Order & Chance: Does the World Require a Designer?
Friday February 17, 2006
The most common argument offered on behalf of the idea that our orderly world needs a designer is that such order could not possibly have arisen naturally, without direction. Why do people believe this? Not on the basis of empirical evidence, but because they are very poor judges of whether and how likely events are to occur by chance.
In the forum, Rillion pointed out an interesting article written by Daniel Gilbert:
[H]ighly ordered phenomena can and do emerge from random processes. If we toss a coin for long enough, we eventually observe some highly ordered strings such as “head, head, head, head, head, head” or “head, tail, head, tail, head, tail.” Statisticians have sophisticated techniques that can help determine whether a particular pattern of coin flips is so unlikely that it (like Paley’s watch) can only be explained by a non-random process.
But research in psychology has shown that people have rather poor intuitions in this regard, and that they tend to mistake the products of random processes for the products of non-random processes but not the other way around. For example, if we tossed a coin and it came up heads five times in a row, many of us would suspect that the outcome of these flips was non-random and we would search for an explanation (“Maybe one side of the coin has been worn away” or “Perhaps there is a magnet hidden in the ceiling”).
That’s a mistake. Because while the odds of tossing five heads in a row by random chance are not tremendous, they are not slight. In fact, they are roughly three in a hundred, which are greater than the odds of being killed by a terrorist or infected by HIV — and those odds strike most of us as great enough to justify unusual preventative measures, such as military tribunals, extraordinary rendition, and monogamy. When people look out on the natural world and declare that there must be a God because all of this could surely not have happened by chance, they are not overestimating the orderly complexity of nature. Rather, they are underestimating the power of chance to produce it.
Even well-educated people have trouble estimating the chances of events — statistics is not a “natural” skill that people pick up quickly and use readily. The inability to accurately gauge the likelihood of various events appears to lead people to all sorts of errors — but how can this be fixed? Is there any way to get people to accept that they are wrong and, therefore, need to reconsider their conclusions?
Read More:
Comments
A lot of theists say that atheists CANNOT be right because we think the world was created like BAM out of nothing. But its actually the other way around. They think there was a god and BAM there was an earth BAM plants BAM birds BAM internetporn
in the evolutionary way and the way atheists believe it to have happened it all happened gradually over time which is how everything happens in general. Its not like anything in real life happens in a bang but it takes its time, it evolves and changes slowly but steadily.
Yes, PATTERNS do occur randomly in nature such as tornados, sand dunes and snowflakes and DO NOT require a designer.
But CODES are very different. A code has a message or a meaning behind the pattern. For example, all languages are codes and all codes require a code creator.
Is DNA a pattern or a code? Obviously, it is a code because it carries instructions that tell our bodies what to do. DNA therefore requires a designer.
Please support this argument.
Language is a code because it represents something other than what it is in its basic form.
Words on a page when reduced to their simplest form are just paper and ink. But each letter is a symbol representing a sound which, in turn, when placed together with other symbols representing sounds, make up words.
These words represent ideas only because someone designed the language to do so. To someone who doesn’t understand English, these words I’m writing would appear to be insignificant gobbledeegook.
Similarly, DNA is just cells and molecules in its basic form. But within the DNA strands are messages - a language - that gives instructions to the body.
If the DNA molecules of your eye are arranged one way, your eyes will be brown. If they are arranged in a different pattern, your eyes will be blue. DNA is a code - a language.
No other language or code in history has ever developed on its own through random mutation or natural selection. It requires a designer. End of story.
Molecules arranged in one way are carbon, in another way they are a diamond. Is that a “language”? Please, define what you mean by “language” here.
Why does it require a designer? Please, describe how you test for determining what requires a “designer” and what does not. How did you decide upon this test?
For more information, read this:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution.pdf
Notice that on page 25, Perry Marshall makes this prediction:
“Another possible discovery could be that far more information is stored in DNA than we previously imagined.
“Right now, some scientists speak of “Junk DNA” – parts of our genetic code that appear to be useless. My hypothesis is that most of this DNA serves a purpose that has not yet been discovered. It might be an evolutionary, adaptive purpose that transcends current genetic theory.”
A recent discovery has proved Mr. Marshall’s two-year-old hypothesis correct. See here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070615091210.htm
Randy, you don’t answer any of my questions. If you can’t explain what you mean by “language” or how the DNA requires a “designer,” please just admit it.
I thought I was doing a pretty good job of explaining it and answering your questions. But I don’t have time to go into the details if you’re not willing to find out for yourself.
Perhaps when I have more time, I can go into more detail.
Instead of arguing and picking apart every little thing I say, how about responding to the real issue and not trying to change the subject.
Ultimately, you have done nothing to answer my questions or explain your position. It’s wrong for you to expect me to “go out” and try to do your homework for you, trying to make your case for you. You should never have made your assertions here if you were not prepared to explain and support them in the first place. If you don’t have the time to explain and support what you claim, then you should never have taken the time to make your claims at all. It is, furthermore, not “changing the subject” to insist that you explain and support your assertions.
Sorry, Austin. I wasn’t aware that you don’t want any views on this message board that may challenge or oppose your own.
I will try to answer your questions once again, as clearly and simply as I can.
My position has to do with the fundamental differences between patterns and codes. Patterns, like snowflakes, sand dunes, and certain weather conditions like tornadoes occur naturally without requiring a designer. However, they don’t represent anything other than what they are. For sand dunes, they are still just sand arranged in a pattern.
Creationists make the false assertion that order can’t come from chaos pointing to the age-old argument of the watch found in the forest.
Evolutionists counter by saying that it can. Then, they offer examples of patterns like I mentioned above.
Now, a code or language has a meaning behind it. It represents something other than what it is in its basic form. Words in a book are just scratches of ink on paper. Incoherent symbols to anyone who doesn’t know how to decode the message.
But those words represent ideas only because a mind has given those symbols meaning.
Using the scientific method, we can observe that no other language or code in history has come into being by chance without the intervention of a mind to create the meaning inherent in the code.
We can therefore hypothesize that all codes and languages require a mind - a code maker or creator. We could be wrong but until we have evidence to the contrary, it is a reason conclusion to draw from the current data we have.
Here’s where I ask the big question: Is DNA a pattern or a code?
If you don’t already know that DNA is a code, then I don’t think I can help you. I thought it was common knowledge. (That’s why it’s called the “genetic code.”)
Therefore, we can conclude that DNA must have required a designer. Keep in mind, I am using the scientific method. This is NOT my opinion. This is a theory that, at the present time, is supported by the facts. It’s as solid as the theory of evolution itself (or some would say moreso.)
Now, I have a question for you: Can you name one example of a language or code that occurred through random mutation or natural selection?
If you can the world, would love to know about it and there’s a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
I’ve done my best to explain my position. I won’t answer anymore questions until someone gives an intelligent response to what I’ve said.
If there is no such response, forthcoming, I will know that it is because you can’t invalidate my argument but seek only to deny and deflect what you know to be true and don’t have a credible answer for.
How do you get from “you need to support and explain your assertions” to “you shouldn’t post anything contrary here”? I’m really interested to see and understand the chain of reasoning that takes you from the first to the second.
Can you provide an objective test that allows a person to tell the difference between a “pattern” and a “code” which is not dependent upon anyone’s personal perspective or preferences?
Is “meaning” something that exists independent of the viewer? If not, then the difference between a pattern and a code is simply who’s looking at it. If so, then you should be able to provide a test. I would like to be able to apply a test to ensure that a snowflake really is pattern and not a code. Have you performed such a test? How can this test be replicated by others?
You mean, we don’t know if it has happened. Is there some reason to think that it can’t?
So… if DNA is a code, then it must have come from a mind because we’ve never observed code that didn’t come from a mind. If we ever observe code that doesn’t come from a mind, then we’ll have to change our position. However, if we always assume that every code necessarily comes from a mind and never feel any need to base our conclusion “there was a mind” on anything else, then we’ll have a reason to change our position. We have a nice, neat, circular argument that ensures we arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
Well, you have yet to establish that there is an objective difference which can be reliably and accurately tested for.
You haven’t offered any actual science. You’ve offered a series of inferences based upon assumptions and definitions which you have not supported.
Well, then, it must be the case that there are millions of tests for this theory which the theory has passed. Plesae tell me where I can find the results. It must also be the case that multiple lines of independent evidence from different fields of science all converge on the same conclusions. Again, where can I find this? Finally, it must be possible to falsify this theory through clear, replicable tests which can be done by anyone in the world. What are these tests and how can your theory be falsified?
Yes, DNA. All scientific evidence points to current DNA developing through natural selection, random mutation, and other natural force. Changes in DNA are observed in both the laboratory and the field. Thus far, no supernatural, immaterial spirits have been observed fiddling with any DNA to produce any desired goals.
I provided you with supporting data in a previous post that shows that DNA cannot develop through natural selection and random mutation.
I’m sure you don’t want me cluttering up the message board with 25 pages of data and experiments. Here’s the link again for those of you who are playing at home:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution.pdf
There simply is NO evidence that DNA has occurred this way. In fact, there is considerable evidence that it is impossible.
You are correct in saying that I can’t prove it isn’t possible just as you can’t prove that an intelligent designer doesn’t exist.
But from the data that we currently have, the conclusion that an outside force must have acted to create the DNA code is sound. And it’s the way the scientific method is utilized.
There is no circular reasoning here. I’m simply conceding that it may not be the way things are but the facts at this time show otherwise.
Scientists did the same thing when they declared extraneous DNA molecules to be “junk.” They have been proven wrong. And maybe someday I will be too. For now, what I’m saying fits the facts.
It’s certainly an interesting theory once you open your mind and consider the evidence.
You provided a link to a PDF which does not demonstrate that DNA cannot develop naturally.
Feel free to prove this claim.
I don’t need to prove that an “intelligent designer” doesn’t exist. It’s your claim, so it’s up to you to define the term and provide support for your claims about it.
I think it’s worth pointing out how many important points you have evaded. You have not, for example, demonstrated how your theory is as scientific — if not more so — than evolution. You have not provided any tests for differentiating between code and patterns. There’s more, but it’s not worth listing them. If you think any of your claims are worth supporting, I look forward to reading your arguments.
I’ve done my best to support my argument. In fact, this theory has many learned scientists scratching their heads in wonder.
The PDF I provided DOES demonstrate that DNA cannot develop naturally. And it gives several experiments and tests. Check it out (if you are willing.)
But I think it’s clear that you have already made up your mind and it really doesn’t matter what support I supply, it will never be enough.
Actually, attempting to disprove a theory is a critical part of the scientific method. So I’d say it IS up to you to disprove it.
When you are prepared to comment on the merits of the theory rather than asking inane questions, I’ll look forward to hearing your comments.
If it’s so undeniably scientific, then why?
No, actually, it’s up to those who promote a theory to describe how it can be falsified and then mount tests to demonstrate that the falsifications don’t work.
It doesn’t sound as though you understand the scientific process nearly as well as you think you do. Your continued failure to answer the most basic questions further seems to reveal that you have nothing to offer here.
There is one question I would like to ask Randy. Have you looked at different scientific opinions about the sources you have cited here so far? Or is this all you have?
This is very important issue when it comes to naturalism vs creationism. Dishonesty and “less than reputable” sources seem to plague the creationist side of the debate once you start digging into it the matter. You’ll find that many secularists are reluctant to plod through yet another book that claims to have solved the problems with scientific creationism because we haven’t heard anything truly new or even interesting in a long time. It may seem solid to you now, but if you haven’t compared this paper against others that refute it, you really don’t have a complete picture. Usually, this stuff just makes us groan because it gets old after the 100th time we’ve heard it. I’m not trying to be mean, and just pointing out how an atheist like me feels right about now.
There are plenty of books out there which claim to support creationism in a rational or scientific way that also get picked apart by the majority of scientists who are real experts in their respective fields. Many of these creationist books/theories aren’t even written by actual scientists. The ones that are written by scientists seem to be denounced by the vast majority of the scientific community, or we later find out that the so-called scientists got their credentials from a diploma mill or unaccredited source. Talk Origins discusses these kind of papers on a regular basis. It is filled with examples of exactly the kind of thing I mean.
So far, it sounds like this is all you have. By itself, it just isn’t that impressive. I have to point out that a web site with a name like “cosmic fingerprints” doesn’t sound all that objective to most of us either. Is this a creationist web site? Not making fun of you, I’m just trying to give you some idea of where a lot secularists like me are coming from whenever we hear something like this. And we really do hear it a lot. Everyone thinks their proof is something new and groundbreaking. But it rarely is.
It would help us to take your claims more seriously if you could offer us something that gave them a little more weight. So far, all you’ve done is said how totally convinced you are by all this and then told us to go read this 25 page paper that you can’t seem to elaborate on.
I hope you understand where I’m coming from. Sorry if I sound mean or condescending. I wasn’t trying to be. But think about how your claim sounds to the rest of us.
Language is not a code. It has no designer.
Wow, I actually tried to read that article so that I could explain to old Randy the problem with his argument. It’s so jam-packed with horrendous analogies, unfounded assumptions and specious definitions, I don’t know where to start - it would probably take a month.
Yes, PATTERNS do occur randomly in nature such as tornados, sand dunes and snowflakes and DO NOT require a designer.
But CODES are very different. A code has a message or a meaning behind the pattern. For example, all languages are codes and all codes require a code creator.
Is DNA a pattern or a code? Obviously, it is a code because it carries instructions that tell our bodies what to do. DNA therefore requires a designer. — Randy Ruggles, entry 2, June 15,2007
1) By what measure is a snowflake more random than DNA?
2) What is the meaning of DNA?
3) No creator designed English. One could wish that someone had — it might make more sense. Languages begin with simple vocalizations and evolve a sophisticated grammar.
I also had a quick look at the article that Randy posted, and I was not impressed at all. I see what you mean, Absinthe, it’s probably more effort that it’s worth to try and refute the entire document. A couple of things did jump out at me though, such as information theory and irreducible complexity, which have been well refuted elsewhere. So, Randy, we have heard it all before, and unless you can find something in there that (at a minimum) is not refuted in the talk.origins archive then it seems unlikely that anyone here will take you too seriously.
My dof has developed a language that only I understand (my wife never gets it)… he has a particular sound he makes that I respond to by letting him out to “do his business”… he & I have evolved over a fairly short period of time to create this unofficial language that works for us… he has also learned English (to some degree)… at least word like “treat”, “walk” & his favorite “jwana” (used in sentences like jwana go outside, jwana treat, jwana go for a walk, etc)… we learn to communicate over time as we get certain favorable/unfavorable results from noises we make… languages evolve constantly… “bad” came to mean “good” while still retaining its use as “bad” (again, my dog only knows the latter)… alphabets, pictograms, etc. evolved to allow written communication… which continues to evolve due to pressures such as text-messaging…
Did I say dof… I meant dog… woof…
Where do I find Talk The Origin’s rebuttal to the “natural evolution of life is highly unlikely/impossible claim? I’ve never understood biology because it’s always been taught to me in technical language. Does anyone have a simple explanation as to why the word mutation program analogy in Randy Ruggles’ article is invalid?