How do you plan to measure complexity?

[Richca]

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.

Rivers flowing down canyons, glaciers moving down valleys, are not the same thing as horses, whales, birds, bacteria, or any living thing. Your extrapolating your own evolutionary theory onto what I said but I never said anything about evolutionary theory. There is a difference between actually observing rivers flowing down canyons and glaciers moving down valleys, and something not observed and never observed such as abiogenesis. I don’t observe and have never observed a bird emerging out of rock, soil, or water or any plant that didn’t come from a prior plant of the same species. You may believe abiogenesis happens and squirrels morphing into whales, ants into elephants, rocks into humans, snails into cheetahs; tortoises into bald eagles, canadian geese and peregrine falcons; cambrian animals into redwood, maple, and oak trees; but I do not. Accordingly, the Genesis 1 creation narrative devotes whole days to God’s supernatural creative activity in forming the various species of plants and animals from out of the earth and waters.

The creation of the various phenomena in the six days work of Genesis 1 by God was according to his eternal plan conceived from eternity in his intellect and wisdom. Nothing changed in this plan nor is that even possible as God is unchangable, pure act.

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

Although we believe God is omnipotent, we don’t believe that infinite power extends to logical contradictions or against his infinite wisdom and divine nature as if God is some kind of ‘irrational’ God as it were. For example, we don’t believe God can cause himself to cease to exist; or that God can make something not to have been made by him; that God can cause the past never to have been; or that God can make a square circle or a straight curve; or that God can do any evil. Such things are not due to a lack of power on God’s part but because they involve logical contradictions.

 

[Sophia]

There is nothing logically contradictory in creating suitable starting conditions, so that there is no need for “special creation” of living creatures. It would most appreciated if you did not attempt to derail this tread with bringing forth God and Genesis, and the rest. They simply do not belong here. I can promise you that if I ever see a thread initiated by you, I will NOT try to derail it. Can’t I hope for similar courtesy???

I will emphasize again: “this thread is about the concept of intrinsic complexity” - and about “how to measure it” - if there is a coherent definition of it - NOTHING else.

 

[Sophia]

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.

Yes, it was initiated based upon this simple question. But it was even less complicated, just a question about the concept of “complexity”, and how to measure it. Too bad that there is no hope for a direct exchange of ideas, only attempts to change the question and modify the goalposts. Sheesh!

 

[Bradskii]

Richa, keep it simple. Please. Anyjting more than a single post and I will ignore.

As Churchill was wont.to say: If you want to propose something, it has to fit on an A4 page.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

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

.

I would say that when mankind creates anything, there is generally a purpose involved, why would God be different?

Why would God bother to throw a load of chemicals around to make a universe, if there were no end purpose? If God had a purpose in mind, he might have had to get his drawing board out and make some plans.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

That’s fair enough.

But, what’s not fair is “since I don’t have a scientific answer, I can’t entertain a spiritual one”. That’s the “god of the gaps” fallacy in reverse!

 

[Gorgias]

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

LOL!

Chalk it up to the statistic that says that women are more active in organized religion than men (and therefore, don’t need ID to prove their faith)!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The creation of the various phenomena in the six days work of Genesis 1 by God was according to his eternal plan conceived from eternity in his intellect and wisdom. Nothing changed in this plan nor is that even possible as God is unchangable, pure act.

All solid statements of good faith, no doubt. However, merely asserting such things is unlikely to impress those who do not believe them already, or have respect for your authority. Scientists do not care for arguments from authority alone.

You have yourself explained an excellent “theology of creation” which I have much appreciated. Something like this:

1. Divide Earth (planet) from space.
2. Divide Earth (lithosphere) from atmosphere.
3. Divide Earth (land & plants) from water.
4. Put moving things (sun & moon) in space.
5. Put moving things (birds and fish) in the air and water
6. Put moving things (quadrupeds) on land.

You ask “Is there some theological or other reason why the world and the distinction of creatures should not be so divided?” and the answer is certainly no. But theology is not a description of what actually happened. That is our point.

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.

I think this is confused. Firstly, we scientists don’t “want” anything in particular; we go where the observations take us. But secondly, in ‘reducing Creation to a single principle’, we are merely observe an exquisite expression of the ‘kind of simplicity which belongs to God’. The piecemeal tossing together of the ingredients of a complicated salad as implied by successive creation is not a good reflection of “him alone who is absolutely simple” in my view.

Rivers flowing down canyons, glaciers moving down valleys, are not the same thing as horses, whales, birds, bacteria, or any living thing.

Indeed so; but what this thread is about, if I understand it correctly, is whether their differences are sufficiently different to merit different modes of creation. Proponents of Creationism seem to set much store by the ability to distinguish in an objective way between a river and a tree by FSCI. As I understand it, it is theoretically possible to give anything an FSCI value, and to observe that all the values fall into two groups, indicating two different modes of creation. However, in spite of several people earnestly asking, no Creationist has come forward to tell us how to do it. I myself believe that both came about by exactly the same process - the unfolding of the laws of nature upon the primordial creation of energy and matter.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Well, there is the Federal tax code … 75,000 pages.

Or this:

https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/spaces-deepest-secrets/full-episodes/curse-of-dark-matter

 

[Hugh_Farey]

There is a difference between actually observing rivers flowing down canyons and glaciers moving down valleys, and something not observed and never observed such as abiogenesis. I don’t observe and have never observed a bird emerging out of rock, soil, or water or any plant that didn’t come from a prior plant of the same species. You may believe abiogenesis happens and squirrels morphing into whales, ants into elephants, rocks into humans, snails into cheetahs; tortoises into bald eagles, canadian geese and peregrine falcons; cambrian animals into redwood, maple, and oak trees; but I do not.

This is unworthy of you. Nobody has observed squirrels morphing into whales, and nobody thinks one ever did. If I wandered off into a similar polemic you would think I was being puerile.

[Viz: I don’t observe God sitting on his cloud, his long white hair flying in the wind, reaching down and pointing his long bony fingers at patches of rock which burst into squirrels, while manly angels in gold fringed albs pluck gentle melodies from heavenly harps. Well, “you may believe” all that stuff, “but I do not.”]

 

[Dan123]

I’ve never even seen a child turn into an adult. I’ve known people who were children who are now adults, but I’ve never seen it happen. How do we really know it happens?

 

[Dan123]

Agreed! But I’m not sure how many people follow that line of reasoning to be honest. Since most of the US is religious in some form and evolution, big bang, etc are accepted by most you can work out that most people by raw numbers in the US who accept those scientific explanations are in fact religious, believing one doesn’t seem to preclude the other.

However you hit upon one thing that does seem to be confused in a lot of debates. When I see a lot of discussions, debates, etc on something like evolution, those arguing against rarely seem to offer support of their own side. They seem to rely largely on the idea that if they poke holes in the science (or their strawman of the science) that somehow makes them win by default.

Your statement seems to border on that, the answer to “I don’t have a scientific answer” isn’t “so it must be spiritual”, it’s “so now what do we do?” If you want people to use a spiritual explanation make sure you aren’t just giving reasons not to believe in A, but also to support B. And to be fair this whole thread was started to look at one of those arguments, complexity. So it’s not like people aren’t taking those proposals and thinking about them.

 

[Sophia]

I’ve never even seen a child turn into an adult. I’ve known people who were children who are now adults, but I’ve never seen it happen. How do we really know it happens?

This is an excellent observation IF one wishes to talk about evolution. Which this thread does NOT. Though I would modify your first sentence a little: “I’ve never even seen a child SUDDENLY and INEXPLICABLY turn into an adult.” We have all observed children turning into adults, moreover we, ourselves experienced it.

If you want people to use a spiritual explanation make sure you aren’t just giving reasons not to believe in A, but also to support B.

Indeed. And it would be nice if there WERE a spiritual “explanation”. The only one I have ever seen was: "An unknowable being (God), using unimaginable means (how does saying: “let there be light” create light?) made it somehow happen. That is as far from “explanation” as it could be.

And to be fair this whole thread was started to look at one of those arguments, complexity. So it’s not like people aren’t taking those proposals and thinking about them.

Right. And the whole thread went to hell in a handbasket - due to persistent derail attempts. What a sad state of affairs.

 

[Bradskii]

OK. Let’s assume it’s all for a purpose. Let’s agree so we can take that out of the debate.

Now did God allow His creation to evolve naturally (for a purpose) or did He need to step in on ocassion and specifically design things (for a purpose).

Apparently thos in the ID camp can tell. But they are keeping the details to themselves. So how do we discern this difference?

 

[rossum]

Apparently thos(e) in the ID camp can tell. But they are keeping the details to themselves. So how do we discern this difference?

IDists claim to be able to detect design, and they have a few endlessly recycled examples: the mousetrap, the bacterial flagellum to name two.

What I have never seen from the ID side is a double-blind test of their claims. Can they show that their methods work as claimed on a series of tests of known designed, and known undesigned, test data? So far they have not.

In 2002 Dr. Dembski pointed out that ID needed to do more of the background scientific research needed to underpin it:

We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement, but we must not exaggerate ID’s successes on the scientific front. … An intellectual movement cannot sustain itself on media attention. The scientific and conceptual work on ID occurs out of the limelight, requires intense concentration over extended periods, and is fully appreciated only by relatively few specialists. The cultural renewal work on ID, by contrast, occurs in the limelight, offers quick closure and gratification, and makes its appeal to the population at large.

Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.

– William Dembski, “Becoming a Disciplined Science” address to the RAPID Conference, 2002

Unfortunately, the ID movement in general appears not to have followed Dr. Dembski’s advice.

rossum

 

[AndrewAxland]

Unfortunately, the ID movement in general appears not to have followed Dr. Dembski’s advice.

Why would they? First of all, the talk is just patent blither, scientifically speaking. Second of all, the ID movement has no interest in science at all.

 

[Gorgias]

Indeed. And it would be nice if there WERE a spiritual “explanation”. The only one I have ever seen was: "An unknowable being (God), using unimaginable means (how does saying: “let there be light” create light?) made it somehow happen. That is as far from “explanation” as it could be.

It actually is an explanation. Not one that admits of empirical evidence, but an explanation nevertheless. Do we really need to talk about why it would be unreasonable to demand empirical proof of this explanation? I hope not…

And the whole thread went to hell in a handbasket - due to persistent derail attempts.

And here I thought that only the Church had martyrs…

 

[Bradskii]

The term ‘creating a cuktural movement’ just about sums them up. I would bet the six pack I am just about to put in the fridge that if posted that they are primarily ‘a cultural movement’ I’d be shouted down by some.

 

[Dan123]

It actually is an explanation. Not one that admits of empirical evidence, but an explanation nevertheless. Do we really need to talk about why it would be unreasonable to demand empirical proof of this explanation? I hope not…

My buddy Jeff created the universe last Thursday just after lunch. Made sure everyone had memories of stuff before that to help people ease into their lives.

I assume I don’t need to explain why asking for evidence of this would be unreasonable.

 

[rossum]

My buddy Jeff created the universe last Thursday just after lunch. Made sure everyone had memories of stuff before that to help people ease into their lives.

I assume I don’t need to explain why asking for evidence of this would be unreasonable.

Heretic! Your buddy Jeff did not create the universe last Thursday. Your buddy Jeff’s cat created the universe last Thursday. Unless you repent your heresy you will spend eternity in the Kitty-Litter Tray of Doom!

You have been warned.

rossum