Is the argument from complexity a dead argument?

[Bahman]

The problem is not evolution. The problem is abiogensis.

Why abiogenesis should be a problem? We just need to go back in time to realise that life is not possible without abiogenesis. Do you have any other solution?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You say “we” but I’m not sure who you mean by “we.”

And how long do “we” know it took for life to show up on Earth? From which billion years to which billion years?

You seem to be well versed in this, so please explain.

It always amazes me when people in philosophical discussions have such an aversion to looking up even the most basic information.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Earliest_biological_evidence_for_life_on_Earth

A study by Kevin A. Maher and David J. Stevenson shows that if the deep marine hydrothermal setting provides a suitable site for the origin of life, then abiogenesis could have happened as early as 4.0 to 4.2 Ga, whereas if it occurred at the surface of the Earth, abiogenesis could only have occurred between 3.7 and 4.0 Ga.

 

[tonyrey]

The origin of the universe is certainly not irrelevant to the topic because complexity implies multiplicity and how it originated. It is obviously more economical to attribute it to theism than to atomism. Divine intervention is also a more rational explanation than a fortuitous collocation of atomic particles because it explains the origin of value, purpose and meaning whereas the Chance hypothesis doesn’t correspond to the way any reasonable person lives.

. You need to substantiate your claim in view of your lack of experience in creating universes and explain precisely how rational beings could exist without a complex system based on the co-existence of natural laws which interact and form the basis of life. Would one or two laws be sufficient? If so what would they be? If not what is the minimum number required?

However, it also may be the case that your argument is simply: “A universe with laws is more complex than one without laws, and Occam’s Razor says that therefore the universe without laws is what we should get by default.” However, I already explained why that is not a valid use of Occam’s Razor in the post you quoted. That you would invoke “value, purpose, and meaning” suggests to me that you are just grasping at straws here. I don’t believe that any of those things are germane to the argument from complexity.

If value, purpose and meaning are irrelevant how do you propose to create a universe with rational beings? Isn’t reasoning valuable, purposeful and meaningful? In fact your implicit claim to understand the exact conditions necessary for the development of consciousness, insight and self-control is based on the assumption that they have a physical foundation. Yet logical positivism was abandoned because its adherents realised the verification **principle **cannot be verified by sense data. Another dimension of reality is needed…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It always amazes me when people in philosophical discussions have such an aversion to looking up even the most basic information.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Earliest_biological_evidence_for_life_on_Earth

Thank you for referencing the article.

Since you are knowledgeable on the subject, you know that the first living organism on the planet appear to have come into being about 4 billion years ago. Water first appeared on the planet estimated at 4.4 billion years ago. Since water is necessary for life, there was a relatively short period, say 400 million years, before abiogenesis could have occurred.

So the popular myth that life could have arisen after billions of years of chance combinations of atoms and molecules, amino acids and proteins, is just that, a myth with not even one iota of documentation (Who was present at the moment of abiogenesis?) that this is what happened according to random events without a directing intelligence.

The argument from complexity is hardly dead. The odds in favor of directing intelligence is very much alive.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

. You need to substantiate your claim in view of your lack of experience in creating universes and explain precisely how rational beings could exist without a complex system based on the co-existence of natural laws which interact and form the basis of life. Would one or two laws be sufficient? If so what would they be? If not what is the minimum number required?

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.

If value, purpose and meaning are irrelevant how do you propose to create a universe with rational beings? Isn’t reasoning valuable, purposeful and meaningful? In fact your implicit claim to understand the exact conditions necessary for the development of consciousness, insight and self-control is based on the assumption that they have a physical foundation. Yet logical positivism was abandoned because its adherents realised the verification **principle **cannot be verified by sense data. Another dimension of reality is needed…

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.

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.

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.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So the popular myth that life could have arisen after billions of years of chance combinations of atoms and molecules, amino acids and proteins, is just that, a myth with not even one iota of documentation (Who was present at the moment of abiogenesis?) that this is what happened according to random events without a directing intelligence.

Are you taking the creationists’ goofy view of evidence which says that if no one was around to see the evidence first hand, it doesn’t count? I can attack that point but I’d just like to confirm that you are actually taking it first.

The “billions of years myth” you cite is problematic simply because its boundaries are too fuzzy. For example, do we include the formation of the earth into the “chance combinations of atoms and molecules” that led to life? Or are the boundaries much smaller, and we only consider the “chance combinations of atoms and molecules” which took place on the surface of the earth?

If we wanted, we could simply say that the time required to form life was billions of years, because we started the timer at the Big Bang. On the other hand, we could say that it wasn’t billions of years, because it happened in a few million years once the surface of the earth was prepped and ready.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

Why would you not have to also present a defense of the position that molecules can without purpose organize themselves?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Why would you not have to also present a defense of the position that molecules can without purpose organize themselves?

Atoms organize themselves by forming molecules. Molecules organize themselves in a wide variety of ways, such as by forming distinct liquid phases, colloids, or micelles. They organize themselves in these ways because the arrangements minimize their free energy. To deny this is to deny chemistry and physics.

Now, some people would say that the atoms and molecules therefore form these organizations for the purpose of minimizing their free energy. I think that colloquially that is a fine thing to say, but I would not defend that statement against my earlier definition of purpose.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are you taking the creationists’ goofy view of evidence which says that if no one was around to see the evidence first hand, it doesn’t count? I can attack that point but I’d just like to confirm that you are actually taking it first.

I’m fairly certain you would argue that any scientific assertion requires proof, not mere speculation. It is merely speculative that abiogenesis arrived by a purposeless assembly of atoms and molecules. It is not goofy to ask for more proof than the mere assertion of such a purposeless assembly. Since no one could not be there, only God could be the witness to such a purposeful assembly. But if I read you correctly, you do not believe in God; ipso facto, there was no purposeful assembly of molecules resulting in abiogenesis.

So your private philosophy governs your science, as opposed to offering scientific evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atoms organize themselves by forming molecules. Molecules organize themselves in a wide variety of ways, such as by forming distinct liquid phases, colloids, or micelles.

How is it that different kinds of atoms exist in the first place? How did they come to be organized as different? Why did the first atoms and molecules organize themselves to the event called abiogenesis? Why were these atoms of the types that could organize themselves in such a fortuitous way?

Way too many unexplained questions for a purposeless universe.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’m fairly certain you would argue that any scientific assertion requires proof, not mere speculation. It is merely speculative that abiogenesis arrived by a purposeless assembly of atoms and molecules. It is not goofy to ask for more proof than the mere assertion of such a purposeless assembly. Since no one could not be there, only God could be the witness to such a purposeful assembly. But if I read you correctly, you do not believe in God; ipso facto, there was no purposeful assembly of molecules resulting in abiogenesis.

So your private philosophy governs your science, as opposed to offering scientific evidence.

So what you’re doing is building on your earlier post:

No one since Crick has presented a viable theory of how the first living cell came to be.

You are now asserting that it is insufficient to have a “viable theory,” and that in order to dispel the argument from complexity, scientists would need to find evidence that their proposed mechanism for abiogenesis actually happened?

That’s fine, but I don’t think it is quite correct. The argument from complexity, as people have described it here, is essentially “there is no way abiogenesis could have happened without God.” Therefore, to disprove that assertion, all that is needed is to show that there is a way abiogenesis could have happened without God, i.e. a viable theory.

Now, if we wanted to establish for sure what was behind abiogenesis, then we would need the kind of evidence you are now calling for. However, do be aware that this sword cuts both ways; there is no “winning by default” in this task. In other words, the “God did it” hypothesis doesn’t immediately become the most likely version of events just because the scientific camp can’t find evidence you deem satisfactory. Instead, you would also need to provide evidence for your “God did it” hypothesis. It is entirely possible that neither side could conclusively prove their position, at which point we would need to either invoke Occam’s Razor, or simply admit that we don’t know.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Now, if we wanted to establish for sure what was behind abiogenesis, then we would need the kind of evidence you are now calling for. However, do be aware that this sword cuts both ways; there is no “winning by default” in this task. In other words, the “God did it” hypothesis doesn’t immediately become the most likely version of events just because the scientific camp can’t find evidence you deem satisfactory. Instead, you would also need to provide evidence for your “God did it” hypothesis. It is entirely possible that neither side could conclusively prove their position, at which point we would need to either invoke Occam’s Razor, or simply admit that we don’t know.

Well, I think you are evading a point I just made. That your atheism governs your science. It may just well be that my theism governs my science. But as far as the complexity of abiogenesis is concerned I don’t think the appearance of design is a weak argument, whereas there is no appearance at all of serendipity, and it truly stretches credibility, as Crick believed.

Science is not diminished by acknowledging intelligent design behind the universe. Many great scientists from Copernicus to Galileo to Newton to Kepler to Einstein were not diminished in their scientific efforts by recognizing a governing intelligence pervading the universe.

Teleology was wounded by Darwin, but not killed, and I believe it is making a nice recovery at present. A book of ten essays by different eminent modern thinkers, Scientists Discover the Creator: Evidence of Purpose, makes this point persuasive. Before you describe them as goofy, you should look at the list of authors.

amazon.com/Evidence-Purpose-Scientists-Discover-Creator-ebook/dp/0826406491/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470012272&sr=8-1&keywords=Scientists+Discover+the+Creator%3A+Evidence+of+Purpose

 

[yppop]

Now, if we wanted to establish for sure what was behind abiogenesis, then we would need the kind of evidence you are now calling for. However, do be aware that this sword cuts both ways; there is no “winning by default” in this task. In other words, the “God did it” hypothesis doesn’t immediately become the most likely version of events just because the scientific camp can’t find evidence you deem satisfactory. Instead, you would also need to provide evidence for your “God did it” hypothesis. It is entirely possible that neither side could conclusively prove their position, at which point we would need to either invoke Occam’s Razor, or simply admit that we don’t know.

JK
I asked you earlier in post 91 what you meant by “viable theory” and you responded with post 95 in which you presented 4 requirements with no mention of “evidence”.

Here I am developing a "God did it " hypothesis and you now include the requirement for evidence. Pray tell, what kind of evidence would that be? Especially for a unique event that happened anywhere from 1- 3.6 billion years ago? Please elucidate.
Yppop

 

[JapaneseKappa]

JK
I asked you earlier in post 91 what you meant by “viable theory” and you responded with post 95 in which you presented 4 requirements with no mention of “evidence”.

Here I am developing a "God did it " hypothesis and you now include the requirement for evidence. Pray tell, what kind of evidence would that be? Especially for a unique event that happened anywhere from 1- 3.6 billion years ago? Please elucidate.
Yppop

The evidence is up to you, since you’re developing the exact claims of the theory. For example, if your claim was “God did it in a way that is indistinguishable from natural processes” then your claim is essentially indistinguishable from the “natural processes” theory. As such, you would need some other evidence that your “God did it” theory was valid (i.e. you can’t say: “we know our God beliefs are correct because abiogenesis happened, and we know God did abiogenesis because our God beliefs are correct.”)

On the other hand, maybe your claim is “God did it 6000 years ago” in which case there would be all sorts of evidence you would have to provide.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, I think you are evading a point I just made. That your atheism governs your science.

But this was never the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread was the argument from complexity. I believe that you are accusing me of evading your evasion, because you were unable to answer my criticisms of your version of the argument from complexity. Instead, you wanted to flip from defense to offense and attack the “science can explain the complexity” argument.

Now there is exactly one way you could have gone about this:

1. Demonstrating that science is incapable of providing an explanation for complexity

But you opted to take a second path:
2. attacking the idea that science does currently explain complexity (i.e. abiogenesis)

Toneyrey attempted to argue #1 by appealing to purpose and meaning. This approach was a non-starter because such concepts are separate from complexity, and have their own “argument from meaning” or “argument from purpose/design.”

You, on the other hand, attempted attack #2, which was a non-starter for a different reason; even if you successfully showed that science cannot currently explain abiogenesis, it fails to show that science cannot possibly explain abiogenesis which is the linchpin of the argument from complexity.

The closest you came to making attack #1 was your suggestion that because no one was present to observe abiogenesis, science cannot ever conclusively prove that its account of abiogenesis was the correct one.

[the scientific account is] a myth with not even one iota of documentation (Who was present at the moment of abiogenesis?)

But as I pointed out, this is not the actual issue at hand:

The argument from complexity, as people have described it here, is essentially “there is no way abiogenesis could have happened without God.” Therefore, to disprove that assertion, all that is needed is to show that there is a way abiogenesis could have happened without God, e.g. a viable scientific theory.

Science doesn’t need to provide conclusive evidence for it’s account of abiogenesis in order to defeat the argument from complexity, only offer a viable non-theistic explanation.

However, if we were to reformulate the argument from complexity such that it did care about which side has the best evidence, then there would be an equal onus for the theistic account to offer evidence of it’s proposal:

However, do be aware that this sword cuts both ways; there is no “winning by default” in this task. In other words, the “God did it” hypothesis doesn’t immediately become the most likely version of events just because the scientific camp can’t find evidence you deem satisfactory.

 

[inocente]

In a truly chaotic universe there are no regularities that could be construed as laws constituting a complex system.

I give up as you just keep ignoring me.

False. It is clear to any reasonable person that a null hypothesis in metaphysics implies that there is a total void which is the most logical starting point because there is no obvious reason why anything or anyone must exist. If there is please explain why. **Contingency **is not fiction but fact and like **complexity **it is a metaphysical topic.

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.

Please give one example which is not far-fetched.

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

The OP isn’t primarily concerned with biological arguments. If it were it would have been banned… The basic issue is ontological not scientific.

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."*

They are not Abrahamic religions.

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

This is a philosophy forum and from the philosophical point of view God is initially a hypothesis and then an interpretation of physical reality.

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.

inocente;14077933:

It isn’t quibbling to state the basis of faith that Christ died on the cross for you, for you personally, that you might have life, and have it to the full. He didn’t die for hypotheses, theories and pseudoscience, did he? As Paul says, what’s foolishness to non-believers is wisdom to believers.

Totally irrelevant to the metaphysical issue of complexity.

I’m unwilling to replace the entire basis of Christianity with pseudoscience.

 

[inocente]

I’ve always just assumed that researchers prior to the 1900s would be at least a little scared of publishing findings that might seem to contradict faith, regardless of their actual affiliation. Even if they weren’t scared of getting some kind of Galileo treatment, they would be afraid of losing friends and getting vilified in the media. For example, even Newton did this when laying out his laws of universal gravitation. Because his theories removed any appeal to God from the motion of the planets, he needed to include extra sentences to the effect of “Just because I explained the motion of the heavenly bodies doesn’t mean I’ve disproven God! Wow, isn’t that God guy great?”

You could well be right about authors and social convention.

I think Newton had a genuine belief in God, although also a little “eccentric”.

He seems to have been genuinely mystified by why all the planets orbit almost in the same plane. Perhaps that was an intelligent design argument back then. I guess everyone in his day believed the universe was very young, and it wouldn’t have occurred to him that a cloud of dust would over a very long time evolve into a disk and finally the planets, which therefore had to be in almost the same plane.

 

[inocente]

The problem is not evolution. The problem is abiogenesis.

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

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Science doesn’t need to provide conclusive evidence for it’s account of abiogenesis in order to defeat the argument from complexity, only offer a viable non-theistic explanation.

We’ve been over this ground before. No one has ever offered a viable non-theistic, non-teleological explanation for abiogenesis.

Atheism is not a viable scientific explanation that abiogenesis had to be non-teleological because there is no God. Science is not even qualified to take such a position.

On the other hand, as humans we recognize intelligent design when we see it.

Look to you RNA/DNA and argue otherwise.

 

[fnr]

To me, the argument from biological complexity is a dead argument. We find evidence of complexity where there is no life, such as in space and on other planets. Chiral organic molecules were just discovered in deep space: sciencealert.com/scientists-just-detected-this-life-forming-molecule-in-interstellar-space-for-the-first-time

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

The more compelling arguments from natural theology are as follows. Not that materialist theories might not eventually explain these phenomena, but it’s really hard…

1. 
   *]The seeming fine-tuning of the universal constants, such as the fundamental forces and Cosmological Constant, and the necessary invocation of an infinite multiverse (e.g., infinite number of universes) needed to explain it in strictly materialist explanations.
   *]The entropy minimum at the beginning of the universe. In other words, why did the Second Law of Thermodynamics reset at time t=0 (or t=1 quantum of time)?
   *]The inability of differential equations to specify solutions for physical phenomena without externally-defined boundary conditions… that implies that the universe couldn’t generate its own beginning, even with a fixed
   *]The asymmetry of matter and antimatter – also known as baryon asymmetry. Also, dark matter.
   *]Fermi’s Paradox – that is, we don’t see lots of evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence given the large number of stars, planets, and galaxies given the age of our sun and planet. Most materialist explanations require explanations of the universe or xenobiological behavior (e.g., universal self-extinction) that are inconsistent with human science.
   
   Personally, I would also suggest that the universe being subject to mathematical description invokes some fundamental problems in mathematics, such as Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem.