How do you plan to measure complexity?

[Hugh_Farey]

Gorgias and Richca,

You appear to be the principle adherents of, and spokespeople for, Creationism on this thread, and yet both of you seem to reject the idea that complexity (especially as the FSCI as defined by the Discovery Institute) can be measured. And yet the “Intelligent Design” form of Creationism has proposed that the ability to measure complexity is an objective method of observing Design. On other threads, Buffalo, in particular, sets much store by it.

I think there is an argument that goes: Evidence of Creation comes from Design and Evidence of Design comes from Complexity, but it seems that, along with we Evolutionists, you don’t go along with argument.

Your evidence for Creation, if I understand you correctly, is not physical or scientific at all, but entirely based on the bible and theology. Is that correct?

If so, then we Evolutionists could leave science alone, abandoning the OP (sorry Sophia), and address Creationism on biblical and theological grounds. I myself think that the works of the early fathers as referenced on this site (and as expounded above by Richca) demonstrate that a literal reading of the bible is not only weak science, but also weak theology.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

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).

When Honda set up a car plant, they know exactly what is going to come out of each machine, because the machine has been programmed in advance.

Honda have also spent the last three decades trying to make the best human robot; called Asimo. Their best effort amounts to little more than a cute novelty toy, with limited movement; despite all the teams of intelligent engineers working on the project.

This level of complexity suggests, that if God set up an evolutionary process, he would need to keep tinkering with the machinery to make us. The eye may have evolved through eighteen hundred random mutations; with selection. But these mutations would need to be set in advance. Likewise with the hip, eye, jaw and knee.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

This level of complexity suggests, that if God set up an evolutionary process, he would need to keep tinkering with the machinery to make us. The eye may have evolved through eighteen hundred random mutations; with selection. But these mutations would need to be set in advance. Likewise with the hip, eye, jaw and knee.

Two things, really.
Firstly: The idea that God would “need to keep tinkering” with his evolutionary machinery simply because of its high “level of complexity” is a terrible assessment of an infinite power’s capabilities.
Secondly: There may well be a sense in which the structure of the universe has indeed made the evolution of the eye, etc. inevitable, and in that case one could certainly say that the process has been “set in advance.” I have no problem with that - nor, I imagine, would our most ardent atheists.

 

[Gorgias]

The lower level only gives information which allows you understand the process, even if you are unable to duplicate it. And you wish to add a third level (called sheer magic), which does NOT give you ANY information about it at all - and you have the nerve to call it an explanation.

Distinction without a difference. Although I don’t think you’ll understand this, but some other people might. So I will continue:

The Santa Clause explanation is your “second level of explanation”: it gives information which allows the child to understand the process (chimney, fat guy in red suit, prezzies under tree).

Your third level is simply your personal invective against explanations you don’t like.

So… the explanation that God created everything from nothing, and He did so by performative language, and everything He created was good… is precisely your “second level” explanation. It doesn’t allow you to re-create the creation event, but it gives you the information to understand what happened. Therefore, by your very standards… it is an explanation. QED. Thanks for playing, please come again.

 

[Dan123]

I think the objection is it lacks explanatory power even if you can argue it literally meets the definition of ‘explanation’.

But someone who understands the Santa Clause explanation (chimney, fat guy in red suit, presents) could replicate it. Perhaps not for the whole world but they could replicate the act or at least understand how they would. If everyone stopped at “Santa Clause did it” we’d all still believe in Santa Clause.

(spoilers for anyone who still believes in Santa Clause)

 

[Gorgias]

Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

keep telling yourself that, hon…

Sometimes, ‘imitation’ is mere mimicry, meant to demonstrate the absurdity of the original comment.

It is all a fairy tale, without substance - without any informational value .

And yet, how many “fairy tales” did scientists tell? (“Spontaneous generation” comes to mind immediately.) Oh, they were merely mistaken, and were later corrected, but bad (yet sincere) explanations fit your description of this “third explanation” type.

One other reason your example fails to convince: a parent talking to a child about Santa isn’t trying to give an accurate description. Very literally, he’s telling a story, rather than attempting to impart true knowledge.

Now, I get it that you think that stories about Santa and about God are of the same tenor (note to self: why does Sophia present himself as ‘Catholic’ in his profile? ), but just because that’s your opinion about God, doesn’t mean that theological explanations are fairy tales. They’re honest attempts to explain realities. You disagree – I get it! – but that doesn’t mean that you get to characterize them as fakes, and we have to accept your opinions.

Of course you are correct in one sense. I am merely playing with you, for the sheer pleasure to read your nonsensical “non-arguments”.

A bit of self-awareness would go a long way for you, Sophia. You’re not the only one in this tete-a-tete playing that game.

 

[Vonsalza]

The title says it all. The question is directed toward those who believe that beyond a certain level of complexity it is justified to assume that a “creator” was involved. They might assert that “simple” things do not require the assumption of a creator, but “complex” things do.

This basic assumption requires a “complexity-meter”, and a dividing line, which separates the “simple” objects from the “complex” ones. So where is this “complexity” meter, which is supposed to measure the “intrinsic complexity” of an object?

I suggest a tally of the syllogisms needed to arrive at the intended result.

“If A, then B. If B then C. If C then D.” So there it’s three degrees of complexity.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

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).

When Honda set up a car plant, they know exactly what is going to come out of each machine, because the machine has been programmed in advance.

Honda have also spent the last three decades trying to make the best human robot; called Asimo. Their best effort amounts to little more than a cute novelty toy, with limited movement; despite all the teams of intelligent engineers working on the project.

This level of complexity suggests, that if God set up an evolutionary process, he would need to keep tinkering with the machinery to make us. The eye may have evolved through eighteen hundred random mutations; with selection. But these mutations would need to be set in advance. Likewise with the hip, eye, jaw and knee.

If Honda sets up a plant to produce cars, then everything is in place before the process begins. When the process starts and as it continues, nobody has to step in and tinker. Each small step, quite simple in itself, gradually produces something quite complex.

Nice analogy. With your permission, I will use that again.

 

[Sophia]

And yet, how many “fairy tales” did scientists tell? (“Spontaneous generation” comes to mind immediately.) Oh, they were merely mistaken, and were later corrected, but bad (yet sincere) explanations fit your description of this “third explanation” type.

You stated the difference: the scientists attempt to make an explanation and it turns out to be incorrect. At that very moment it ceases to be an explanation. There was a time when people seriously presented the existence of “ether” as an explanation for the propagation of light in vacuum. The Michelson-Morley experiments refuted this “explanation”. There is a wonderful feedback loop operating here - which is the cornerstone of science. Theology has no “feedback loop” - once something is declared a dogma, it MUST be accepted. But it STILL has no explanatory value.

One other reason your example fails to convince: a parent talking to a child about Santa isn’t trying to give an accurate description. Very literally, he’s telling a story, rather than attempting to impart true knowledge.

Excellent. So reference to “magic” is just a story without informational value. I agree.

Now, I get it that you think that stories about Santa and about God are of the same tenor.

Ok, let me know the difference.

I merely said that the “let there be light” is NOT an explanation. If the “spiritual explanation” is not an attempt to impart “real knowledge”, then it is just a story, and thus there is no problem. It would become part of the innumerable creation “myths”. Not an “explanation”.

They’re honest attempts to explain realities.

No one doubts their honesty. What is in doubt is their informational value of the “explanation”.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

If Honda sets up a plant to produce cars, then everything is in place before the process begins. When the process starts and as it continues, nobody has to step in and tinker. Each small step, quite simple in itself, gradually produces something quite complex.

All the infrastructure and machinery needed to produce a complete Honda car, is probably far more complex than the finished car. Whist the machines might be used to manufacture the majority of the car, it still needs that human touch for a few adjustments.

Nice analogy. With your permission, I will use that again.

You are free to use this analogy in any way that you like. Although I am not sure how you could use it to help your argument. For me, the question is not about complexity or evolution, rather it is about the need for God the creator.

Peace.

 

[Bradskii]

For me, the question is not about complexity or evolution, rather it is about the need for God the creator.

Peace.

You, and so many others, fail to see that it is not an either/or choice.

 

[Gorgias]

Excellent. So reference to “magic” is just a story without informational value. I agree.

Quite.

References to God aren’t “references to magic”. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Ok, let me know the difference.

I merely said that the “let there be light” is NOT an explanation. If the “spiritual explanation” is not an attempt to impart “real knowledge”, then it is just a story, and thus there is no problem. It would become part of the innumerable creation “myths”. Not an “explanation”.

I already did. I’ll repeat it, for your benefit:

Stories about Santa aren’t attempts to tell the truth.
Stories about God are attempts to tell the truth.

Hope that helps.

I merely said that the “let there be light” is NOT an explanation.

Actually, it is. It’s not one that admits of empirical verification, but it is an explanation.

If the “spiritual explanation” is not an attempt to impart “real knowledge”, then it is just a story, and thus there is no problem.

Actually, it is an “attempt to impart real knowledge.” How is it that it appears to you that it’s not precisely that?

What is in doubt is their informational value of the “explanation”.

No… what’s in doubt – for you – is your willingness to assent to them.

 

[Gorgias]

Sure they are. You are just unwilling to admit that.

No. They’re really not. And you’re just unwilling to admit it. It’s ok – we all know it; you don’t have to cop to it.

“Magic” is the term for a human attempting to take control of natural forces beyond his (normal) control, and make them do his bidding. That’s not what we’re talking about, here. I mean… you can attempt to characterize it that way, to make it seem absurd, but we all get the game that you’re at.

What we’re describing is the all-powerful God doing something well within His means – creating the universe from nothing. That’s not “magic”, and if you want to denigrate it, you’ll need to find another snarky term to use; we’re not going to let you get away with the regular snark that works with your regular interlocutors.

Magic is something for which there is no natural explanation.

Actually, that’s the definition for a miracle. Do you want to call the creation of the universe a ‘miracle’? OK – Christians would accept that statement of faith!

How do you know that stories about Santa are NOT attempts to tell the truth?

And here you think you’re the one talking reason…

Here is another example. Mr. Smith asserts that “rain is caused by this invisible elf that lives in his basement”. When I express that this is not an explanation for the rain (even if it WOULD be true!) he would counter it by your words: “Well, it is an explanation, you are just unwilling to entertain it - because it does not allow for empirical verification”.

Ahh… but you have the means at your disposal to disprove his explanation! And, once you do, it loses its explanatory power. So… go ahead: let’s see you disprove (not deny, mind you, or merely make fun of, but actually deny) God’s existence, from a position of proof (as you would be able to do with your imaginary elf example)!

My willingness to accept or reject something is not under volitional control.

Oh, brother. And here I thought we’d put that red herring to bed a while ago…

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Eric_Hyom:

For me, the question is not about complexity or evolution, rather it is about the need for God the creator.

Peace.

You, and so many others, fail to see that it is not an either/or choice.

At least ‘One God’ the creator of all that is seen and unseen, exists fully and totally, or there is no god. What other choices are there?

 

[rossum]

At least ‘One God’ the creator of all that is seen and unseen, exists fully and totally, or there is no god. What other choices are there?

There is a logical problem with that. No god can create him/her/it-self. Hence your “all that is seen and unseen” is not correct. Something like “all that is seen and unseen except itself” would be better.

Creator god/s do not explain the origin of those creator god/s.

And, getting back to the title of this thread, how complex does a god have to be in order to be able to create anything?

rossum

 

[Eric_Hyom]

There is a logical problem with that. No god can create him/her/it-self. Hence your “all that is seen and unseen” is not correct. Something like “all that is seen and unseen except itself” would be better.

Thank you, I think you have the better question.

Creator god/s do not explain the origin of those creator god/s.

Agreed, but the alternative seems to be, some kind of space dust had no beginning, or did it not come from anything. Anything that has no beginning seems to go against natural law.

And, getting back to the title of this thread, how complex does a god have to be in order to be able to create anything?

How complex would space dust have to be, to end up with the universe we see today?

 

[benjamin1973]

If you have a multitude of parts interrelated in simple ways (for example, connections by gravity), you can have a very high level of complexity. This doesn’t require a complex intelligence, or even a complex system-- just a lot of moving parts.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m not sure you are following the thread.

 

[Sophia]

“Magic” is the term for a human attempting to take control of natural forces beyond his (normal) control, and make them do his bidding.

I see… that is another word, the meaning of which eludes you. Arthur C. Clark said: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. And there is nothing derogatory about it.

Ahh… but you have the means at your disposal to disprove his explanation!

I do? Please tell me how to do it. Because I have no idea. Maybe I will learn something new. How do I disprove the proposition / explanation that “rain is caused by an invisible elf, residing in Mr. Smith’s basement”? I am all ears.

And you still try to derail the topic, which is only and solely about the definition of “complexity” and some epistemological method to “measure it”. Savvy?

Oh, brother. And here I thought we’d put that red herring to bed a while ago…

As usual you are mistaken. No matter how hard I try I cannot use my volition to accept the proposition that God is evil, or that Trump is an honest man. If you can use your volition to accept such propositions, more power to you. I cannot.

 

[o_mlly]

The question is directed toward those who believe that beyond a certain level of complexity it is justified to assume that a “creator” was involved.

Premise: an effect cannot have a property not present in one or more of its causes actually or potentially.

Complex property --a property, attribute or faculty observed in the descendant that does not exist in its progenitors. If the property observed is complex then a “creator” or third party, if you like, was involved in causing the existence of the descendant.

They might assert that “simple” things do not require the assumption of a creator, but “complex” things do.

No, I wouldn’t. I would assert, however, that non-complex properties – those properties observed in descendants and also observed in progenitors – does not rule out a “creator.”