Re: Order from chaos - according to New Mexicans for Science and Reason

See below....

Rich Blinne wrote:

>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>>Behalf Of Iain Strachan
>>Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 7:27 AM
>>To: asa@calvin.edu
>>Subject: Order from chaos - according to New Mexicans for Science and
>>Reason
>>
>>The skeptic website "New Mexicans for Science and Reason" give the
>>following web page to debunk creationist claims that order cannot
>>arise out of a random process:
>>
>>http://www.nmsr.org/digdudle.htm
>>
>>It describes how a complex fractal pattern, known as a *Sierpinski
>>gasket*, can arise from a random process plus a simple ordering rule.
>>A quickbasic program they give to produce the pattern is less than 400
>>keystrokes. They suggest you should send it to your creationist
>>friends and it will "drive them nuts", and furthermore that the
>>Sierpinski Gasket is the creationist's worst nightmare.
>>
>>
>
>This wins the battle but loses the war for the skeptics. The Achilles heal
>of the argument is the necessity of an ordering principle for order to come
>from so-called chaos.
>
Of course, another way of looking at this is not that the ordering
principle emerges from chaos, but that the ordering principle is ALREADY
present (i.e., intrinsic in the relatively small - make that tiny! -
number of physical forces/influences/tensions that are identifiable).
There are "rules" - gravity, electromagnetic, etc. Consequences WILL
flow from their presence. The working question is what those
consequences will look like, and whether the consequences will be
complex enough to explain all or most, and which parts (if not all) of
nature. The point of the Sierpinski demonstration (in this context) is
that a small number of simple "rules" [especially in the Sierpinski
case] can result in a very complex predetermined outcome without the
path to that result being dictated in its specifics. Drawing a
parallel, thinking of gravity et al as "rules", is at least one way to
get to the fully-endowed Creation notion in the limit.

>If you observe order coming from random processes,
>then you must conclude an ordering rule or principle. Under some
>circumstances such principles may also imply design! For example, natural
>selection is an ordering principle that does not imply design but
>abiogenesis most likely does. Because ID has focused mostly on how
>abiogenesis disproves evolution, the proof of design from abiogenesis is not
>fully worked out in my opinion. Nevertheless, I do think that such an
>argument is possible. I prefer so-called fine-tuning arguments over ID
>because they prove intelligent design better. It's not the goals of ID that
>I object to, it's their methods. It also makes for pretty easy "disproofs"
>of God's creation like what is stated above.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Feb 26 12:50:29 2005