Does complexity necessarily imply design?

Question

I see this reason used quite often for many things that fundies say could not occur without some intelligence 'designing' things.
There are many spectacularly complex things that are made everyday through completely natural processes:
hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes, snowflakes, ocean currents, fronts

None of these things require design, they occur because of natural phenomenon. So why is it such a stretch to think that things like DNA molecules, galaxies, and even our universe needed some intelligent hand to 'create' them?

And please don't give me the dr.dino DNA statistics. They are completely false, with no consideration of time or frequency.

abdulaziiz: That is a common fundie expression. Just because it is said a lot does not make it necessarily true. We have no way to calibrate how unique our universe is, or if it is one of an infinite number of the same thing.

zenbuddhamaster: There are millions of intelligent species on Earth. Humans are just the most opportunistic.

Answer 1

Interestingly, the "complexity necessitates design" argument can only be used to "prove" a polytheistic "infinite regression" of Gods: not a monotheistic religion. If complexity demands a "creator" that is more complex than the item "designed", then THAT thing must, by the same argument, have a creator, and so on.

The failure of monotheists in using the "complexity" argument is in applying the argument once, and then abruptly ceasing analysis while loudly shouting "but nothing created him: he's always been there: read the book: he loves you: don't you get it? Believe or you're going to Hell..."

Answer 2

First i am neither atheist or christian:

No, it does not at all... However religious radicals and a few others will say yes it does.. they have to say that. Why do they have to say that? Because if they say no.. that means that there may be a small possibility that we actually did evolve and that genesis (which was re-written by moses from the hermes trismestigus) may not be the full story.

Creationism, just like chaos theory and evolution are just that - THEORIES. there is absolutely NO scientific or theological data to positively proove either side. Many will say the bible is all the proof they need.. then there is the argument for evolutionists that dna is all the proof they need.. vicious circle.

It all depends on how you look at it.. to the person about the tornado and the airplane... for instance a tornado rushes through and twists 100 objects together to create a very complex object, to an artist they would state the creation from the tornado was the most beautiful work of art known to man. To a religious person they would call it destruction (and possibly for sinners in the area? who knows what rationale they give). Being objective is a good trait.. so is not relying on magical powers (but believing in magic is a sin.. right? lol)

One could even argue, since it states in the bible that atrology and stargazing is an evil thing.. that the complexity of the stars gives meaning to life. But does it? Because the stars are complex and grouped in such a way.. god did it right? Then why would it be a sin to gaze upon them? Interesting indeed. I am sure i will get a funny and slightly skewed answer to that lol

As for the person underneath me in answers states: "Meaning systems that if you remove any one part would completely fall apart." - well, we can live with out a gallbladder, appendix, etc..

As for the person with the five fingers, five petals, etc... why is a cell round? Because god made it round? Well, particles are configured for energy efficiency. And things change to adapt for environment. You could argue, god made it that way on purpose, or you could choose to follow Ockam's razor. Again, it all depends on how you look at it.

Answer 3

Yes I agree the things you mentioned appear to be complex but they pale in comparison to DNA. In fact, the majority of things you mentioned occur simply from unbalanced forces explained entirely from a Newtonian physics (simple physics) perspective.

DNA is an entirely different animal that should not be juxtaposed to these phenomenon.

Though you make a valid point when you say complexity doesn't automatically provide evidence for common design. The problem is with the irreducibly complex systems. Meaning systems that if you remove any one part would completely fall apart. This is very apparent in many functions of cells on the microbiological level. But I've seen much better macro examples of it throughout nature. I remember watching this documentary of a plant that actually lured then trapped a fertilizing insect in a pool of collected water, then let the poor guy out only through a little door that contained it's seed. Now you can try to tell me that well given enough time and mutations it could evolve into something like that, but I'd have to laugh because there's no logical course of events that would make a plant develop into something that clever. You could also site other examples of clever plants such as the venus fly trap (simpler situation but it will do) but you'd only be furthering my proof of intelligent design.

Answer 4

The answer to this question is not a justification for believing or not believing in a supreme being.

Obviously, things would not exist if they did not develop or were not created, whatever your thoughts are, in the way that they are. Science will never prove that there is not a God. Religion will never prove that there is a God.

Whether you believe that God created all the elements in just the right quantities and exposed them to the vacuum or you believe that everything exists as a result of nature's trial and error process, it is obvious that something besides nothing always existed.

Your arrival at your belief, if you arrive, of what that something was will be the result of something other than science or organized religion.

A wise man would live a good life just in case.

Answer 5

No real proof. Just men sitting together basing facts and theories on the best sounding idea from people who weren't there to begin with! Man has trouble understanding the little things in life and thinks he can explain this? Some people just can't stand thinking there is not a HUMAN answer for everything. Go ahead; make yourself feel good with the big-bang theory if that makes you all warm and fuzzy feeling like you have an answer.

Answer 6

Nearly all biological molecules must be homochiral (all molecules having the same handedness. Another term used is optically pure or 100% optically active) to function. All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.

A 50/50 mixture of left and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, rather, they would have the side chains sticking out all over the place. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing a-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a small proportion of the wrong-handed form was present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life.

Synthesis of chiral compounds from achiral reagents always yields the racemic modification.
Optically inactive reagents yield optically inactive products.

Life was designed without question in this context.

Answer 7

The second law of thermodynamics ensures that in any permeable system (ie: generally isolated but receiving energy from an outside source without in return affecting that source -- Earth and the Sun, for example), order in the permeable system will increase in less than proportion to the energy received, so long as some portion of the energy received is high-density (EM, kinetic, etc) and not strictly thermal (which is purely entropic energy).

For example. You mix some sugar and water and dissolve. You then allow the water to evaporate. Converting liquid to gas (evaporation) is highly entropic. Converting the dissolved sugar to crystals is slightly anti-entropic (chaotic to ordered). Thus, the sum net effect is a gain of global entropy (water->water vapor), despite the localized decrease in entropy (dissolved sugar->sugar crystalline lattice).

Answer 8

It depends on the kind of complexity and the ammount of that complexity. Here's an example:

I see five stones on the ground in a pile, with four round stones as the base and a squareish stone as the top. Is that complex? Yes. does it require design? No, they could have just fallen like that.

Now, I have 25 piles of five stones, all of them arranged so that there are four round stones as the base and a squarish or jagged one as the top, with the four base stones in exactly the four cardnal compas directions. Does that require design? Sure sounds like it to me! Someone is going to look at them and say, "But they aren't in a straight line. If they were in a straight line, I'd think they were on purpose." But I'm not going to take him seriously.

I didn't pick the number 5 by accident. Think of how many times and places the number five occurs in nature: five petals on most flowers, five arms on most star fish, five fingers on our hand, five planets visible to the naked eye from earth, etc. To me, that implies design.

Answer 9

Necessarily? No. Simpler explanation? Yes.
The real question is why we imagine that we can understand every complex thing we see in our world. We can't. Knowledge is never complete- only workable.
Or not.
Note to Zenbuddha: When intelligence dictates where intelligence can or can't come from isn't that A) circular reasoning and B) ego?

Answer 10

according to probability you will desire to have risk-free the "not" on your question, so as that it suitable examine: "whilst will believers study that complexity would not mean layout?" :) I even have little desire for the ignorant and the closed-minded. those are people who seem on the sundown and think of, "oh, goodness, god created this basically for me to work out!" Their theory procedures have been so whacked by potential of religious dogma that many are thoroughly incapable of logical theory or reason. in spite of each and everything, their beginning ingredient is believing in a magic sky-fairy who gives you desires and provides a magnificent life after loss of life in case you will in simple terms stick to a gaggle of stupid, historical regulations that make no sense in besides...