Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Natural Selection Bankrupt

I will not take you to Plato, Socrates, Decartes or others; but only I say this example:
If you see a house with a door, windows, a kitchen, a store, a bath room, w.c. and many other rooms, and with furniture, electric power, water pipes, and ventilation; can you say this has spontaneouly been built without any builder or owner? And in the court if the judge ask you this question, will you say to him: "All this house is part of undriven process, and all this furniture, electricity and water supply has come from choas!" ?

The universe and creatures including man are more complex than this house even.

eanassir
http://universeandquran.741.com
http://man-after-death.741.com

Houses are not known to be living systems which evolve. Evolution is known to create complexity; however, it's important to understand the complexity is not well-defined in science. "We know it when we see it" is not sufficient.

We also know that order can arise from disorder.

do you have any back up for these statements or did you just make them up on the spot? Link?

"do you have any back up for these statements or did you just make them up on the spot? Link? "

Since your statements were supported by copious references, I guess I should do likewise.

Statement 1:
"complexity is not well-defined"

Support from
http://www.santafe.edu/education/csss/csss05/papers/anastasiadis_et_al._cssssf05.pdf
"The first section discusses the ill-defined notion of complexity and describes the quantitative tools that we will use in an attempt to tie it down."

This is one quote among dozens (perhaps hundreds I could use). Why should you agree with SFI (santa fe institute): they are among the pre-eminent experts in the world on the subject of complexity. They are very highly networked and have access to thousands of people who don't actively work there INCLUDING every other place of note that also works on complexity. Conclusion: if the world's experts say that it's ill-defined, I think we can admit that it's ill-defined.

(Other source:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l152t928842k5052/
Bar-yam is a world expert at NECCSI and wrote 'complex dynamic systems')


Statement 2:
"Evolution is known to create complexity"
Support:
http://www.ulinkx.com/video/3997287

Support: genetic algorithms.

Statement 3:
"order can arise from disorder"

Support:
Stuart Kauffman, one of the leading researchers in the field, wrote a book called "The Origins of Order" that discusses some of these issues. It's important to understand that order like complexity is not precisely defined - and can mean different things in different contexts.
Unlike creationists who, in fact, look at an unknown situation and then start making a bunch of utterly asinine statements about what couldn't possible be true, Stuart K has actually researched the topic - intense review of the work of others AND his own biological and computer sim research.

Here is a review of the book that summarizes it nicely:
http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general...i=9780195079517

TFF,

Even though I disagree with you, I like your measured responses.

William Paley's "watchmaker analogy":

(a) The complex inner-workings of a Watch necessitates an intelligent designer.
(b) As with a Watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

Richard Dawkins (from the Blind Watchmaker):

"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics... "
"A deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution,... must already have been vastly complex in the first place... [which is] postulating organised complexity without offering an explanation."

This philosophical claim by a scientist who is known to be very poor at philosophy has been refuted. I will look for the link.

Once again, a scientist steps into a region he does not understand and makes a fool of himself. Many atheist scientists are embarrassed by Dawkins amateur armchair philosophy.

"Once again, a scientist steps into a region he does not understand and makes a fool of himself."
Can we say the same thing about a philosopher who tries to speak about reality?

"A deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution,... must already have been vastly complex in the first place... [which is] postulating organised complexity without offering an explanation."

What is wrong with his comment? From the standpoint of science, positing the existence of a god adds nothing to our understanding.