Increasing complexity...

[YesIAMJames]

Here's a completely different direction to take, that might actually shut up a creationist:

Complexity is an interesting thing. Imperfect processes are very complex, and as they get better they get less complex (and smaller). An iPod is smaller and has fewer moving parts than a 1960s supercomputer. It is in many ways LESS complex, because it shows better design. To then complain that evolution doesn't produce higher complexity is to say that evolution is more efficient than a process that would produce a higher level of complexity.

It also shows that a more complex system is a sign of bad and less competent design. Creationists point to the complexity of the universe as evidence of their "God", who they claim is perfect and all-powerful. However, since the complexity of a system is inversely proportionate to the power of the system (and by inference its creator), it seems that a complex universe is evidence AGAINST an all-powerful creator. A more skilled creator makes less complex creations. A MOST SKILLED creator would create something with either zero or at least absolutely minimum complexity. Complexity argues against a designer, not for one.

I was going to include a fairly similar point myself. I was going to say that complexity of form is only necessary to a point then efficiency is more important. Computers are a good example. The layout of a computer in 1995 is nearly identical to one made today (though the number of transistors is about 1000 times more). However the first cells must have been many times simpler than they are today so it is a valid fair argument to ask for evidence of increasing "complexity".

I would argue that the universe IS simple though, I think you could porbably fit all know laws of physics and chemistry in to a program under 10mb yet super computers struggle to simulate the interactions of a couple of hundred atoms.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

It's like the Japanese game of Go-moku - there are, essentially, only eight rules: yet the complexity of the possible resulting positions is enormous.

The comment, by ImprobableJoe, about the inverse relationship between the complexity of the cause and the resultant effect also reminds me of the line from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", where the manic-depressive robot, Marvin, says: "Brain as big as a planet - and all they want me to do is open the door!".

I think that the complexity of the universe is hidden by the apparent simplicity of the observable results - the apparently simple orbits of planets, for example, hide a complex balance of gravitational forces.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

Possibly... Also my example is a human engineering marvel, but surely an omnipotent god could do better... Of course now we're back to something like the problem of suffering, only now it's the problem of complexity (in that both have the common "surely omnipotence could do better").

Something Burt Rutan once told me when I was a kid was that the solutions that work the best are usually the "lowest-tech" solutions. Well, while he used the word "lowest-tech", he often employs some pretty high-tech solutions to a lot of problems he has to solve, but then even what he comes up with is a few levels simpler than what is used by others (Spaceship 2 as an example). In retrospect, I think what he was referring to was this general idea of simple solutions that require the least "special" stuff often work the best.

It's also something that holds true in my field, but even in engineering in general, simple stuff works while complexity breeds fragility and lots of surprises which will not work out favorably. Good design doesn't add complexity where it isn't needed. Also, in general, the kinds of things which we have in our day-to-day lives which are built for a purpose, in spite of being used as comparisons by the ID crowd, they're actually much simpler "designs" by nature.

We know, for instance, that DNA is slightly suboptimal, and we also know exactly what could be done to make it optimal, and yet, if we can figure that out, that only shows that a designer of human intelligence can outdo the "designer" that allegedly made DNA. We know that the vertebrate retina is backwards and blood vessels and nervous actually block a lot of light from reaching the retina, and we have a blind spot in it. Not only is this bad design, but the way we compensate for this is a program in the occipital lobe that makes constant microadjustment -- unnecessary complexity. We also know that the movement of the eye involves more muscles than necessary. All of these things can be outdone by a human engineer. And the solutions we could come up with are simpler. Complexity is going to be there in solutions to complex problems, and complexity can emerge out of simple base forms, but even in those cases, the best solutions are the simplest that can be done for that problem, and that makes simplicity a hallmark of good design.