Intelligent Design program on PBS

[_Some Schmo]

In order for something to create something else, doesn't that thing have to be at least as complex and the thing being created?

Not necessarily; although I guess it depends on what one deems to be a characteristic of "complexity" and/or what makes something more or less "complex." Some estimate that by 2020 we will have computers that will be able to do more processes per second than the human brain.

I can't wait until I can get a chip in my noggin and download stuff Matrix style.

I know kung-fu.

Faster doesn't make it more complex. Human beings are pretty complex beings and it's not likely we'll ever create computers that are moreso, and even if we do, it will take the contributions of many people to make a computer that is more complex than one person. God, as far as I've been told, is not a committee.

[_cksalmon]

You can watch the show here on Nov. 16.

CKS

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Oh! You're being absurd on purpose! How silly of me not to notice right away. I get it now.

You know, you could have just said that up front and saved me the time of even thinking about it.

I wasn't being absurd. Also, you are a very ignorant person who gets a pass here to some extent because you are surrounded by people who share your general side. I honestly doubt Dawkins was even making the argument you explained for him, but it is awful either way. You have done nothing to clarify or defend it and seemed to severely misunderstand the criticisms I offered.

[_truth dancer]

For all you brilliant folks out there... :-)

Is the quantum vacuum more or less complex than existence?

~dancer~

[_Sethbag]

And incidentally, it wasn't an argument for atheism; it was an argument against the idea of an all-powerful creator.

If I recall correctly, this is correct. By parsimony one could easily just imagine a complex universe without an equally or more complex creator to explain it since that complex creator requires at least as much of an explanation as the complex universe does. Obviously that is not an argument against the possibility of a Creator, merely an argument against the necessity or utility of one.

Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.

That's an argument against God.

That's an argument against the necessity of God to explain the complex universe, technically. It's only an argument against God's existence in the sense that it makes God's existence dependent upon a process of evolution, which most believers in God find unacceptable. This is a de facto argument against God if and only if you cannot accept that God must have arisen through evolution.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

That's an argument against the necessity of God to explain the complex universe, technically.

No it isn't. You might hope and pray to your atheist gods all day that it was an argument you wish it was, but it isn't. It is an argument against God. iI posits that in order for something as complex as God to exist, it must evolve over the span of millions of years. Since this is proposed to be contradictory to what God is, we can then conclude God does not exist. Obviously, if you think God evolved, you escape the argument. But to continue to argue that what was written was a mere argument against explanatory necessity, when it obviously isn't, is to be irrationally charitable to one of your comrades.

[_Sethbag]

That's an argument against the necessity of God to explain the complex universe, technically.

No it isn't. You might hope and pray to your atheist gods all day that it was an argument you wish it was, but it isn't. It is an argument against God. iI posits that in order for something as complex as God to exist, it must evolve over the span of millions of years. Since this is proposed to be contradictory to what God is, we can then conclude God does not exist.

You need to read what I wrote again. I just said exactly the same thing as you. Dawkins' argument is only an argument against the kind of God that cannot have evolved into existence. There are many different possible gods. You believe, and traditional Christians believe, in just one or some small number of the different possible concepts of God. Dawkins' argument is only contradicting the existence of God if it is not possible for God to have evolved.

If you believe in a God who couldn't have evolved then yes, Dawkins is arguing against your God. If your mind can wrap itself around notions of God that differ from the specific one your particular church, out of all possible religions, has embraced, then you can see that Dawkins' argument isn't technically an argument against the possible existence of any God.

Obviously, if you think God evolved, you escape the argument. But to continue to argue that what was written was a mere argument against explanatory necessity, when it obviously isn't, is to be irrationally charitable to one of your comrades.

I only escape the argument to the same extent that you attempt to define the argument by claiming that only your conception of God is valid, or possible. You think that Dawkins' argument is an argument against the existence of God only because you presume to know that only your particular conception of God is possible, and that one conception of God is countered by Dawkins' argument.

The way I read the whole thing, most traditional Christians, and I would lump Mormons in here too, argue that the universe embodies complexity which cannot have arisen without a God to have created it. That is, the complexity of the universe serves as evidence that a God is required in this universe. I think Dawkins' argument very cleverly counters this. The "God is necessary" argument is based on the notion that complexity cannot come from non-complexity, and that since the universe, at its very beginning, would have been non-complex, a God must therefore have existed to organize it into its present complexity. Dawkins says that the problem here is that you're still left with the presumption of a very complex entity, God, with no explanation. If God was necessary to explain the universe, what is necessary to explain God?

The Mormons have a clever "turtles all the way down" explanation of an infinite chain of Gods going back in time. The traditional Christians don't have that. Dawkins' argument, I feel, very cleverly attacks the traditional Christian view. It doesn't counter the Mormon view as effectively, except to point out that "it's turtles all the way down" isn't a very satisfying answer, and seems on its face to be absurd. Whether this is a rigorous counter to the argument could rightfully be debated. I think that, at best, Mormons argue themselves into a position of non-falsifiability and non-proof that they can use as a base to say "hey, it's really all about faith".

[_asbestosman]

For all you brilliant folks out there... :-)

Is the quantum vacuum more or less complex than existence?

I know you weren't asking me ;o) but first off we'd have to ask what you mean by the complexity of existence. I'm also not sure what you mean by a quantum vacuum. I will say this though. It is my understanding that quantum fluctuations happen in part by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

Complexity is also an ill-defined term. Often times in science we speak of entropy instead of complexity. Often times we use the word entropy when we mean complexity. More entropy arises naturally and easily in systems with less entropy. Is that complexity? Well, ID says no, it is just gobbldygook. But then it's perfectly happy using Shanon's measures of entropy in information theory. While Shanon's entropy is different, it is related to thermodynamic entropy. Furthermore Shanon's entropy always relies on a context for the message. ID tries to say that information is compressible while random gobblydygook isn't. However the distinction isn't that trivial. Several random process produce fairly compressible information. Markov processes occur naturally and many are fairly compressible. Also, gradients occur naturally, and there are plenty of forces to counter-act entropy to some degree. One of these is gravity.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Asbestosman...

Thanks for your insights on this...

I know you weren't asking me ;o) but first off we'd have to ask what you mean by the complexity of existence. I'm also not sure what you mean by a quantum vacuum. I will say this though. It is my understanding that quantum fluctuations happen in part by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

Actually I WAS asking you! :-) Along with all other brilliant folk here!

I was thinking of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle as I posed my question.

If quantum fluctuations (space time foam, or whatever), come out of "nothing", (or emptiness/quantum vacuum), then is this in opposition to the idea that something less complex cannot creat something more complex?

I'm not a scientist but just wondering and learning here.... :-)

~dancer~

[_asbestosman]

If quantum fluctuations (space time foam, or whatever), come out of "nothing", (or emptiness/quantum vacuum), then is this in opposition to the idea that something less complex cannot creat something more complex?

Not necessarily, but again we have problems with what we mean by complexity. I would say that complexity as in thermodynamic entropy is easiliy obtained. So in that sense complexity is free (or increases in entropy are free). What isn't free is decreasing entropy in thermodynamics. However, the universe has entropy-reducing forces such as gravity. In a way I suppose that the potential energy of gravity is used up in this entropy-reduction.

I don't think the idea that something less complex cannot create something more complex is even scientific. I think it's roots are more in old religious apologetics and maybe philosophy. The idea seems to be connected to cause and ultimate causation.

The mathematics of entropy, on the other hand, explains why it take energy to remove entropy. This is sometimes confused with complexity, but in this case the energy is used to order the system in a specific way. It's true that ordering something in a specific way doesn't exactly come free. However, random pairs of particles appearing in a vacuum isn't exactly specified order. Thus it really can come free and isn't necessarily complexity as arguments against evolution mean the word complexity (not that ID ever defines complexity very well).