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

Iain,

In general, I'm sympathetic with these arguments. See Loren Haarsma's
and my chapter in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation entitled
"Complexity, Self-Complexity, and Design".

In my presentations "against" ID I mention two methods of producing
"irreducibly complex" structures by some kind of natural evolutionary
process (not necessarily Darwinian): pre-adaptation (or exaptation or
coopting or whatever you want to call it) and self-organization.

As a theist, who is ultimately a creationist, I affirm that the
"laws" of complexity and self-organization are created "laws" just
like all other regularities of nature. As with other laws, the
atheist argues that that is just the way the world is--i.e. there is
no creator, sustainer God who gives the universe its behaviors and
properties. To the atheist there is no need to explain where these
laws come from.

But this is the great debate and science doesn't solve it. Science
can be built on either foundation: this is the way things are, period
or God made things to have these properties. Either way, however, the
world works the same for the atheist and the theist, thus we can
teach and practice the same science.

The questions of *ultimate* behavior, purpose, and meaning is a
theological question. And this is where I think the debate should
occur--at the philosophical/theological level and NOT about the
science. Let the scientists wrangle about the details, but when they
step over the line and start doing theology and philosophy, we need
to call them to task.

TG

>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.
>
>Without revealing what I think of the argument, I'd be interested to
>hear from list members of different persuasions what they think of the
>argument presented by NMSR.
>
>If you're a creationist or ID person, how would you debunk this
>argument? On the face of it, randomness and an ordering rule produce
>order out of chaos, akin to random mutation plus natural selection.
>
>If you're a TE, or otherwise, do you think this is a convincing
>argument that can be used against creationism/ID?
>
>If you're Vernon, you'll no doubt be amused to see that the N=1
>Sierpinski gasket appears to be identical to your triangle-in-triangle
>pattern from the Genesis 1:1 numerics!
>
>[ Aside. A very cute way to produce Sierpinski Gasket patterns is
>from Pascal's triangle, which can be found on the Java applet at this
>page: http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~btk/Pascal/ . Unfortunately
>this does not involve random processes so cannot be used to argue
>against creationists].
>
>Iain Strachan
>
>--
>-----------
>There are 3 types of people in the world.
>Those who can count and those who can't.
>-----------

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801