Another fascinating account of this is Stephen Jay Gould's book "Full
House." Basically, when you start with something simple, there's no
where else to go but towards complexity. Recommended reading,
especially if you're a baseball fan. (Gould also explains the demise of
the .400 hitter.)
> Before people claim that chance is incompatible with God's creation,
> remember that God is omnipotent and thus is able to control chance.
This is a consequence of an initial assumption, ie that God exists.
Change that assumption, and any debate about whether "chance is
compatible with God" goes away.
It's like any system. The more complex a thing is (including a system
of thought), the more possible interaction effects there are. This is
what the "Law of Unintended Consequences" is all about: unanticipated
interactions among system components. With fewer components, there are
fewer interactions, and thus fewer surprises.
John Holland's book "Emergence" on this subject is also excellent. It
explains how altering the set of axioms in a formal system can produce
different emergent affects.
One of the benefits of a non-theistic philosophy is that it's a simpler
system (there's at least one less axiom than in a theistic philosophy),
and so there are fewer interaction effects. So for example, atheists
don't spend any time debating whether "chance is compatible with God,"
because in that system, there is no God.
Art Strahler discusses some of these issues in his book "Understanding
Science."
--Help keep evolution in the science classroom and religion out: become amember of the National Center for Science Education.