DNAunion: In reply to FMAJ's "Re: Human Designers vs. God-as-Designer" reply
posted 10/15/2000.
>>Ccogan: No. I'm not implying that that one fact validates evolution. I'm
pointing out that matter has nothing against being organized in complex
ways.
>> DNAunion: Actually it does: entropy. (Yes, localized decreases in entropy
are possible, but only at the expense of equal or greater increases in
entropy elsewhere: and the general rule is that the randomness and disorder
of a system tends to increase naturally). The problem with your statement is
that you incorrectly state that "matter has *nothing* against being
organized in complex ways." This is wrong.
>>FMAJ: Nothing in the SLOT prevents matter becoming more organized.
DNAunion: Well, except for the natural tendency of systems to go from states
of order to states of greater disorder. Matter *does* have something that
works against its being organized in complex ways. Of course, entropy can be
"circumvented" - the flow of matter and/or energy through a system can
generate local increases in order, for example, but that does not mean that
matter has *nothing* working against its becoming organized in complex ways.
>>FMAJ: Sure, a local decrease in entropy needs to be offset by an increase
in entropy elsewhere but does this apply to matter or to energy?
DNAunion: I may not understand your question, but a flow of matter/energy
through a system can "overcome" the local natural tendency towards disorder.
>>Ccogan: Thus, the question arises: Might not some small bits of it become
complex through natural, material processes not involving design?
>>DNAunion: Sure, matter can become *ordered* without design: the birth of
stars, the spontaneous formation of vortices when water is let out of a
drain, clouds forming from dispersed water droplets, etc. But these examples
of order forming do not deal with specific complexity arising by purely
natural means, and specified complexity is one of the main properties of all
life.
>>FMAJ: So show how specified complexity cannot be formed by evolutionary
pathways?
DNAunion: I already gave a general example: the latest issue of "Origins of
Life and Evolution of the Biosphere".
Now, if I could give honest-to-goodness, verifiable, valid examples from
biology - and fully back them up in excruitiating detail - then we probably
wouldn't be having this discussion at all as ID would have catapulted up in
scientific credibility. Since ID has not made the leap, I feel it safe to
conclude that no IDist has yet been able to create an airtight case for
specified complexity's not being able to arise by natural processes
("airtight" being required for IDists).
>>FMAJ: [more on Wesley's argument]
[...]
>>Ccogan: Only when selection is introduced as an integral aspect of what is
being considered do we get limitations, and they depend on what kind of
selection there is and how much of it there is.
>> DNAunion: So selection is the "enemy" of the natural creation of
high-degree complexity? Perhaps you could tell this to Darwinians.
>>FMAJ: Are you sure that this is what Ccogan actually said?
DNAunion: Taking this together with his later statements, it surely seems
like that is what he is stating. Concerning the above statement, when do
limitations in the generation of high-degrees of complexity appear? *ONLY*
when selection is involved.
> >Ccogan: Here's the idea stated as a general principle:
If the variations are within certain limits and are sufficiently nearly
random or otherwise exhaustive of possibilities as time goes on, and if
selection does not *prevent* the development of a particular degree and/or
kind of complexity, then, given sufficient time, that particular degree
and/or kind of complexity *will* occur, with nearly absolute
certainty(approaching 1 as time approaches infinity).
>>DNAunion: This sounds like a quote that should have references (we all need
to be careful of plagiarism).
>>FMAJ: Are you suggesting that this was an example of plagiarism? Based on
what evidence?
DNAunion: I am not charging him with plagiarism: it is more of a
warning/reminder that if he is quoting from material he needs to remember to
provide references. The fact that he prefaces the statements of a following
paragraph with "Here's the idea stated as a general principle" *suggests*
(but does not force one to conclude) that he is quoting someone: it could
even be himself that he is quoting.
[...]
>>Ccogan: In the real world, selection *does* severely limit what can be
produced,
>> DNAunion: I think that some/many/most evolutionists would disagree with
the idea that selection *hinders* the creation of (high-degree) complexity.
>>FMAJ: Is that what Ccogan said?
DNAunion: Again, taken together with his earlier statement, it sure seems to
me like that is what he is saying. In relation to selection, he once
states/quotes that it only selection causes limitations and then that
selection *does* limit SEVERELY the complexity that can be produced.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 10:38:01 EDT