Re: [asa] Random Design

Cool cauliflower! I hadn't ever noticed the fractal appearance of that.

One of my favorite physical examples of "design" from "randomness" is
the snow flake. Most creationists are not willing to think of God
personally hand designing each crystal, so they can then allow for
secondary causes in this case. And I heard it beautifully explained.
As a flake falls (or rises) through various temperature layers of air
the water molecules of that layer have a slightly altered rate of
accretion onto the crystal giving the addition at that point its own
peculiar & symmetrical (since the whole flake is in the same layer)
characteristic. Since no two flakes are likely to see all the same
layers in the exact same sequence and time, it isn't likely any two
flakes would develop the same way. It is an excellent example of
randomness within constraints. Order from chaos (with the requisite
energy input). It is a good way to help a YEC get past the abuse of
the second law. (Thanks for pointing out the list of "arguments
creationists should stop using", Burgy. It is particularly useful since
it comes from a YEC site -- in other words, a "trusted source" for those
who feel everything else to be bastions of conspiracy. --I plan on
pointing a few students to that source.)

--Merv

Jim Armstrong wrote:
> Mathematical? Well, to an extent, and yet here is my favorite example
> of a beautifully (but not infinitely) fractal vegetable, a Romanesco
> cauliflower (or broccoli) <http://www.fourmilab.ch/images/Romanesco/>.
> JimA [Friend of ASA]
>
> Jon Tandy wrote:
>> True, I guess I'm thinking of fractals as mathematical models for real
>> things, but I think it also applies as a mathematical or statistical model.
>>
>> >From Wikipedia (Fractal):
>> "Because they appear similar at all levels of magnification, fractals are
>> often considered to be infinitely complex (in informal terms). Natural
>> objects that approximate fractals to a degree include clouds, mountain
>> ranges, lightning bolts, coastlines, and snow flakes. "
>>
>> The argument goes (in informal terms), "this thing appears extremely
>> complex, so therefore it must have been designed". But fractal designs
>> aren't explicitly designed structures. It is true that there are underlying
>> rules or techniques by which fractals of various designs are constructed,
>> but the process of actually creating it is based on random or deterministic
>> processes that have no further inherent design involved. This might be
>> analogous to "intelligent design" inherent in nature, which leads to vast
>> complexity through natural ("random") processes with limited or no further
>> intervention.
>>
>> And the real things that fractals are used to model, such as coastlines, are
>> in many cases formed by a set or series of random processes. Again this
>> comes back to what is the definition of "complex", which seems to be rather
>> subjective. I also failed to take into account the ID concept of
>> "irreducible complexity", which they might hold as not having any
>> applicability to simply "complex" structures as I've suggested.
>>
>> Jon Tandy
>>
>>
>>
>> As I understand it, a fractal is not a physical thing but a visual of a
>> mathematical equation. You could say the same for cones and other things
>> that can be mathematically-visually graphed...?
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 8 18:53:47 2008