Info Archive



[ Donate :    Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund    Save The Rhino ] 


<Prev
Subject: Re: A somewhat philosophical question ( 5 of 5 )
Posted by Tony Fabris


SG: Regarding the simplicity/complexity thing.

I'm sure what Douglas meant when he talked about complexity
was in the application of Occam's razor. If you're going to theorize
about something, don't unnecessarily complicate your theory.
Start with the simplest explanation first and work from there.
Check out:

http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html

for a more detailed analysis.

But it sounds like you're trying to apply the simplicity/complexity
thing by invoking the old "Second Law of Thermodynamics"
argument for God. The (mistaken) idea that order cannot arise
from chaos. This actually has nothing to do with thermodynamics-
order (complexity) arises from chaos (simplicity) all the time.
Check out:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

for more information.

You're not talking about living organisms, though, you're
referring to subatomic particles. Most of the arguments I've
seen for/against creation all seem to deal with the origins of
life on this planet. Very little of the debate seems to be
centered around particle or quantum physics.

I find this idea fascinating. Such as your implication that
discovering progressively smaller subatomic particles
somehow means that there must be a designer for this
system. Or, that if they eventually find the "smallest"
particle, this will somehow be the "God" particle.

It's a very interesting way of looking at things. And it seems
to me to be a much more valid way of scientifically searching
for God. All the creation/evolution arguments are getting old
because there's overwhelming evidence to show that we
definitely evolved from lower species. The real place to be
"looking for Genesis", as it were, is in the laws of physics--
where the real blueprints for our universe can be found. If
God left a message for his creation, it'll probably be found
in there somewhere. Or, as Sagan proposed, in mathematics.
His character at the end of "Contact" (The book, not the
movie), discovers proof of the existence of God- a "signature"
buried deep inside pi.

I think that the creationists are trying too hard to prove God
by looking at the literal interpretation of the Bible. The biblical
accounts of Genesis and Noah's Ark are obviously myths. But
the ancient writers had no knowledge of particle physics-- they
could only ask "Who made me?", not "Who made Quarks?".
Well, we've got some very good scientific answers to the "Who
made me?" question, and God doesn't have anything to do with
it. The other question's a bit harder. Since the religious texts
have no references to subatomic particles, the creationists don't
have a frame of reference to start from. Particle physics is such
a complex subject, it's difficult for everyone except physicists
to understand. That's probably why there's no creation debates
centering around subatomic particles-- only the scientists
understand it.

But again, complexity has nothing to do with it. No matter how
much you reduce the universe to a set of physical laws, there will
always be the question of who created those laws. Atheists say
that there didn't need to be a creator, Theists say there did. Until
we find God's signature in there somewhere, we'll never know.


 <Prev
[ Back to thread list ]



 


(c) 2001