A thing be SO COMPLEX that it can only have arisen through random chance, and not design. DISCUSS?

Question

I'll put this same question in to "Science and Mathematics" as well as "Philosophy"

I'm not spamming, just interested in different views.

Sorry. "Can a thing ..."

Answer 1

As I mentioned in the Science & Math version of this question, this was answer #1000 for me. As I'd love some feedback on my answer, I am posting it here as well. I took some time on this one, not only because it was my 1000th answer, but it's also my first answer for 2007!

The wording of your question is really interesting! As worded, I believe the answer is NO. If the complexity of the designer is arbitrarily huge, then design can always explain some things that pure randomness cannot. That's precisely what makes "design" so problematic as an answer to *scientific* questions ... because the intelligence of the "designer" can be arbitrarily high (i.e. we can always imagine a designer more "complex" than the phenomenon in question), "design" can be used to explain ANYTHING ... and thus it explains NOTHING.

To put it another way, the point of an explanation, is to explain a complex thing in terms of simpler things. The "design" hypothesis does the opposite. It explains a complex thing in terms of something MORE complex (the designer). That's why it is a lousy explanation, and a cop out scientifically. That's why "design" always has to be the *last* resort as a scientific explanation.

The advocates of Intelligent Design ask your question in reverse: "can a thing be so complex that it can only have arisen through design, and not random chance?" The answer again is NO. And the problem there is the word "only". One explanation can be "better" than another ... but never eliminate the other. And yes it is possible that some levels of complexity are *better* explained by design than pure chance ... but it is first *vital* to really analyze whether the alternative is really "pure chance", before resorting to the cop-out answer, "design."

In other words, it is not necessarily a choice between pure "random chance" and "design." There are MANY things in nature that aid chance.

First we have to define "complex" ... i.e. quantify "complexity". There is an entire branch of science called "Complexity Theory" that addresses this from a mathematical point of view (basically an offshoot of Information Theory). (See source.)

Second, it's important to understand that there are *many* things in nature that have complexity, but have perfectly reasonable explanations that do not require an intelligent designer.

For example, a snowflake is incredibly complex ... but it is fully explained by the properties of water crystals that can be traced to the structure and properties of the water molecule.

Or the orbital resonance between Neptune and Pluto ... they orbit the sun with a ratio of *exactly* 2:3 (2 orbits of Neptune for every 3 orbits of Pluto). This would seem to be "intelligent design" at work ... or it can be explained by gravitational relationships between their orbits and the fact that all objects that were NOT in resonance have long since been cleared out through collisions, leaving only those objects with resonance. (The 1:2:4 ratio of the orbits of Jupiter's moons Ganymede, Europa, and Io, is another example.)

Third, it is important to avoid people who speak of processes like evolution as purely random. These people do not understand evolution. It has a random component (variation), but an equally important NON-random component (natural selection). I.e. the fact that nature lets advantageous traits propagate, and disadvantageous traits do less well, is NOT a random process ... but a relentless non-random process, that acts on the random process of genetic variation.

Fourth, and finally, another huge aid to randomness is TIME. Or more correctly, sheer numbers of attempts. For example, what are the odds of my rolling a pair of sixes with two dice? The answer is 1/36. It is a fairly unlikely event. But if I roll the dice 36 times, my odds go up dramatically. If I roll the dice 1000 times, my odds are very, very high ... in fact it is becomes extremely UNLIKELY that I will never roll a pair of sixes.

The same for any "random" process ... such as the chances of simple life emerging on some planet somewhere in the universe. It is not enough to say, "what are the odds of simple life occurring here in the 4.6 billion years the earth has been around?" ... we need to remember that there are literally trillions of planets in a universe that has been around for 14 billion years. That is an astronomical number of "rolls of the dice." To say that such a success MUST be the result of intelligent design, is like a lottery winner thinking it was "by design" that they won the lottery ... forgetting that the odds were pretty high that SOMEBODY would win the lottery.

So summary: It is not always a choice between pure "chance" and "design" ... there are many other processes (like natural selection, orbital resonance, properties of water molecules) that can produce complexity ... and these are neither just "chance" nor "design." And even if it is pure chance, a great deal of TIME can produce complex results.

Answer 2

It depends whose point of view we would adhere to see the truth. If we are talking about this puny little brain of ours whose capacity to intercept, process information and conclude this whole thing is a random process, yeah, why not it is a random process. Because the brain was at lost at the sea of complexity of truth. But if we are to adopt God's point view what appears to be random chance was actually a perfect design only a mind that of God capable of comprehending, sure, its an intelligent design. I go for God.

Answer 3

For the upteenth time, evolution is NOT random chance. It is a cumulative process of selection and replication. The answer is no, complexity through random chance is most prohibitively improbably.

Answer 4

26. Prostitutes consistently look like Julia Roberts or Jamie Lee Curtis. they have extreme priced clothing and great residences yet no pimps. they're pleasant with the shopkeepers of their neighbourhood who don`t thoughts in any respect what the girl does for a residing.

Answer 5

no, nothing is so complex that it must have had a creator, nor can anything be so simple that it can't have a creator.

Answer 6

NO-it has to have been designed!


THIS IS A Q & A==NOT A DEBATE OR DISCUSSION SITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 7

Those are my ex-husband's explanation for his lies.