How do you plan to measure complexity?

[mVitus]

Whatever naturally occurs in nature are nothing other than the effects of second causes proceeding from the First Cause, God, and of his eternal design and plan, blueprint as it were in his intellect, of the universe from beginning to end. The effects produced naturally from creatures or second causes proceed from their various natures designed and created by God. Whatever exists, whatever happens in this world proceeds first of all from God himself and his eternal plan and design for the universe down to the minutest details. This plan is executed under his providential care and guidance through the mulititude and variety of all the creatures he created who produce effects according to their various natures. No creature can exist, preserve its existence, or cause anything without God and his continual activity as the First Cause of all.

Note to self: Start reading what Riccha writes. It seems likes an interesting view point.

As you can tell from my note to self, I haven’t been paying as much attention to what you’ve been writing overall. (I’ve tended to gloss over some posts in evolution-related threads due to frustration with some posters.) So I don’t have all the background on what you’re saying. Hopefully this posts comes of with a tone of agreement.

For me, as someone who accepts evolution, I agree with what you say. That when go to the root, everything is designed by God. For me, though, in a conversation like this, I tend to use a different, less diluted, meaning of design. The reason being that in a conversation like this, design is more useful as a subset that refers only to what God has used extraordinary means to create. And “natural” refers to the subset of God has created by ordinary means.

To give an analogy, imagine a bucket of sand. I put it on an incline and sand starts falling out. That sand gaming out is going through a natural process even though it’s only falling because I titled the bucket. But then I take a shovel and scoop a pile of sand and throw it out of the bucket. Again I am the cause, but that sand fell by design because it did not follow the established pattern from,when I tilted the bucket.

And when I use those definitions, I feel comfortable saying that man’s body came from natural processes even though I know that, in the broad sense, it was by design.

 

[Richca]

When I say ‘designed’ I mean specifically designed by God. As opposed to Him allowing nature to take its course.

IDers say that some things are designed by God BECAUSE they couldn’t occur naturally. What we need to know is where the dividing line is between:

1. Things that occur naturally (following the laws of nature that God decreed).

and

1. Things that can’t have occured naturally where God has needed to step in and specifically design it. +

Over to you…

I think you bring up a good point in your first 2 questions and I’ll answer briefly for now as I have to get going momentarily. Firstly, we know that the potentialities of the various substances or beings we find in nature are limited to a certain degree. For example, if we combine sodium and chloride we get salt, not pepper, water, a rabbit, or gold. Humans don’t fly but birds do. Water runs downhill but not uphill and so on.

I believe on account of God’s word, i.e, Holy Scripture, that God instantaneously created the earth and the seas and divided the dry land from the waters in that instantaneous act or later. The question could be asked how much did natural processes that God created with the earth were involved in the formation of the earth and its features as we see it now without excluding the natural processes from God’s providence and guidance which we cannot do from faith and philosophy.

For example, did God create the Grand Canyon instantaneously which he could do or was this canyon formed by secondary or natural causes of nature such as the Colorado River under his providential guidance? Well, it seems that at least some of it, maybe all of it, I don’t know, was due to the Colorado River. We observe that river flowing through the canyon now and we observe the effects that rivers can have on the earth or land it flows through. It causes erosion of soil and rock. I see this effect everywhere from rain water flowing down the valleys in the hills all around where I live. In this instance concerning the Grand Canyon, it is not unreasonable that God used the Colorado River to form at least some of the Grand Canyon, maybe all or most of it. At the same time, I must hold from faith and philosophy that the beautiful Grand Canyon didn’t come about by chance but was designed by God himself, the First Cause, using secondary causes as an artist paints with a brush as it were.

What about Yosemite Valley? Geologists say that glaciers from the last ice age I believe caused the formation of Yosemite Valley. That’s not entirely unreasonable as we observe glaciers now on various continents and the erosion they cause as they slide down mountain valleys. How much erosion we have actually observed, I don’t really know, I have not looked into it. The glaciers are quite a powerful force sliding down mountain or hill valleys. Again here, if God used glaciers to carve out Yosemite Valley, I don’t find that entirely unreasonable, but again, this didn’t happen by chance but by design from God using secondary causes.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

The Grand Canyon and Yosemite Valley came out exactly how God designed it to be even if he used second causes or natural processess of nature. How much the earth was formed by secondary causes, the mountains, hills, meadows, plains, canyons, etc, I don’t know, who can? No human was around to observe it, God was there with his holy angels. And he could form the earth with all its features as we see it now without using any secondary causes at all such as rivers or glaciers.

Accordingly, this sort of question concerning the earth and its subsequent formation from secondary causes is not something I let myself get to concerned with. I may get some clues reading the Bible and meditating on it. It is simply an unknown according to my belief. It appears that God used some secondary causes in the formation of the earth and its features such as the Grand Canyon and possibly Yosemite Valley, but I also know he doesn’t need second causes such as rivers or glaciers to form these features. He could create instantaneously out of nothing the earth just as we see it today with its mountains, valleys, deserts, canyons, seas, rivers, lakes, and all. So, when God gathered the waters together into the seas and the dry land appeared, I believe this was instantaneous, so I favor the view that many of the features we see today on the dry land and in the deeps were than instantaneously formed by God at least in an elementary form or feature as it were with subsequent natural or secondary causes completing the formation of various features such as the Grand Canyon or Yosemite Valley.

As to your second question in the first set of 2, I have already mentioned about the distinction between living and non-living things and that we don’t observe or never have observed in nature the living emerging from the non-living such as from rocks, soil, and water. So here and following Holy Scripture, the creation and forming of all the various kinds of animals and plants from out of the earth and the waters was due to God’s direct and supernatural creative activity. Neither do I believe that one species morphs into another species and nature or macroevolution. I personally don’t observe this in the world nor has anybody. Limited microevolution within a species or kind, I allow.

I went way longer than I should have for now. I need to get going.

Peace and blessings, Richca

 

[Bradskii]

You are dividing the world into two. Natural features like the Grand Canyon and living creatures.

The first you say is apparently formed by natural forces just as God wanted. That is, he set up the laws of nature to produce over time (our time, not his) features of this planet that He wanted. So the Grand Canyon is exactly as He wanted, produced in exactly the way He wanted using hte laws He set in place.

The second you say…well, He wanted to do that differently. He didn’t want to let things evolve over time according to His rules. The Grand Canyon - sure. But a few bacteria and virus and sponges and fish and mammals - nah. For whatever reason He decided to step in at the last moment and make some personal adjustments to His overall scheme.

Which means that His original scheme wasn’t going to end up with bacteria and virus and sponges and fish and mammals. Otherwise why bother to specifically design these?

So we have God knowing what He wants and setting things in place to end up with what He wants. But then needing to step in and fiddle around a little. Because what He designed in the first place wasn’t going to give Him what He wanted.

Maybe he’s not as omnipotent as you give Him credit for.

 

[Gorgias]

If something wishes to masquerade as science, then it must conform to the requirements of science. A clear, unambiguous definition (“what is complexity?”) and a method to distinguish between “simple” and “complex” entities. No science will accept something in the “illative sense”.

‘Science’, properly speaking, does not reach conclusions. Scientists – that is, persons – do. And, of course, persons use the illative sense.

But, to adopt your style of speaking loosely: yes, science does accept things illatively. Measurements are never 100% precise – they are more or less close to what a ‘true’ value of the measurement would be. So, it’s necessary to have the notion of a margin of error, to allow a person to conclude (illatively!) that the measurement is close enough to be believed. Therefore: illative.

To the point of this thread, however, that raises the topic you’ve presented: how close is close enough? (Or to use the type of language you used in your OP: “how complex is complex enough”) And, in keeping with my claims, I respond: it depends on the person doing the measurement. There’s no one answer, since each person must answer on his own.

The existence of Jesus is not a scientific proposition.

Of course it is! If He is a human person, then He existed in some place at some time. There would be evidence of His human existence (be that empirical evidence, or credible accounts of his existence by contemporaries). So, I ask again: did Jesus exist? (Be careful… your answer may undermine your argument… )

You will never catch me sneaking into an insane asylum, and attempt to have a conversation with the inmates. I presume that the discussion partner is at least somewhat rational.

Rational people deny reasonable evidence all the time. One example of this is called “confirmation bias”.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Some people might say that a Ferrari is complex and could only happen by design. We can make Ferraris, but we can only make a poor robotic human with limited movement.

When you try and understand the design that goes into making a human robot, it is far more complex than a Ferrari.

 

[Sophia]

To the point of this thread, however, that raises the topic you’ve presented: how close is close enough?

You still dance around. The OP asked the question: “WHAT is complexity?” and the follow up "HOW do we measure complexity (once there is a definition)? It did NOT ask the question: “how complex is complex enough so from the complexity ALONE we can reasonably infer the existence of a creator”? This is NOT the question presented. And no matter how many times you repeat your misunderstanding, it will NOT become correct.

And, of course, I DID answer that there is no “objective, intrinsic complexity”, it is a subjective assessment of the object. Maybe next time you could actually read what I wrote - before attempting to answer.

Of course it is!

Baloney. History is not a science. Next time you might declare the expulsion from the Garden of Eden to be “history”. Or the talking serpent as a “historical fact”. Not to mention the creation of Eve from the ribcage of Adam. Does the Loch Ness monster exist? Many people attested to its “existence”. Some even snapped a picture showing its head. Why do you try to change the subject in every sentence you write?

Rational people deny reasonable evidence all the time. One example of this is called “confirmation bias”.

In that case they cease to be rational - in that respect. But again, you try to change the topic. Very boring.

 

[Gorgias]

Now all we want to know is how to make the measurements. Any idea?

That’s a question for biologists, wouldn’t you think?

(And sorry – I’m neither a biologist nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night… )

 

[Gorgias]

Bradskii:

So everything is designed. Every crystal, every bacteria, every snowflake, every water molecule etc etc.

So you do not differentiate between something that is designed and something that occurs naturally. It’s all designed.

Am I correct?

You sure are! If everything is designed from the snowflakes through leprosy all the way to the Holocaust, then there is no need for anything else. However, if there are some “natural” events, then we need to find out which events are designed (artificial) and which ones are natural?

Hold on a second, though! @Bradskii, wouldn’t you agree that there’s a difference between “design” and “implementation”? I would suggest that a system that is designed externally can nevertheless implement components internally (that is, ‘naturally’)!

So… we could have both natural generation and intelligent external design… no?

 

[Dan123]

Is there no complexity outside biology?

 

[Gorgias]

Reason does not tell you that since an automobile is (obviously) designed, therefore the “eye” is also designed.

If you would wish to make a meaningful contribution, you would present the theoretical method of distinguishing between natural and artificial objects

I think that the theories of natural selection and evolution, themselves, present the theoretical framework by which we can understand natural development of complex organisms! The question, then – and the reason I suspect that ID isn’t really able to prove its claims so much as simply posit them – becomes whether a completely undirected process is able to increase complexity rather than entropy.

IDers say that some things are designed by God BECAUSE they couldn’t occur naturally. What we need to know is where the dividing line is between:

1. Things that occur naturally (following the laws of nature that God decreed).

and

1. Things that can’t have occured naturally where God has needed to step in and specifically design it.

This is a good distinction.

However, it is missing the third case, which is necessary for describing the distinction: things that occur neither due to explicit divine intervention nor through natural workings of divinely created processes – that is, things that have no divine origin. I can’t say, offhand, that there’s a way to demonstrate that latter is the case (nor that either of the first two are, either).

 

[Eric_Hyom]

You are dividing the world into two. Natural features like the Grand Canyon and living creatures.

The Grand Canyon is just an arrangement of rocks, it does not have to be a specific shape to have a purpose.

Some people might say that a Ferrari is complex and could only happen by design. We can make Ferraris, but we can only make a poor robotic human with limited movement.

When you try and understand the design that goes into making a human robot, it is far more complex than a Ferrari.

 

[Dan123]

However, it is missing the third case, which is necessary for describing the distinction: things that occur neither due to explicit divine intervention nor through natural workings of divinely created processes – that is, things that have no divine origin. I can’t say, offhand, that there’s a way to demonstrate that latter is the case (nor that either of the first two are, either).

Leads to an interesting question. Is God’s creative power indistinguishable from there being no creative power? At least at the current point in time.

 

[Gorgias]

Leads to an interesting question. Is God’s creative power indistinguishable from there being no creative power?

On an empirical basis? Perhaps – but it would require an alternative explanation, wouldn’t it? The best that scientists can do is to go back to the Big Bang – which doesn’t go quite far enough – and then start waving their hands a lot…

 

[Dan123]

By “waving their hands a lot” do you mean “acknowledging that they don’t have all the answers but excitedly discuss some of the possible answers being explored”? But honestly no I think I’d disagree. I don’t think believing one idea over another; just because A isn’t proven I should believe B; is smart. Progressing back in time we had lots of ideas of how the natural world worked that we now understand were incomplete or just plain wrong. It’s fortunate for all of us that people recognized these shortcomings and strived for more answers, better answers, and more comprehensive answers. I can’t imagine what medicine would look like if collectively we’d all just said “God makes people sick” and saw no reason to explore the how or why. That’s why even those of us who accept Big Bang cosmology and biological evolution and so on will also point out none of it precludes a god or gods being involved.

So no I don’t think it would need an alternative explanation, “we don’t know” is sometimes the best and quite honestly most exciting answer.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You are dividing the world into two. Natural features like the Grand Canyon and living creatures.

The Grand Canyon is just an arrangement of rocks, it does not have to be a specific shape to have a purpose.

I really think we need to keep purpose out of this. It just adds another level of (ahem) complexity.

Let’s just concentrate on how we evaluate complexity itself and find out how this relates to design. And/or dicferentiate between things that occur naturally (following God’s laws) and which needs His direct and specific attention.

 

[Bradskii]

Dan123:

Leads to an interesting question. Is God’s creative power indistinguishable from there being no creative power?

On an empirical basis? Perhaps – but it would require an alternative explanation, wouldn’t it? The best that scientists can do is to go back to the Big Bang – which doesn’t go quite far enough – and then start waving their hands a lot…

If Option 3 is ‘There is no God’ then put me down for that. But I thought this discussion was based on the premise that God exists. And that we were trying to work out how to differentiate between naturally occuring facets of existence and those that the Men From ID have claimed that have God’s fingerprints all over them.

Edit: I thought I was being clumsy with my gender specific title then. But is it odd that they are all men…?

 

[Richca]

You are dividing the world into two. Natural features like the Grand Canyon and living creatures.

Yes, and I divide it much more than into two not only from all the variety of creatures I observe in the heavens, on earth, and the seas but also on the authority of Holy Scripture and the creation narratives of Genesis 1-2. In Genesis 1, the world is divided and distinguished into a multitude of creatures. First we have the heavens, the earth, and the waters. The earth and the waters I believe involve the creation and formation of the elements we are familiar with on the periodic table found on the planet earth and further creation and formation of compound substances such as water, rocks, and soil and whatever other compound substances found on or in the earth.

Light is divided from darkness. The firmament is made on day 2 which I understand to be the earth’s atmosphere. The dry land is separated from the waters or seas on day 3 by God’s supernatural creative activity by some sort of lifting up of the land or earth above the waters. We also have here the creation and formation of the plants and trees in all their kinds. Day 4 we have the creation of the two great lights and stars. These heavenly bodies are not things that can be produced from the substance of the heavens or what today we call space. Day 5-6, we have the creation and formation of all the kinds or species of marine and land animals and birds, and then finally man, male and female God created them. So, yes there is a great variety and distinction of creatures God himself created. Also, God created the entire angelic world and each angel directly when ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’

Is there some theological or other reason why the world and the distinction of creatures should not be so divided? I mean, we do observe all the variety and distinction of creatures in the heavens, on the earth, and in the seas including the heavens and the earth themselves, do we not? Is there some divine revelation in Holy Scripture that the world is somehow one thing emanating as it were from one created principle? There is one universe of creatures yes, but a multitude of variety created by God according to Genesis 1-2 and the rest of Holy Scripture.

I get the impression that you want to reduce creation to some sort of single principle according to evolutionary theory or the Big Bang such as the singularity or a single cell from which emanated or evolved the entire variety of creatures we see in the world. In the Church’s scholastic philosophical tradition especially that of St Thomas Aquinas, no created creature whether angelic or earthly (corporeal) can be reduced ultimately to a single principle of their being. This kind of simplicity belongs to God and him alone who is absolutely simple.

That creation or creatures are at least divided into two is a necessary metaphysical principle.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

Any created creature of whatever kind or nature is necessarily a composite being of act and potency. Thus, the first of the 24 Thomistic Theses published under the auspices and mandate of Pope Pius X reads:

‘Potency and Act so divide being that whatsoever exists either is a Pure Act, or is necessarily composed of Potency and Act, as to its primordial and intrinsic principles.’

The angels, as pure spirits, approach the simplicity of God who is a pure spirit more than any other creatures. However, even they are a composition of various metaphysical principles or parts and not just a single composition of act and potency. Firstly, their ultimate metaphysical structure which cannot be reduced any further and this is the same for all created substances spiritual or corporeal, is the essence or substance and the act-of-being (or act of existing). The angels essence is related to their act-of-being as potency to act. The angels being is also further divided into substance and accidents. The angelic spiritual powers of intellect and will are accidents of their essence as they are in us. The angels are further compounded or divided between their powers of intellect and will and the act or operation of those powers. All these distinctions that make up the angels nature are real metaphysical distinctions, realities.

The angels also have a further accident of ‘place,’ for they are not everywhere as God is. According to their various administrations in exercising God’s providence over the corporeal/physical world, they can be in various places in our physical world but not in the way that bodies are in a place. Incidentally, the speed of corporeal light in our world is quite fast, 186,000 miles a second. For an angel, the speed of light is as a snail’s pace. An angel can traverse the length of our entire universe in an instant.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

Besides the composition or division of ‘parts’ in the angelic nature, corporeal creatures and substances made out of matter have a substantial composition of form and matter with further accidents following the form or matter such as quantity and qualities. Only humans, of course, have the spiritual powers of intellect and will among the corporeal/material creatures. The bodies of organisms, for example the human body, are extremely complex composed of a great many parts such as the head, legs, arms, heart, etc. And these parts themselves are composed of a great many elemental atoms.

About a month or so ago, I did a little research on how many atoms are in human DNA approx., which is found in every cell of the body. The DNA alone in the nucleus of every cell is composed of about 200 billion elemental atoms. I don’t remember if this number was for all the strands in the nucleus or just one or two or what, I believe it may have been for all the DNA strands in the nucleus. This number doesn’t include all the atoms that make up the rest of the cell. Using the 200 billion number alone from the DNA, times that by approximately 35 trillion cells in a typical human body, the human body is composed of an unbelievable number of parts all working in unison. The soul or spirit of human beings is much simpler but not without parts though not material parts but spiritual or formal distinctions such as powers.