Does complexity require intelligent design?

quote:

---

Citizzzen

​

How/Why does (apparent) complexity necessitate an intelligent designer?

---

Mere complexity does not necessitate an intelligent designer. Complexity with purpose and function seems to indicate an intelligent designer. I have never witnessed nature [the natural universe] creating anything. I have witnessed intelligent individuals creating machines, works of art, structures, theories, literature. How do we know this? Is there a mathematical formula that proves this apparent supposition? Which systems that didn’t work are you referring to? Can you give some specific examples? I know that many species are extinct, I didn’t know that it was proven that any are extinct due to an inability to compete with what? Other species? Please give some examples. Please give some examples of these planets that were destroyed by meteors or comets.Isn’t the temperature of the stars in question less important than the orbital characteristics of the planets involved? Rates of spin, angles of inclination, distance from the star and other factors? Couldn’t most stars support life as we define it if the conditions were right on the planet?Of course our planet’s life systems are dependant not only on the above mentioned factors, but the presence of the moon to activate the tides and prevent the oceans from stagnating, and the unique quality of water as a solid becoming less dense than the liquid form, thus preserving life in bodies of water by forming an insulating blanket of ice on the surface, rather than the entire body freezing solid. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it's all chance.

As reasonable a summation as I've ever found at EvC. Authoritive and beyond question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Complicated question: Where did all the information in DNA come from?Simple answer: Randomly.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

See, another simple answer that is wrong! It's random mutation WITH natural selection, which is not simple and can be a very intricate and complicated process.

quote:

---

Mere complexity does not necessitate an intelligent designer. Complexity with purpose and function seems to indicate an intelligent designer. I have never witnessed nature [the natural universe] creating anything. I have witnessed intelligent individuals creating machines, works of art, structures, theories, literature.

---

Let's compare the purposes found in observed intelligent design and the purpose of complexity in biology.This gets us back to Paley's Watchmaker analogy. If we found a watch sitting on the ground we would assume that there was a watchmaker. But what is the purpose of the watch? To tell time, something that does not benefit the watch in anyway. Also, the only way for a watch to come about is through human manufacture. We can also observe a watch being made.None of this is true for biological organisms. What is the purpose of a flagella? To help the survival of the organism. What is the purpose of a clotting cascade? Survival of the organism. None of the IC systems listed by Behe have any outside use like the watch does. All systems have one goal, survival of the organism. Also, biological organisms do not need an outside manufacturing process to create them. Simple biological reproduction does just fine. There is no need for a watchmaker, just reproduction.Comparing design created through human manufacturing can not be compared to design created through biological reproduction. The two processes create different purposes for design and design arises through different mechanisms. Also, in all cases of design we have a designer that is independently evidenced. If I see a pot shard do I assume that God put it there? No, I assume humans made it since I have independent evidence of humans manufacturing pot shards.

quote:

---

quote:

---

now we know that the constellations are just coincidental arrangements of stars. The apparent design of one group of stars, obscures the that fact that the vast majority of stars are arranged in a random pattern.

---

​

How do we know this? Is there a mathematical formula that proves this apparent supposition?

---

How do we tell the difference between a naturally occuring random pattern and a random pattern created by an intelligence? Do humans force the shape of a warrior onto the constellation Orion, or was Orion designed by an unknown intelligence to look like a warrior? Pleas tell me how we can differentiate between the two.Or, just look at my avatar. The image is of gram stained bacteria. Is it a random pattern that looks like a man, or did someone have to move the bacteria into that arrangment? How can we tell the difference?

quote:

---

Of course our planet’s life systems are dependant not only on the above mentioned factors, but the presence of the moon to activate the tides and prevent the oceans from stagnating, and the unique quality of water as a solid becoming less dense than the liquid form, thus preserving life in bodies of water by forming an insulating blanket of ice on the surface, rather than the entire body freezing solid. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it's all chance.

---

We really don't know what is required for life to occur. We are only going on a sample of 1 (ie the earth). Could life arise in a stagnant ocean? Could life arise without an ice blanket? Maybe. We really don't know. Could life arise in liquid hydrocarbons, such as the conditions found on other planets? Possibly. We know too little about how life can form to form any conclusions.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-14-2005 03:53 PM

Hi xevolutionist that indicates a intelligent designer, like Bees creating a hive? Oh wait are bees intelligent?
I always have been of the opinion that Shape dictates function.
Nature is the best designer in my opinion, man is always using nature as his inspiration in his designs. Can God be called Nature?
Theist choose to call the designer "God" and non theist chooses to call the designer " Nature". Are we talking about the same thing and only using a different term?

On top of that, it isn't even grammatically correct.But, putting that aside - if I may elaborate a bit on your reply, KJ - what this tells us is that Buzsaw thinks that the question he poses is complicated. But it isn't. It's really a very simple question.He also thinks:

• that the answer evolutionists give to this question is that the information is the result of a purely random process;
• that the answer is simple;
• that the answer is wrong.

Well, Buzsaw himself is wrong on all counts.First, evolution, it cannot be stressed enough it seems, is not a purely random process, there is non-random selection at work. I really don't understand why this has to be repeated over and over and over again. When are creationists finally going to get this? Are they selectively deaf? Is it such a difficult concept to grasp? Or are they willfully distorting what evolutionists tell them?Second, though the question is really simple, the answer isn't quite that simple. And it's not that the principle of evolution is difficult - it's quite straightforward actually - but it's the resulting complexity and massive interaction in the biosphere that's rather more difficult to picture, and it's there that we need to look for the build-up of the information.Lastly, Buzsaw is even wrong in thinking the answer is wrong. Well, it's wrong all right, but not for the reasons Buzsaw thinks it is. It's not wrong because it's wrong, but because it isn't the answer at all. The information doesn't come from the random mutations. They're mostly noise. The information is what's left over of those random mutations when selection has done it's job. And selection, I'll repeat once more, is a distinctly non-random process.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

If you're refering to "randomly," fyi, it's a grammatically correct adverb. The subject of the question is indeed complicated. The factual and correct answer remains that the process would not alegedly happen without random mutation. Tell it to Kisimons. It was Kisimons who said simple answers to complicated questions are always wrong.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

He's nitpicking you, Buz, which I personally would never support, but he is correct. An adverb is never the gramatically correct answer to a "where" question. It would, however, be gramatically correct if you had asked "How does the information etc...[/i]

"...Mere complexity does not necessitate an intelligent designer. Complexity with purpose and function seems to indicate an intelligent designer..."So, the proof of intelligent design is dependent on the intelligence of the observer? It seems to me that if you were trying to PROVE ID, you could just keep finding purpose for everything. Is there no criteria you can set out in advance to test for ID? Also, does that mean a complex organism or system without apparent function or purpose, say the platypus, is indicative of no intelligent design?"...I have never witnessed nature [the natural universe] creating anything. I have witnessed intelligent individuals creating machines, works of art, structures, theories, literature..."Astronomers have witnessed the natural universe create new stars, I would say a stable, self sustaining fusion reaction is a pretty complex system. On the other hand, I have see elephants and other zoo animals make "art", and I have seen animals use tools. Again, this whole concept seems to be based on the observers idea of complexity and art..."...How do we know this? (Constellations are coincidental) Is there a mathematical formula that proves this apparent supposition..."I am not sure why there would need to be a mathematical formula... Constellations are three dimensional arrangements of stars. They only look like dippers or whatever from a specific vantage point. Given the billions of stars and the nearly infinite possible viewing angles, there are probably constellations visible from lots of planets. Also, are you arguing that constellations have a purpose and function?"...Which systems that didn’t work are you referring to? Can you give some specific examples..."Well, again, this is dependent on the observer's idea of the purpose of each system. If the purpose of a planet is to host life, then any barren planet is a failure. If the purpose of the planet is to effect the tides on another planet, then maybe it's doing a great job... This is a little like going to a high school and saying, "Show me the kids that dropped out...""...I know that many species are extinct, I didn’t know that it was proven that any are extinct due to an inability to compete with what? Other species? Please give some examples..."Well, what would constitute proof of why a species became extinct? For whatever reason some are simply not around, but we know from fossils that they were. A species that gets hunted to extinction could be said to be a failure at hiding, unless of course you argue that they were designed to be yummy and get hunted to extinction..."...Please give some examples of these planets that were destroyed by meteors or comets..."Well, even without examples (I am an accountant, not an astronomer...) unless you are arguing that every planet ever formed is still around, you can see my point. However, I believe the current theory is that the asteroid belt in our own solar system is the remains of a destroyed planet."...Isn’t the temperature of the stars in question less important than the orbital characteristics of the planets involved? Rates of spin, angles of inclination, distance from the star and other factors? Couldn’t most stars support life as we define it if the conditions were right on the planet? Of course our planet’s life systems are dependant not only on the above mentioned factors, but the presence of the moon to activate the tides and prevent the oceans from stagnating, and the unique quality of water as a solid becoming less dense than the liquid form, thus preserving life in bodies of water by forming an insulating blanket of ice on the surface, rather than the entire body freezing solid. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it's all chance..."Short answer, I dunno... There are tube worm growing at the bottom of the oceans in total darkness, living next to intensely hot steam vents. Since the deep oceans rarely freeze, they might not be affected if ice were denser than water. If the planet's surface got hotter or colder by a few hundred degrees, again, would they care? Do the tides have any substantial affect at their depth? Maybe a stagnant ocean would suit them just fine...Again, the point is that in your model the intelligence of the designer is up to the observer to deduce. If you wanna see him/her/it you will. If you don't you won't. Looking for failed systems could work the same way, as long as you see all the randomly aligned stars as failed constellations...Citizzzen

---

The message is ended, go in peace.

Since the question was ambiguous and vague in suggesting that DNA came from a location, the adverb, imo, was grammatically appropriate, implying "It came randomly."Hopefully we can soon nitpic our way back to the topic.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Still gramatically incorrect. As I said an adverb never answers "where", it answers "how" or "to what extent." It's not so much that "randomly" is gramatically incorrect, it's that you asked a gramatically incorrect question. You used the wrong interogative pronoun for the context. The question to the answer "it came randomly" is not "where did it come from?" but "how did it come"?But it's a nitpick because everybody understood what you meant. Why Para chose to pick on you about it is totally beyond me. You really shouldn't have to be put in the position of defending your word usage if everybody knew what you meant in the first place.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-15-2005 12:28 AM

It was just a little joke about the first thing I noticed in Buzsaw's post. I am preoccupied with language, I guess. Maybe I should have used one of those stupid smiley faces, I don't know. I never use them because I think words should speak for themselves. In this case, apparently, they didn't. I apologize for seemingly nitpicking on Buzsaw, it wasn't meant that way.Incidentally, I spent one sentence on it and then brushed it aside to go to the topic at hand. I suggest you two do the same.

True. But that only means that the answer is going to be complicated. The question itself is simple, it only takes nine words to phrase it. And the concept of the question is also simple: there is information in DNA, where does it come from? A child can understand this question. Nor would it happen without selection, but that part is always conveniently left out by creationists. You talk of "the factual and correct answer", but you don't bother to mention 'complete'. Why? It can't be because you have never been told by evolutionists, you've been told time and again. But you creationists always hammer on the word 'random' only. It's time for you to try and refute the argument of random mutation AND selection. If, after you have read this, you still refuse to think about selection, I will take that as dishonesty. You are right, Buz, I should have asked KJ about it. I don't agree with his statement.But you were a little too eager to use his construct in order to misrepresent the central tenet of evolution. I thought it was more important to attack your position than to go into KJ's. {added by edit}CORRECTION! It wasn't KJ, it was DHA. Should have checked that earlier.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 15-Mar-2005 08:58 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Yes, objects created by designers normally have a utility for the designer. Given the vast array of life and its ebbing and flowing with time (sometimes nearly wiped out), what utility do you see life of any kind providing for a designer, or capable of providing for a designer such that you see that it is designed.For example if we had no idea what a car was through examination we could see that there are "seats" and "wheels" and an ignition which starts an engine which turns the wheels and is controlled by pedals which are not connected back to the same system (that is the car cannot push its own pedals).Beyond potential food source, what do you see?And furthermore, how come the designer is not obviously using what life was designed to provide for it? They are 3D objects in 3D space, moving within that space and having their light reach us over vast amounts of time (meaning they are no longer in those particular spaces and so alignments). The fact that right now you look up and get a 2D arrangment that looks similar to something is pretty much a coincidence of time and spacial arrangement and the fact that you think it looks like something. The dodo. Would you like a list of species that went extinct because they could not compete with the human species? How about a list of species endangered or wiped out within a region due to a competing invasive species, like the new seaweed which is wiping out large swathes of life in the Mediterranean? This ranges from the unknowable to the completely false. Since we do not know under what specific conditions life arose we cannot say what conditions are necessary for life in general much less life on earth to have begun or evolved.We do have some theories that early species slowly oxygenated the atmosphere which allowed for greater expansion of life. And it is true that as life spread into regions where bodies of water would freeze solid if not for the density property, life exists there (as it does) because of that property.However beyond people simply stating so, I have yet to hear a reason why the freezing property of water has any impact on abiogenesis or evolution in general. Especially if life began in the oceans, and more importantly tropical areas of oceans, there is little ice has anything to do with life.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)