Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Lack of explanation doesn't mean none possible

Pepper Adams responded to my article, “Intelligent Design without a Creator,” with a few arguments:

“One example of a natural phenomenon that exhibits order is a snowflake. What you cannot get from nature ANYWHERE is an example of how extreme order and information can be generated by nature. Nature can give you a waterfall but nature cannot give you a hydroelectric plant ... Nature can give you a cloud but nature will not use the clouds to spell out ‘See Rock City.’”

There are several flaws in this argument. (1) Extreme Order and Information is found everywhere in nature: the structure of an atom, the structure of a galaxy and so on certainly rival the structure of a hydroelectric plant. (Information Theory is that branch of mathematics that describes the flow of information in natural systems.)

(2) The mind can use clouds to spell out “See Rock City.” The mind, a product of evolution, is ultimately based on nature. (The task for biologists and psychologists is to follow this chain to its origin.

There is a false premise which underlies most arguments put forth by creationists and others who reject natural principles as mechanisms for as yet unexplained things: You haven’t as yet created a DNA molecule, therefore you can’t; you haven’t as yet explained the complexity of life, therefore you can’t; and you haven’t as yet explained the workings of the mind, therefore you can’t.

This sounds silly as stated, but this kind of argument is the only basis for Irreducible Complexity introduced by Michael Behe. (Yale biologist Robert Dorit identifies six fallacies that plague Behe’s book.)

John Lawler responded: “You said that ‘initial constraints plus randomness can, and does, create elaborate, intelligent designs.’ From whence do these initial constraints originate?”

Finally, an interesting question! Many folks are now investigating the origin of “initial constraints” that may explain the complexity we see around us. This investigation had to wait the development of computers before any real progress could be made.

A bit of history: Euclid’s Elements, a compendium of geometry and number theory, was the cornerstone of “clear thought” for two millennia. Its propositions let you measure the size of your patio and the distance to the moon. But, it could not describe the outline of a cloud or of a mountain.

The rise of non-Euclidean geometry didn’t help much. Now, you could count the corners of a 24-dimensional cube or describe perspective precisely, but you still couldn’t describe a cloud or coastline very well.

Physicists and mathematicians ignored this problem of fragmented structures for a couple of centuries for lack of any means to address that problem. In 1975, fractal geometry was created by Benoit Mandelbrot; this branch of geometry, now taught at the high school level, can describe clouds and meandering rivers very well.

But, more is needed: A theory of complexity. Stephen Wolfram, at age 23, set out on a quest for a theory that could explain complexity wherever it is found, in atoms, stars, or biological systems.

Yes, the central question is what are the initial constraints that govern and explain extreme complexity. simplistic quotes from the Bible won’t do, but a rich enough mathematics may.

Van Edwards raises another intriguing question: “Is creation possible without a Creator? I’d say that the answer is emphatically, No.”

Well, not so fast, Mr. Edwards. Does God have a creator, or does God exist without any prior initial constraints? You can presuppose the eternal existence of God or that of the universe as is.

How can one decide between these two possibilities. Why is a creator necessary? Because of the “complexity” of the universe? Well, wouldn’t you say that God is just as complex, and therefore must need a creator?

These kinds of questions can be formalized in another context where mathematicians ask how complex is complexity itself and can give a few answers.

Final comments: Most creationists would assert: Intelligent Design is real; God is omnipotent in intelligence; and God makes no mistakes in the design of the world. (Do I have this more, or less, right?)

Then, why is the human genome such a mess? It is poorly designed and rather chaotic in structure; most of its structure is useless and nonfunctional. Likewise, the human brain is an engineering mess. These and other biological systems would indicate a lot of randomness during construction, not the guiding hand of an omnipotent designer.

Peter Duran

Fayetteville, Ga.