Argument from complexity and evolution

The argument from complexity is a common argument for God, and one that has been discussed to no end in this forum and others. I'd like to take a closer look at one part of the argument (and hope, possibly in vain, that it will stay there).

Evolution is not the polar opposite of religion, yet some religious groups have decided to debate evolution and I think it's safe to say that the reason for that is that evolution supplies a feasible explanation, void of God, to the existence of several different species and the presence of complexity.

Now, I'd like to add an observation that might not be stunning, but one that I have not seen elsewhere. The only objects that show complexity are those that could experience evolution. We see no complex rock structures, except for things like Stonehenge, which is quite crude and yet everyone agrees it's man made. How come a creator decided that humans, animals, plants, viruses and so on deserved complexity, whereas he gave little thought to stones, rocks, geographic landscapes and so on?

So, long story short, how does creation theories and proponents of the argument from complexity account for the fact that only evolvable objects display advanced complexity?

 

To comprehend that the 'energy' is 'evolving' rather than the 'rock' (atoms) themselves.


ie... to give of your energy to combine with another life (selfless), that other life can live longer and overall support the total

"Life" itself as the energy upon that mass (the soul) is what can combine the understanding of both disciplines.

 

The Grand Canon is pretty complex.

 

I did think these kinds of answers would appear, and to some extent, I guess you are correct. I did add "advanced complexity" to try and get around that issue, but I suppose I should have written "complexity so advanced that people argue that it cannot have formed by other processes than design". As much as I guess someone could have designed the Grand Canyon, nobody really thinks that (or at least doesn't plausibly argue that) it's so complex that it can't have been formed by rivers tearing away at the river bed (unless I'm mistaken).

 

If you take the “crude” definition of evolution you come up with “Change over time”. All things on this planet adheres to that. Including rocks and so forth. Also, there are ecosystems out here that are ridiculously complex. Here is the crystal caves in Mexico… http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/photogalleries/giant-crystals-cave/index.html

This whole planet is filled with diverse complexity.

 

To you and I, yes water created the Grand Canyon. Then again we would both agree The Earth is 4.55 billion years old. Some believe the world is only 6,000 years old. Is that enough time for the creation of the canyon via water?

 

Seven Natural Wonders of the World…. http://sevennaturalwonders.org/the-original Good place to start!

 

Valid point, I suppose. I think arguing with those people might require another starting point. Remind me, is there anything but the Bible that indicates that?

 

Not to my knowledge.

 

The age of the Earth is not in the Bible... The age of 6000 years is a guess...

 

Now, there are several things here. I can appreciate that to an untrained eye, the Aurora Borealis seems wonderful, but even so, we know how it works and it's hardly complex. The arguments from design and arguments from complexity are similar but one is a subset of the other, and all I discuss here is complexity. I'm considering putting up another one on the rest, but we'll see.

Grand Canyon, hardly complex. Paricutin, hardly complex. Victoria falls, hardly complex. Mount Everest, hardly complex. Great barrier reef, complex, but once alive and therefore supports my observation. Harbor of Rio, hardly complex.

Many of the wonders are just really large things, which probably comes off the fact that humans are relatively small. If the Grand Canyon was a track in your summer beach, it wouldn't be a wonder. If the human eye was 1000 times smaller than it is, it'd be an even greater wonder than the human eye (if you pardon my wording).

I suppose complexity should be a little more well defined, but as a rule of thumb, some creationists talk about the purpose of things, the eyelids exist _because_ we _need_ to see. None of the wonders, with the exception of the coral reef, have that. Of course, the Grand Canyon exists _because_ the water flowed there, but the water didn't flow _because_ the Grand Canyon _needed_ to be formed, there is no "aimed" purpose. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, but I hope you see what I mean.

 

I understand, but cannot argue for Creationist nor their side… I never knew they said we have an eye because we needed one… That’s ridiculous… We don’t “need” eyes, God has all kinds of options at His/Her disposal… Eyes are not needed…

What about the Crystal structure I linked! That’s pretty amazing and complex… Underwater ducts where fresh water is on top of salt water to make a lake inside a lake… also sustaining two completely different ecosystems to boot.

I can only post what I know about the Earth, and I might need to let this one go to someone who is a Creationist that has all their points…

 

I've often pointed out that designed systems tend to be fairly simple at some level, whereas biological systems look like exactly what you'd expect from something built by random guesses refined through trial and error.

 

I understand. Feel free to discuss on, though, I'll not hold it against you or creationism should the argument derail from their beliefs. I just want to ventilate some ideas.

True. I'll get to this together with the crystals

Sorry I missed your link, I'll amend it to the end of the post.

I suppose "evolution" refers to the theory of evolution in this case. Hopefully, there aren't more than one of those.

I think the problem here is with my definition of complexity. I defend myself with the notion that I'm stealing the other side's so that's the one that's poorly defined =) (I hate myself for using smilies, I was just afraid the slight irony would be missed and that it just sounded like a bad excuse instead). But to fix that, I think it lends more clarity to introduce some form of entropy. After all, there are many possible constellations of crystals that would be classified as a crystal cave, and a pretty spectacular one at that, and there are not an similarly large number of constellations of cells that will bring a functioning eye. This can also be seen in the crystal caves, while there is an interesting pattern in how each and every one of the forms (which is understood with natural means) they seem to be shoved haphazardly into the cave (should one assume creation).

This is not so much an argument for evolution as it is against the argument from complexity. It doesn't matter to me if evolution as we know it happens to be false but that there is another similar process (similarly natural) that happens to give the same evidence, because that solution would also account for this observation of complexity (to the extent it exists), and I'm wondering why creationism does not, or rather, how it does, since I can't see it.

 

crystals are a growth

an evolving process

i tell anyone, "watch for the 'golden ratio' to show itself upon an evolving process."

but there are......

Darwin didnt use the word "evolution" anywhere in his book (on the origins of species). But the concept of 'evolution' is present in most everything natural or even unnatural (the building of an airplane)

But the easiest method of comprehending an 'evolution of knowledge'. Knowledge evolves over time and words are how mankind can articulate the concepts. For example; evolution and darwin. The ideologies as defined in "words" are not used by him, but people have combined the material information to lead the 'evolution' of the ideology together and make ONE; a greater understanding than before (evolution of knowledge). Darwin as a word is synonamous to 'evolution' but the concepts are not combined in process by him.

a fine concept objective thinking with self awareness and disclosure of purpose

But i did answer the argument; "knowledge evolves" so the complexity can be simplified with 'the word' having meanings to complexities/diversions, in isolated 'properties' of the subsequent whole.

ie... to a bible thumper they may claim, 'the trinity of 3 is the ONE', As again the combining of identifying capabilities (phenomenon), into a single omnipotent being. It makes the current understanding of 'god' an evolution from the previous understandings, when broken down to the single properties that evolved together.

 

Snowflakes....

Quite complex in shape. There must be an angel sitting on a cloud somewhere designing them...

Geodes... Giant one like in Naica

http://www.stormchaser.ca/caves/naica/naica.html

Seems simple in their composition but looks can be deceiving. It takes the right amount of so many condition to achieve this result.

But the funny thing, is that I've been studying art for the last two weeks. I'm trying to teach myself how to draw. What is a common theme in all the book that I've read so far (about is the presence of one form or another of the Fibonnaci number suite in nature. From the disposition of polen or petals in flower to many other examples.

Who knew nature could do maths

 

The problem is in the timeline that is presented in Genesis where light is concerned; even if these periods in creation were not actual days but epochs....

In the first epoch (if you will), God created the heaven and earth.... Along with this he created light and darkness.....

It wasn't until the 3rd day or epoch that God created the greater and lesser light (sun and moon) along with the stars......


Now, if this timeline is supposed to represent the creation of the universe, we find quite the anomaly where visible light is concerned......

If we are able to see a galaxy that is 13+ billion light years away, we are observing light that predates the earth by nearly 9 billion years.

If the creation story that is depicted in Genesis is in fact true, we are left to believe that God instilled much question and doubt into the intellectual mind by creating light that contradicts the physical nature of what is being observed......
How then, could God fault the mind for having such doubt or question?

If we are to believe that God is a highly intelligent being, why would he leave such gaping holes in the offering of thought concerning our existence and the possibility of God being it's creator, which comes from the intellect itself?

 

An omniscient God would certainly understand the doubt that would result in such an offering, that doubt coming from the observing mind...... What purpose would he have in creating such doubt, and more importantly; why create it within the arena of intellect?

 

Genesis is more about the creation of a nation then of the whole world, hence the time it takes to describe the land and the rivers that border it.

 

Genesis 2
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Perhaps we are reading a different Genesis, the references to the LORD God in what has been done and performed are numerous.....

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Genesis 2

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

 

Are we to believe that Genesis is metaphorical in writing just because it doesn't line up with current knowledge?

slippery slope!

 

Dop you know what a metaphore is?

 

Nope. We know it is metaphorical because the jews, who are the original author of it say it is... All the torah (old testament) text are metaphorical in nature and used to teach the underlying morals and code of conduct that the believer should follow. Every religion is like that.

Hell, do you really think there was a Giant holding the earth on his shoulder during the apogee of the Greek civilisation?

 

Funny, the jews are still waiting around for their savior, perhaps they have misunderstood the metaphor?

 

So are the christian and muslim... What is your point?

And beside, even a metaphorical story can be deemed prophetic, just like Jules Verne or any other scifi novel were.