At 10:34 AM 3/6/00 -0800, Bert wrote:
>Joel Z Bandstra wrote:
> >
> > Not sure I understand what Bosons have to do with the dice experiment (see
> > below). The particles are distinguishable!
>**********
>The Universe started with indistinquisable particles but now there are
>complex things which are distinguisable.
>
>**********************
> > Anyway, there exists a wealth of literature on complexity and self
> > organization.
>********
>A wealth of literature is to be found on any viewpoint however good or
>crazy. There has been a lot of criticism of that literature as well and
>I trust you are suitably informed. The Universe is complex and this
>does not prove that life and its complex systems arrose from random
>processes or some "self organizing principle". What I think you are
>proposing is that there is some un-specified law of organization yet to
>be discovered.
>
>The issues as I tried to illustrated with the dice is that with large
>numbers of randoam events that you can find some "specified complex"
>events. This does not argue for the level of complextity that is found
>in life nor does it give us the path to this complexity. So the
>ultimate point is that if we find some things here and there with a
>little organization we should not be surprised. The jump to life is
>very substantial however.
>
>What I want to know about is not that a wealth of literature exists I
>allready know that. I also do not care if some complex things exist
>which appear from some random events and driven by some proposed
>organizing principle. (It is certainly not non-linear differential
>equations which in many instances relate to dissapative processes.) I
>also know already that some see "promising" theories and have the belief
>that the road ahead is clear and just a matter of time.
>
>What I ask for is a detailed description of how for example something
>with as many proteins and processes as the Behe example of a flagellum
>arrose.
>
> What were the intermediate steps?
> What was the adaptive value of each?
> What was the genetic changes that could make these steps?
> (You must show that a coding exists for each of the steps.)
> What is the evidence that these steps occurred?
>
>It is really a question of degree as I see it and this was the point on
>the dice and certainly the point of Behe. Some specified complex things
>are expected to occur randomly but some are not and the issue is the
>level of complexity.
>***************
It is interesting that while we have grown accustomed to seeing this type
of challenge applied to scientific theories, we seldom if ever see a similar
challenge made to ID. What might such a challenge look like? How about
this for starters:
What evidence do you have that an intelligent designer
would be able to design and build something like a cilia?
Do you have the blueprints?
Technical memos?
A description of the manufacturing procedure?
A patent?
Where is the design mechanism which ties the designed object
to the designer?
OK, so perhaps we need to fall back on the argument from analogy.
As far as we know, the only way for irreducibly complex structures
to arise is by ID. Then we can use Behe's mousetrap as an example.
But what seems to have been forgotten here is that things can be
irreducible but not complex. Can we seriously compare a mousetrap
to the biological systems that Mike discusses? No, the mousetrap
is irreducibly simple. So, what we learn from the analogy is that the
hallmark of intelligent design is irreducible simplicity. Our argument
by analogy then leads us to the conclusion that biological systems are
not intelligently designed because they are too complex.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 15:50:35 EST