creation narrative to understand the idea of progressive creationism. I have already explained the difference between the substance or essentials and the accidentals or non-essentials in the creation narratives which St Thomas Aquinas explains very well from the various interpretations given by the Church fathers in their exegesis of Genesis 1-2. This explanation can be found in that other thread I just mentioned here in my prior post.

 

[Kei]

It seems quite stupid to imply “simple things” don’t require a Creator, unless one means to bring up i.e. Plotinus’ proof of God, but then God Himself IS the most Simple, but not a thing. But that’s more about one and not many parts.

Even the building blocks of matter, atoms, are composed of various parts and are complex. Even yet still protons have their own quarks. Things are very complex. This is just a very strange concept. I’m not sure if there’s actually an argument that tries to say what the OP is implying. It’d be ridiculous if so.

 

[Bradskii]

It seems quite stupid to imply “simple things” don’t require a Creator, unless one means to bring up i.e. Plotinus’ proof of God, but then God Himself IS the most Simple, but not a thing. But that’s more about one and not many parts.

Even the building blocks of matter, atoms, are composed of various parts and are complex. Even yet still protons have their own quarks. Things are very complex. This is just a very strange concept. I’m not sure if there’s actually an argument that tries to say what the OP is implying. It’d be ridiculous if so.

You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. It’s not us that are saying that simple things do not need a creator. It’s the idiots from the Discovery Institute who are suggesting that complex things do.

They do that because it is blazingly simple to illustrate how simple things evolved. So they take something complex and say ‘Huzzah! This is proof that God (oops, sorry) an Intelligent Designer was responsible.’

We Don’t Know Therefore Goddidit.

That is their company motto. Anyone with better Latin than I can make it sound much more profound.

 

[Richca]

I think you are suggesting that abiogenesis is a common occurence.

Don’t be fooled by thinking that as the earth is saturated with life, then life itself can emerge quite easily. We only know that it has emerged once. On this planet a little under 4billion years ago. It is not the case that it has been springing up everywhere on the planet since.

It is quite probable that however it started, that one spark of life spread exponentially and eventually covered the earth. It almost certain that at some point, life existed in just one small pocket of the planet where conditions were exactly right to kick start the process whereas the rest of the world remained sterile.

Just as humans rose only in one specific place and spread across the world, so it would have been with life.

So unless you can reproduce the exact conditions from 4 billion years ago in isolation and run the exact sequences of events and are prepared to wait a few hundred million years, then I’m sorry, you won’t see anything happening at all.

No, what I said is the opposite of what you think I said, namely, that abiogenesis is not observed nor has it ever been observed. Accordingly, I don’t believe abiogenesis is possible in this created order of things and it may even entail a logical contradiction with God himself.

 

[Kei]

No, I know. That’s partly why I’m so perplexed, it’s a very silly thing to claim.

 

[Sophia]

No, what I said is the opposite of what you think I said, namely, that abiogenesis is not observed nor has it ever been observed. Accordingly, I don’t believe abiogenesis is possible in this created order of things and it may even entail a logical contradiction with God himself.

If only you would use this skepticism when it comes to religious claims… Let’s see: “No one has ever observed that God created the world in six days.” Therefore …

 

[Gorgias]

Unfortunately Genesis is wrong because it has birds and whales on day 5 before land animals on day 6.

Only if you presume it’s a literal account that intends to be both historically and scientifically precise. The Church doesn’t require such an interpretation of Genesis 1.

I am not interested in explaining the properties of convergent and divergent series

If your prior explanation is the best you’ve got, then I’ll pass on hearing your explanation.

The ancient Greeks had no idea about the intricacies of calculus (of limits of series)

Again… Zeno’s paradox explicitly dealt with an infinite, converging series. Stick to philosophy; you’re batting 0 for 2 on math…

But it looks like that you are uninterested in discussing the actual topic of the thread

No… just not interested in the games you’re playing. Twice, I’ve tried to explain what the IDer’s “complexity thought experiment” is all about… but you’re apparently too enamored with your “complexity measure” notion to notice. ‘Sophia’, indeed…

It is a brute fact that there is no sharp dividing line between “living” and “inanimate” matter.

Oh, the hits just keep on coming!

Umm… biologists would disagree with you, @Sophia.

If only you would use this skepticism when it comes to religious claims… Let’s see: “No one has ever observed that God created the world in six days.” Therefore …

Therefore… the Genesis 1 account isn’t attempting to be a scientific account. Yes! You’ve finally gotten it! Congratulations!

 

[Bradskii]

Good lord, man. The only abiogenesis event that we know of happened nearly 4 billonn years ago. And your argument against it is that we didn’t see it happen?