Simplicity vs. Complexity: Does Simplicity or Complexity Signal Design?
In the November / December 2005 Skeptical Inquirer, Mark Perakh writes:
Imagine a pile of stones. Each stone has some irregular shape that resulted from a series of chance events. Among these irregularly shaped stones, we find a perfectly rectangular brick. It has a simple shape that can be described by a simple equation containing only three numbers — width, length, and height. On the other hand, each of the irregularly shaped stones can be described only by a more complex program containing many numbers.
However, the probability of a rectangular brick being produced as a result of chance is low; the brick can reasonably (with a high probability) be assumed to be a product of design. For irregularly shaped stones, the opposite is true — the probability of their having been created by chance is larger than the probability of their having been created by design. Here, the relationship between probability and complexity is the opposite of the one prescribed by Dembski’s definition (but compatible with the definition of Kolmogorov complexity).
Kolmogorov complexity, to put it rather simply, is an objective measure of complexity (unlike how the concept of “complexity” is used by Intelligent Design supporters) in which the more random a system is, the more complex it actually is. By such a measure, non-random systems (which would seem to be biological systems) are not very complex.
Which exhibits more randomness, a gas cloud or a cat? The gas cloud. Which is more complex? That depends upon how you define “complex.” According to Kolmogorov complexity, it looks like the gas cloud would be more complex. According to what definition is the cat more complex? Intelligent Design supporters might argue that the cat exists for some purpose, but that would only be begging the question.
Without a clear, objective, and testable definition of “complexity,” how can we possibly say that something is “too complex” to have occurred naturally?
Read More:
Comments
Scientists are always trying to explain away complexity. But logic dictates that every effect must have a cause. That is a fact. What caused the Big Bang, I ask you? The chance of this universe forming by sheer chance is so small as to be impossible. You can make up all the theories you like, but it all boils down to the same conclusion.
Me.
All cultures around the world have believed in something bigger then themselves. In the book “Why God Won‘t Go Away”, research is shown that belief seems to be encoded in our very biology. Is this all one big genetic accident? Or perhaps most people realize that there is something beyond everything, that atheist types are trying to suppress? That little slip of DNA is called “faith”. It is the key to knowing me.
Scientists all over the globe are ditching materialism en masse. They are working hard uncovering evidence that I, in my awesomeness, made all of space in time 20 years ago. Of course, you won’t read about it in Scientific American. I can show you websites.
All in all it reminds me of this joke. A scientist came up to me and said, “Karley, we don‘t need you anymore, we‘ve got science now.” I said to him, “Alright, let‘s have a contest and see who can create a man out of dirt faster.” I set a timer as he readied himself. When the timer began, he stooped to collect some dirt.
“Not so fast,” I said, “get your own dirt!”
LOL.
Something for you to think about. There are many religions, but they’re all ways of worshipping me.
Calling something an “effect” before you can prove that there was a cause is a logical fallacy. That, too, is a fact.
What makes you think that there was a cause, I ask you?
Prove it.
“Seems” is a very big word. Racism and bigotry are just as common as this “belief in something bigger,” but so what?
Prove it.
Proof is all around you, my friend! Look at the trees, the animals, the pepperoni calzones! There is too much good in this world to NOT have a 20 year old Missouri girl at the helm! And the badness is obviousy there to test your faith. With that you don’t need “proof”.
If you insist on proof, however, it’s currently residing with Kent Hovind, who unfortunatly is being detained by the law, for lo, he is crazy. Last time I pick a crazy prophet. I also have some Discovery Institute dudes on my side, but they’re afraid of offending their supporters by revealing the true identity of the intelligent designer.
Look, sometimes science is too hard. When that happens, you know I did it. There you go.
Also, I am typing a message to you, is that enough proof of my existence for you? BELIEVE!
I’m going to offer you some revelations for your readers to consider.
1. Prayer doesn’t work. You can, however, send “vibes” of either a good or bad sort toward an intended target.
2. The earth is 20 years old. I just made it look older because I dig the vintage look.
3. Humans aren’t the pinnacle of evolution. When I started that nonsense, what I wanted was an underwater utopia of sapient jellyfish. It hasn’t panned out yet.
4. Blessed are the n00bs, for they shall inherit the boards.
5. I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
6. Thou shalt not take the time to text someone on your cell phone when you can call them and say it in 5 seconds. Lo, it is dumb.
7. When I send the messiah down to earth, it’s going to be born by a virgin boy. FYI.
8. Do not take diet pills and drink caffeine, for lo, you will speak long satirical spiels attesting to your holiness in a cheap attempt at making fun of the religious.
9. Gayness is OK. Protest and ostracize football coaches instead.
10. Harry Potter is OK. Burn tabloids and fashion magazines instead.
Karley, I served with God. I knew God. God was a friend of mine. Karley, you’re no God
This is good !I get a laugh at Alister McGrath for chiding Dawlins in McGrath’s rant on Dawkins. He says the religious find meaning in a god even if the concept is redundant .Redundancy means fatuous, nothing.Then he chides our hero for using faith for blind faith,but that use of redundancy shows blind faith. And the poor fellow says our hero is shallow for comparing a belief in Santa Claus with that in a deity, because no one seriously wants to believe in the former. The point is , however, both notions are non-parsimonious to explain Christmas presents or the cosmos respecitively.I will read Dawkins ” Dismissing Religion” and will find it a superior book .Could anyone else comment on the two writers?
Karley: Not knowing what caused the big bang is simply because we have no instruments to identify it yet, though there is an interesting amount of quantum theories. Since all the evidence was destroyed, if there was any (you know, since it’s like, the biggest nuke ever), how would you find it?
The chance of the universe forming by pure chance is not impossible. There are variables that could have changed, sure, let’s assume that those universes died. We live in the one with our laws, and our existance proves that it happened eventually. Theories are logical, “Me” is not. Our race indeed chooses to believe in the supernatural, a greater being, yet it has not been identified. It is likely a coping mechanism of consciousness in rationalizing one’s own mortality and attempting to find purpose in lack of immediate threat to motivate us to action. Atheists do INDEED attempt to suppress belief, but only because they believe in logical thinking. They also try to suppress the idea that the world is flat, and that lightning is angry gods.
Btw I like your humour at the end. Even so Karley, if all things have a cause, what caused you? Did you cause your own parents? Paradox!