Questions about
Complexity in Nature
and Design in Science

by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.

This was a talk for the Chaos and Complex Systems Seminar at UW-Madison, Nov 29, 2005.

You can look at a PowerPoint Outline,
and an abstract-summary is below:

      Questions about
      Complexity in Nature and Design in Science 

      • We'll look at complexities (specified, nuclear, minimal, and irreducible) and will ask questions:
      If we observe a radio signal containing prime numbers (2, 3, 5, 7,...) is it logically justifiable to conclude that this is "complex specified information" and it was produced by design-directed action rather than undirected natural process?  When a fine-tuning of nature causes stars to naturally produce complex nuclei (including the carbon, oxygen, and sodium in our bodies) does this indicate a universe that is intelligently designed, and/or a multiverse that overcomes improbability because in a multitude of universes almost everything will happen?  What does current science indicate about the plausibility of natural chemical evolution producing a living organism, which seems to require a minimal complexity involving hundreds of biomolecules?  Do some biological systems have an "irreducible complexity" that could not be produced in a step-by-step process of natural selection?

      • We'll also examine the methods of historical science, and will ask whether a design theory can be scientific:
      Can we use evidence and logic to evaluate the plausibility of theories proposing that nature was designed, or that design-directed action has occurred during the history of nature?  What are the similarities and differences between operation science (to study what is happening) and the historical science (to study what has happened) in astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, and forensics?  In what ways can a design theory be consistent with the methods used in historical sciences?  Logically and sociologically, how should we analyze the relationships between theories proposing design and creation?  What are the interactions between scientific evaluation and philosophical interpretation?  When scientists ask questions about complexity and design, is proof possible?  And should we ask the questions?