>There has been much talk about biological irreducibly complex systems on these
>lists of late. Let me through this out.
>
[ommitted much talk about biological irreducibly complex systems] :)
>
>What this proves to me is that the design people are absolutely correct. This
>extremely complex economy was designed by some one. It is irreducibly complex;
>remove one part and the whole crumbles. There is absolutely no way that the
>economy could have arisen gradually from a simple hunter-gatherer society.
>
>Now we just need to decide who did the designing.
>
This is a very interesting example. Glenn, can I assume that your
conclusion is stated tongue in cheek, or am I sarcasm impaired :)?
It seems to me that you've given an example of an irreducibly complex
system that is clearly not designed in the way design is used by anyone
on this reflector, whether they be special creationist, progressive creationist,
theistic evolutionist, or evolutionary creationist.
Hopefully this won't need too much elaboration. It seems pretty clear that
our economy wasn't created from nothing, it has a long history with many
contingencies. It also seems clear that there was no individual or committee
overseeing the economy and intervening at crucial moments to guarantee
its form in the present. Sure, there are some who may claim they are doing
this, but they're just fooling themselves. The interventions are just guesses
and often produce exactly the opposite of what was planned. Finally, it also
seems clear that there was no individual or committee who designed the "laws"
of economics, foreseeing the consequences of those laws through history
to our present economy.
There is an interesting twist on the usual state of affairs in the above.
Normally we want to argue that complex things are designed. The more
complex, the more likely design. Yet the last two conclusions above are
arrived at from the observation that the economy is *too* complex to have
been designed. The long term consequences of individual actions are
unpredictable.
It is along these same lines that I would conclude that Chuck Warman's
objection misses the point of the example. Chuck wrote:
It's an entertaining post, Glenn, but there's a sticking point (for me,
anyway): even though we can't say specifically who did the designing, we
know *with certainty* that without intelligent input, the economy would not
have occurred. -- CW
True, there are intelligent agents, but they are part of the system itself.
There is no intelligent input from outside the system, as would be needed
to make the analogy with PC. Also, the intelligent agents are not generally
interested in the global dynamics of the system but rather localized effects
(e.g. personal profit).
Great example Glenn !
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |