Complexity Improbability and Design

[Furrowed Brow]

In the debate Winning Life’s Lotteries 4gold made the following point:

Complexity is special because it is a method by which we use to determine whether a phenomenon is random or designed.

Question 1: Is it too improbable to believe that some complex natural phenomena do not require a designer?

Question 2: Are improbability and complexity two measures by which we can validly conclude a designer.

[4gold]

Question 1: Is it too improbable to believe that some complex natural phenomena do not require a designer?

Absolutely not! Humans are the most complex natural phenomena that we have observed so far. But unless you believe that God, and not DNA, creates humans, you are forced to believe that humans are the creation of whatever the human DNA is programmed to produce. I believe most Christians believe that God uses DNA to create humans, but they do not argue that God directly intervenes to create each human. Human reproduction is left to natural processes without divine intervention.

The one exception I can think of to this rule would be the Virgin Birth.

Question 2: Are improbability and complexity two measures by which we can validly conclude a designer.

I believe that improbability and complexity are two valid measures by which we can determine if something is designed or random.

Take a human baby, for example. It is highly complex, yet very probable. The odds of it having black skin, if both parents are black, is highly probable. We've verified this through Mendelian inheritance.

Now, suppose we have a mutant baby. Two black parents produce a white child. Let's assume that the white skin was not a recessive gene, but an actual mutation in the DNA. Now we have a complex feature (skin color) that is highly improbable.

With such a complex and improbable event occurring (different skin color from parents), I think it is very reasonable to ask ourselves if this mutation was random or designed. What caused the RNA to bring back the "wrong" nucleotide? Was the event truly random?

I do not see why this is an invalid question to ask ourselves.

[Undertow]

Question 1: Is it too improbable to believe that some complex natural phenomena do not require a designer?

Absolutely not! Humans are the most complex natural phenomena that we have observed so far. But unless you believe that God, and not DNA, creates humans, you are forced to believe that humans are the creation of whatever the human DNA is programmed to produce. I believe most Christians believe that God uses DNA to create humans, but they do not argue that God directly intervenes to create each human. Human reproduction is left to natural processes without divine intervention.

The one exception I can think of to this rule would be the Virgin Birth.

Question 2: Are improbability and complexity two measures by which we can validly conclude a designer.

I believe that improbability and complexity are two valid measures by which we can determine if something is designed or random.

Take a human baby, for example. It is highly complex, yet very probable. The odds of it having black skin, if both parents are black, is highly probable. We've verified this through Mendelian inheritance.

Now, suppose we have a mutant baby. Two black parents produce a white child. Let's assume that the white skin was not a recessive gene, but an actual mutation in the DNA. Now we have a complex feature (skin color) that is highly improbable.

With such a complex and improbable event occurring (different skin color from parents), I think it is very reasonable to ask ourselves if this mutation was random or designed. What caused the RNA to bring back the "wrong" nucleotide? Was the event truly random?

I do not see why this is an invalid question to ask ourselves.

Reasonable to ask, impossible to answer. Well, unless the supposed designer tells us.

The thing is, one person will look at life and it's complexity with knowlege of evolution and the notion of a designer and say 'I think that it was possible for evolution to produce this complexity via purely natural means.' Another may say 'I think it was possible for evolution to do this but I think god guided it.' And another will say 'It's not possible for evolution to have done this so my god must have.'

The first has the backing of evidence in terms of fossils etc, yet the 'purely natural' part is impossible to tell. Likewise, the second has the backing of a sound theory and it's evidence yet the 'I think god guided it' part is impossible to tell (and in this case, outside the jurisdiction of science). The final person does not have the backing of science and evidence (sorry creationists) although they would like to think they do and the 'my god must have' part is contradicted by evidence of the process of evolution actually having occured.

Whether it occured naturally or via a guiding supernatural entity is impossible to tell.

[4gold]

Reasonable to ask, impossible to answer. Well, unless the supposed designer tells us.

The thing is, one person will look at life and it's complexity with knowlege of evolution and the notion of a designer and say 'I think that it was possible for evolution to produce this complexity via purely natural means.' Another may say 'I think it was possible for evolution to do this but I think god guided it.' And another will say 'It's not possible for evolution to have done this so my god must have.'

The first has the backing of evidence in terms of fossils etc, yet the 'purely natural' part is impossible to tell. Likewise, the second has the backing of a sound theory and it's evidence yet the 'I think god guided it' part is impossible to tell (and in this case, outside the jurisdiction of science). The final person does not have the backing of science and evidence (sorry creationists) although they would like to think they do and the 'my god must have' part is contradicted by evidence of the process of evolution actually having occured.

Whether it occured naturally or via a guiding supernatural entity is impossible to tell.

It is impossible to prove or disprove whether something was occurred randomly or was designed, I agree.

But it is proper to give good reasons for either conclusion. The random vs. design argument hinges on the probabilities of expected outcomes. As FurrowedBrow properly points out, just because something is improbable, it does not imply a designer. If I were to flip a coin 100 times and heads comes up every time, you might reasonably wonder if I used a coin designed with two heads, but it does not necessarily mean the coin is necessarily designed with two heads.

[Goat]

Reasonable to ask, impossible to answer. Well, unless the supposed designer tells us.

The thing is, one person will look at life and it's complexity with knowlege of evolution and the notion of a designer and say 'I think that it was possible for evolution to produce this complexity via purely natural means.' Another may say 'I think it was possible for evolution to do this but I think god guided it.' And another will say 'It's not possible for evolution to have done this so my god must have.'

The first has the backing of evidence in terms of fossils etc, yet the 'purely natural' part is impossible to tell. Likewise, the second has the backing of a sound theory and it's evidence yet the 'I think god guided it' part is impossible to tell (and in this case, outside the jurisdiction of science). The final person does not have the backing of science and evidence (sorry creationists) although they would like to think they do and the 'my god must have' part is contradicted by evidence of the process of evolution actually having occured.

Whether it occured naturally or via a guiding supernatural entity is impossible to tell.

It is impossible to prove or disprove whether something was occurred randomly or was designed, I agree.

But it is proper to give good reasons for either conclusion. The random vs. design argument hinges on the probabilities of expected outcomes. As FurrowedBrow properly points out, just because something is improbable, it does not imply a designer. If I were to flip a coin 100 times and heads comes up every time, you might reasonably wonder if I used a coin designed with two heads, but it does not necessarily mean the coin is necessarily designed with two heads.

Yet, if you took 2^100 coins, and flipped them all, and then kept the ones that flipped heads, and repeated until there was only one head left... you would find a coin that flipped 100 times in a row heads.

Do that with 2^1000 coins, and you will find a coin that flipped 1000 times in a row heads.

[4gold]

Yet, if you took 2^100 coins, and flipped them all, and then kept the ones that flipped heads, and repeated until there was only one head left... you would find a coin that flipped 100 times in a row heads.

Do that with 2^1000 coins, and you will find a coin that flipped 1000 times in a row heads.

Correct. As the number of chances approaches infinity, the odds of anything occurring approaches 1.

[Goat]

Yet, if you took 2^100 coins, and flipped them all, and then kept the ones that flipped heads, and repeated until there was only one head left... you would find a coin that flipped 100 times in a row heads.

Do that with 2^1000 coins, and you will find a coin that flipped 1000 times in a row heads.

Correct. As the number of chances approaches infinity, the odds of anything occurring approaches 1.

And, since the chances are accumulative, rather than all at once, this basically destroys the 'improbability argument' for complexity being evidence of Intelligent Design.

[4gold]

And, since the chances are accumulative, rather than all at once, this basically destroys the 'improbability argument' for complexity being evidence of Intelligent Design.

How so? You would still need a large number of accumulated chances.

[Goat]

And, since the chances are accumulative, rather than all at once, this basically destroys the 'improbability argument' for complexity being evidence of Intelligent Design.

How so? You would still need a large number of accumulated chances.

Because there is a filter in place. The chances of a small change taking place over a period of time and then filtered the bad choices. That makes 'climbing mount improbable' much easier.

[Confused]

Complexity is special because it is a method by which we use to determine whether a phenomenon is random or designed.

Question 1: Is it too improbable to believe that some complex natural phenomena do not require a designer?

We know that the earth has been hit at least once by an asteroid. Did this natural phenomena require a designer. We know the complexity of human genetic sequences. We know how different proteins can and have had different functions in the past compared to what they do currently. Did it require a designer to reprogram these proteins to function differently? We know how wind sheering can form rocks in the Nevada desert to make them look like beehives (valley of fire). Did that require a designer? The point is, natural processes are natural. One need not invoke a supernatural force to explain them.

Question 2: Are improbability and complexity two measures by which we can validly conclude a designer.

I would say the knife cuts both ways. In regards to the quote above, they cannot be the method by which we measure natural phenomena and attribute it to a supernatural designer. If we want to evaluate it in terms of theology, one could use them to measure, but it would mean little. In terms of science, the existence of a designer isn't a probability. It can't be simply because it doesn't answer the production of complexity. I creates more complexity instead.

The probability of the existence of a designer has as much potential as abiogenesis. Actually, probably less since abiogenesis offers at least the hope of testing (not in my lifetime) for reliability or falsifiability. The mere improbability of a designer negates the possibility of using improbability or complexity to validate it. Negative proving a negative? It is improbable that life erupted on its own. It is improbable that a designer created life on its own. Its improbable that life was created by a designer....... stop me when it makes sense.