Is the argument from complexity a dead argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_III said:
We’ve been over this ground before. No one has ever offered a viable non-theistic, non-teleological explanation for abiogenesis.
Click to expand...
I gave a definition of what “viable” might constitute, but not everyone has the same bar as I do. It may be possible to argue that what we know currently know about chemistry and biology is enough to make a case that chemistry alone could explain abiogenesis, which would invalidate the argument from complexity.
 
inocente said:
The argument I gave was about abiogenesis. See the critique I posted of the creationist book Of Pandas and People. Under the penultimate heading “Nature’s Search For A Protein”, Dr Sonleitner writes:

“Again, Pandas’ line of thinking (and its fallaciousness) can be illustrated by an analogy. Imagine that an exhaustive study restricted exclusively to the design, manufacture and operation of a modern jumbo jet concludes that such an airplane could only be made by a huge industrial complex. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that any airplane (past or present) could be simpler in design and still function, and certainly not so simple that it could be fabricated by two bicycle repairmen in the back of their shop! (If all the proteins must have originated in their modern forms, the original primordial cell must have had the complexity of a modern cell and there has been no evolution at the biochemical and intracellular level. Presumably Pandas believes there has been no ‘progressive creation’ at these levels either.) The Wright brothers must have built a jumbo jet!” - ncse.com/creationism/analysis/new-pandas-has-creationist-scholarship-improved
Click to expand...
I am not arguing that a cell hasn’t evolved. I am arguing that a cell at any level of complexity is still too complex to have “spontaneously” come into being naturally. Somethings exhibit the kind of complexity that makes mention of a natural cause unreasonable.

Its not impossible for a plane with all its functions to naturally and spontaneously come into being. But its so unlikely that it is unreasonable to believe it happened that way.
 
Because of the extraordinary increase in complexity associated with abiogenesis, and the failure of science to derive a hypothesis to describe it, we theists contend that “God did it”. Science responds with: it is certain that abiogenesis had to be the result of a natural processes of matter and energy, primarily chemistry, and since natural processes are involved, when a “plausible” (I prefer it to “viable”) hypothesis is discovered, it will be solely based on natural processes. However, just as the brain is necessary but not sufficient for the existence a mind, natural processes are necessary but not sufficient for life.

One of the great con jobs in the history of the materialist/theist debate was the dismissal of the elan vital concept when Stanley Miller generated amino acids from inorganic materials in the laboratory when all he succeeded in doing was to demonstrate a single step in the Oparin hypothesis. Miller’s formation of amino acid, a monomer, was merely the first step in the Oparin hypothesis in which monomers are followed by the evolution of polymers, protocells and finally animated cells. However Miller’s success was enough for materialists to declare *elan vital *dead.

There have been plenty of hypotheses describing each of the steps except for the last, the transition from protocell to an animated cell when life first appeared. It also is the step in which complexity made an extraordinary leap. Whether God exists as I believe, or doesn’t as many on this forum believe, what happened when the first spark of life appeared is not something that can be explained solely with chemistry.

I believe that when the material elements evolved a certain level of complexity that centered on itself, a particle of an immaterial substance was encapsulated and controlled the material elements the result of which is manifested as life. This immaterial substance is manifested as consciousness, that increases with the evolution of increasingly more complex living organisms, to reach a pinnacle in the most complex organism in the universe, the human brain.

I believe that God creates and sustains reality at the ground of reality (an explicate level), a deeper reality than the one which we experience and science describes. It is possible to describe a hypothesis that explains how God creates and sustains at this deeper reality. Such a hypothesis: would be based on discrete space, not continuous space; would be activated by information, not energy; and would be describe algorithmically, not mathematically. It would consist of a single mechanism, that would explain reality comprehensively without replacing the the plethora of diverse scientific equations and models, and would explain most of what science now describes and all of which science now doesn’t.

Yppop
 
JapaneseKappa said:
I gave a definition of what “viable” might constitute, but not everyone has the same bar as I do. It may be possible to argue that what we know currently know about chemistry and biology is enough to make a case that chemistry alone could explain abiogenesis, which would invalidate the argument from complexity.
Click to expand...
The argument from complexity cannot be invalidated until an experiment demonstrates that complexity can be explained away. No such experiment is possible.

The Miller-Urey experiment was an abysmal failure and nothing along that line has produced any more convincing evidence, which in any case is impossible since you would need nearly half a billion years of random interactions of atoms and molecules to make the case, not to mention duplicating the exact conditions prevailing on earth at the time of abiogenesis.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The argument from complexity cannot be invalidated until an experiment demonstrates that complexity can be explained away.
Click to expand...
On the very contrary… the argument from complexity cannot be established, until
  1. complexity is defined
  2. a method is offered to measure complexity, and
  3. a dividing line is offered, which separates the complex from the simple. I can hardly wait. 🙂
But, keep on with this amusing dialog. It is very entertaining.
Charlemagne_III said:
No such experiment is possible.
Click to expand...
Wow… another “omniscient” poster who knows what is “possible” and what is “impossible”. Can you predict the next weeks’ Powerball numbers, too?
 
fnr said:
Abiogenesis seems like it’s not totally irreducible. This physics paper puts forward a pretty decent explanation: englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf
Click to expand...
Interesting paper, but to me he’s arguing it’s highly reducible, not irreducible.

As I understand it, he predicts that in the presence of a source of energy such as sunlight, atoms will over time form structures which are best able to dissipate the energy. Put another way, keep their entropy low by increasing the entropy of their surroundings. Self-replicating structures would be particularly good at this by adding copies. Sensing and adapting to changes in the energy source would also improve efficiency.

Sounds like it needs a fair bit of testing, but if he pulls it off it would certainly be the final nail for all complexity arguments, by providing a generalized driver for the formation of the constituents of life.
 
inocente said:
I give up as you just keep ignoring me.

I’ve told you several times that “null hypothesis” isn’t used in metaphysics and doesn’t mean what you keep pretending it means. A reasonable person would long ago have retracted but you keep on pretending. You’re no longer in a position to say what a reasonable person thinks.

If you want to learn about the various views, start from here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

It was unreasonable of you to post on this thread without even bothering to read the OP.

It’s frustrating that the OP is only a click away from you and apparently you still can’t be bothered. It says:

*"The argument from complexity goes like this…

A Biological system, of any kind, is soooooooo complex that it could not have evolved naturally from inanimate objects and is therefore the work of an intelligence mind."*

I never said they were. You gave a religious opinion as if it were a fact.

Yikes, you don’t really believe that? To you, God is just an “interpretation of physical reality”? That’s not philosophy, and would seem to be as far from the Church as it’s possible to get.

If that’s truly what you believe then I SERIOUSLY recommend you give up this intelligent design stuff and return to the fold.

I’m unwilling to replace the entire basis of Christianity with pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
You have given up on the unproved pretext that I keep ignoring you. Fare well…
 
IWantGod said:
I am not arguing that a cell hasn’t evolved. I am arguing that a cell at any level of complexity is still too complex to have “spontaneously” come into being naturally. Somethings exhibit the kind of complexity that makes mention of a natural cause unreasonable.
Click to expand...
You don’t seem to be following his argument.
 
tonyrey said:
You have given up on the unproved pretext that I keep ignoring you. Fare well…
Click to expand...
I only gave up on one point. There were another six points I didn’t give up on, by all means keep the conversation going if you want.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Why? Which one of my points requires such a justification? As far as I know, I never made the point you’re claiming (i.e. that “rational beings could exist without a… system of natural laws.”) Perhaps you can quote the sentences I wrote which are equivalent to that claim. I will treat a failure to address this directly as you conceding this point and admitting that you are attacking points I did not make.

I suspect your definition of “purpose” will be different from mine. But my definition of “purposeful” in this case would simply be “organized to cause some future outcome.” Reason does allow “purposeful” action because it allows the rational being to predict future outcomes and act accordingly. Life is “purposeful” in this sense because the molecules are arranged to allow replication.
Click to expand...
You stated "We could have a universe with laws but without the kind of complexity that prompts people to “argue from complexity” which implies that you have sufficient insight and knowledge to create such a universe…
Now, you may think that molecules which are “organized” require an “organizer” but this is not automatically true, and you will have to actually present a defense of this point.
Click to expand...
On the contrary you need to justify your view that molecules may always have been organized. There is no obvious evidence that any type of order - or even existence - is necessary (Occam’s Razor).
I’m not sure why you are linking my statements to logical positivism. As far as I know I have not made such a claim. Once again, I will ask that you directly quote the sentence I wrote which assumes logical positivism. I will treat a failure to do so as an admission that you have been putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
Your idea of a viable hypothesis:
  1. Be consistent with all known rules of physics and chemistry.
  2. Involve conditions consistent with what we know about the early earth’s atmosphere and environment.
  3. Consistent with the timescales involved. We have a rough idea of how long it took for life to show up on earth, and the theory can’t require timescales that are too much longer or shorter than that.
  4. Consistent with known biology. The cells formed in the theory must either be actually related to known biology (e.g. by using RNA and other known biological chemistry) or have a clear mechanism for evolving into known biology.
Click to expand...
In your posts you have never mentioned the possibility of an alternative non-scientific explanation. It is reasonable to suppose that you are a materialist unless you produce evidence to the contrary.
 
Ruqx said:
On the very contrary… the argument from complexity cannot be established, until
  1. complexity is defined
  2. a method is offered to measure complexity, and
  3. a dividing line is offered, which separates the complex from the simple. I can hardly wait. 🙂
But, keep on with this amusing dialog. It is very entertaining.

Wow… another “omniscient” poster who knows what is “possible” and what is “impossible”. Can you predict the next weeks’ Powerball numbers, too?
Click to expand...
I don’t answer silly posts. :tsktsk:
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The argument from complexity cannot be invalidated until an experiment demonstrates that complexity can be explained away. No such experiment is possible.
Click to expand...
Then I will have to ask you to re-state your version of the argument from complexity, because my understanding of your original argument was that it could be invalidated without direct experimental evidence.

Specifically, if a premise of the argument from complexity is:

“God is the only way that complexity could have arisen”

Then all we need to do is propose an alternate path:

“Chemistry is a way that complexity could have arisen.”

And the premise is no longer true, because God is not the only way.

What you are doing now is essentially arguing “It is impossible for chemistry to explain complexity, because chemistry can’t currently demonstrate a system in which the kind of complexity we’re talking about arises.”

That is good, in that you are attempting to defend the right point (i.e. that chemistry is fundamentally inadequate to explain complexity.) But it is bad because the actual argument you use (i.e. that chemistry can’t currently explain) is not one that anyone would agree to.

There was a time when chemistry couldn’t explain polymerization. That did not mean chemistry was fundamentally inadequate to explain polymerization. So you will need to provide additional arguments regarding why chemistry is fundamentally inadequate for the task at hand.
 
As far as I am concerned the argument from complexity is actually an argument from simplicity. All this pretty much infinite complexity, observed when my physical being is intellectually carved into its tiniest subatomic components, is the material reality of the simplicity that is me.

Here I am thinking about what I see and understand, moving my fingers to type out ideas, feeling pretty much amazed but tired. One being can be described as a participant of the world in political, economic, sociological and psychological terms, and as a intricate collection of physiological processes within organ systems. I can describe myself biologically, chemically, atomically and sub atomically.

These diverse areas of study reflect the structure present at each level of my creation. I say creation because this ontological structure came into being temporally as describe by science. Abiogenesis occurred not only then, but is here and now.

And yes, science will confirm the truth of the order of the universe; one cannot be anything less than a pantheists or deist.

Fact is that science is there right now, in world of quantum physics which demonstrates the impact of the rational person on not only the understanding, but on the actual shaping of the results. Also, in relativity when it speaks of frames of reference, it is the act of a rational being connecting with the stars, pulling them out of their eternal relationship into space as time.

This sounds pretty whacky and far out but perhaps you will have a better way to express what we observe.

The rational mind of man is truly integral to the functioning of the universe, and even more so is the One Mind of which we are an image and from whom we and all else springs into existence. And that Supreme Being is Love, but it is the heart who knows such things. Unfortunately, denial, doubt and skepticism are subtle and powerfully influential, opposed to those of truth and light, and will always find ears to listen to their message of darkness and ignorance. As I can use science to demonstrate God, at least to myself if no one else, it can be used to suggest the opposite.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Then I will have to ask you to re-state your version of the argument from complexity, because my understanding of your original argument was that it could be invalidated without direct experimental evidence.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s impossible to demonstrate scientifically how the first living organism came to be. The best we can do is go with probability. When Francis Crick discovered the double helix of DNA he was so appalled at the complexity of it that he could not imagine the first living organism having arisen on earth by chance. Since he was an atheist, the best explanation he could give was that the earth might have been seeded with life by extraterrestrials. But that just pushes the problem of explaining the origin of life farther back in time and space, and raises problematic questions about how early in the history of the universe the terrestrials themselves would have had to appear as to have evolved so far as to be space travelers. Science fiction raises its fantastic head.

Crick’s response, however, seems to be the correct one … disbelief at undersigned complexity of the living cell. He was following Aristotle’s advice: “A likely impossibility is always preferable to an unconvincing possibility.”
 
Crick didn’t make an argument from complexity. Exactly the opposite.

His argument was as that the possibility of life evolving will vary from planet to planet, and might have been less likely on Earth than some other planets. An alien civilization might then develop much earlier on some other far-off planet. That civilization, for reasons of its own, might then build interstellar robot spaceships to infect other planets with microorganisms. In which case humans might have evolved from an infection.

An entertaining if not exactly convincing possibility. Though perhaps some find it more convincing than arguments from complexity.

Crick, Orgel (1973) Directed panspermia - profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/scbccp.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top