Want Some Answers ???


Hi Andrew,

5.1 Thanks for a quick reply, not much added to the discussion though. We covered everything and old ground. And regardless of what comment or scientist is quoted, it won't change your mind. Either you know all the problems of evolution and playing dumb or don't know. Whatever, I'd answer your hasty email.

>>Mark ?Subjective world views 1) I agree that in applying occam's razor to our understanding of the physical universe - there is most likely to be a single ultimate reality. However our 'notions' ie. cognitive model is derived from experience of sensory input (be it reading a bible or taking a walk), this sensory input is interpretted by our brain, which although pretty amazing is set up primarily to 1) hunt, 2) socialize (ie. not pure logic).<<

5.2 For you, in the end, you cannot know anything for sure. Right and wrong a blur. A battle-field of dead bodies no different from a field of flowers. All depends on what we think, 'sensory input' is the determiner of truth. Man becomes an animal, that kills and steals when he wants, and has no certain understanding about life or the world. If we are just product of chance and random processes, there is no God. If you are a product of chance, so is your brain. So are the thought patterns that determine your logic. If your logic is the result of chance processes, you cannot be sure it evolved properly. You can't be sure you are even asking the right question because you cannot trust your logic.

5.3 For me, I have something better. There is an "
ultimate reality" - God. Not a shallow thought interpreted by 'sensory input' in my brain. This comes from the revelation of God (the bible) via God Himself. Nature and 'sensory import' is a secondary revelation. God has revealed Himself and explained things. When I became a Christian, something happened, now I have a relationship with the Creator He's no longer a stranger. If you told me my wife 'doesn't exist' that won't convince me. A relationship is hard to deny, so I'm not fooled about evolution.

5.4 My brain created in God's 'likeness' (Gen.1.26) was '
set-up primarily to' think, not 'to hunt'. So mankind has value, life dignity, meaning and sanctity. There is One to be accountable and ultimately face one day. Explain your definition 'set-up'. How can the brain be a 'pretty amazing set-up'? Evolution has no plan or goal that it 'sets up', no blue print to achieve. Or do you mean 'made'? So how was the brain 'set up'?

>>There are therefore 6 billion different 'world views' on the planet. Neither our brain nor the sensory input is infallible therefore you have to accept a degree of Cartesian doubt. Either (or probably both) of us could be wrong. In fact the majority of humans spend their time thinking they are right about religion when they are wrong. So given that thinking you are right is not a determinant of being right - shall we try and find some productive middle ground.<<

5.5 For you, everybody's opinion is as good as the next. So who is right? - sincere people, most people, science, definitions, or math's? But if God made us, then He 'sets' the rules and the rules are not ours to make or break. But regarding evolution, there can be no 'productive middle ground' its unscientific, an unproven theory.

>>Some ideas 1) how about we try to concentrate on one very small area (?entropy) until its straightened out, otherwise we'll be here forever. 2) Mathematical solutions are often rejected as being 'statistical' - but have the advantage of being objective. We could try some maths.<<

5.6 I hope we get the 2nd law 'straightened out'. But you won't accept what damages evolution. There are PhD mathematicians who reject evolution based on math's. Like Andrew McIntosh (Univ. Wales), "As a scientist, I look at the world around me, and observe engineering mechanisms of such remarkable complexity that I am drawn to the conclusion of intelligent design being behind such complex order. (A mistaken definition Andrew?). No scientist is entirely objective. We are always governed by our assumptions... Despite attempts by Prigogine and co-workers to find auto-organization by random processes within living creatures, sustained order can never be achieved, because no new information is available. Indeed, after arguing that auto-organization by random processes may be possible in non-equilibrium systems Prigogine states, 'this (self-organization) principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures... the probability they give rise to the highly ordered structures.... is vanishingly small". (see 'Thermodynamics of Evolution'. P.Nicolls, Physics Today. 1972. Also 'Self organization in non-equilibrium systems' Wily. NY 1977) (And p.141-43 'In Six Days' New Holland. 2000). Notice they both mix "complexity" with "order" unlike you. Professor Gitt's book, 'In the Beginning was Information" has plenty of mathematical studies. Still waiting for you to prove he's big fake'.

>>3) We need to be explicit about definitions, understanding that we may have different definitions. I could state "Order (Andrew) = "Any other suggestions - I'm brainstorming here.<<

5.7 I have been 'explicit' already 'about definitions'. I don't believe 'complexity' is explained clearly by a disorderly mixture of 'random' numbers. Or the 'equilibrium' of a pile of black and white 'sand' 'mixed' in a mess and disorderly. It's proper to use "complexity" with order and refer to "complex interrelationships" (p.15 'Energy' Life Science Library. Time Inc. M.Wilson, physicist). This refers to the intricateness or complicatedness within a system, cell, or body (not disorder) and its too 'intricate' to occur by chance (as mixed 'sand'). Rather, all the components or elements are arranged logically, comprehensibly, in a harmonious condition, or naturally. Not mixed or muddled.

5.8 "The creationist maintains that the degree of complexity and order which science has discovered in the universe could never be generated by chance or accident". This
complexity and order is seen everywhere. "Although inorganic relationships are often quite complex, living organisms are immensely more so." And the "probability of a complex system arising instantly by chance" is a number "followed by 158 zeros". For evolution, "The problem is how can a population of living organisms structured at one degree of complexity be elevated by random processes to a higher degree of complexity?" He says, "The probabilities become more and more infinitestesimal as we ascend the scale of complexities in the living world." Yet the creationist "is not embarrassed by such complexities". Evolution however, postulates that mutations are what's "required for the upward progress in complexity". (p.54-69 Scientific Creationism. .J.Morris, (PhD) Master Books). But we know today, mutations cause sickness and death, not an increase in information, new structures, higher order, or greater complexity.

>>Some answers - in brief (If you numbered your paragraphs this would be easier.) 1) Despite the distant (theoretical) approach of the heat death, the 2nd law does not prohibit the 'deity-independant' formation and persistence of complex structures in the interim.<<

5.9 I'll number paragraphs, hope it helps you 'think'. The 2nd law WILL 'prohibit' anything without a programmed mechanism increasing in complexity. Even programmed mechanisms cannot increase in greater complexity without detailed information written on the DNA (Nothing gets new limbs, wings, etc.) As this scientist says, "the Law of Energy Conservation, states that nothing is now being created or destroyed. Evolution teaches that there is a universal process of development and increasing order and complexity in the universe, but the 2nd Law (which is a basic law of nature, with no exceptions known) states that all systems tend to become disordered and simpler. All things tend to grow old, wear-out, run down, and die. Evolution involves universal change "upward" whereas the real processes of nature involve a universal change "downward." The concept of special creation of all the basic "kinds" of plants and animals, with provision for ample variation within the kinds, is much more in accord with the actual facts and laws of science than is the speculative philosophy of universal evolutionary development."

>>2) I don't have a problem with Prigogines comments hes reasonably correct, Azimov probably uses the word 'most' incorrectly. Althought the brain has high order (in comparison to the kidney) its arguably not the physcially 'most' ordered thing in the universe. (cf. graphite, diamond, or neutron stars are technically more ordered). Its also a vague use of the word 'complex' - what does he mean. This is why quotes are so frequently pointless. I would happily say that when a scientist talks about 'order' the term 'disorder' can be thought of as its opposite. (1 - order) if you will.) My point, as i assume you appreciate by now, is that you started by saying order and complexity are the same. In physics they are different.<<

5.10 I didn't say they were "the same" but synonymous (1) "'complexity' within a simple cell - too complex to have occurred by chance". And (2) "a simple cell - too 'orderly' to have occurred by chance". Both descriptions are "synonymous" or alike. Neither occurred in the cell by "chance". You major on a downward complexity with unclear definitions. The complexity I refer to doesn't mean disorder, chaos, down-hill, or mixed-up. The 2nd law doesn't give a increase in complexity and order. You said, "In the physics of entropy they are diametrically opposite". But only in the sense that the 2nd law increases disorder and chaos. Call that "complexity" (if you will) but its the opposite to evolution. If two complexities, up-ward or down-ward, then upward goes towards an orderly arrangement (not by the 2nd law). And the downward to disorder, mess, etc (always happens). Evolutionists trained in physics use 'order and complexity' together, so quoting them is not "frequently pointless". 'Complexity' refers to something orderly and terms used interchangeably.

5.11 Azimov is correct about the "
complexity" and "order" of the brain. Why? A biochemist - "I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naïve thoughts." (Ernst Chain, quoted by R.W. Clark, in "The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond", Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Lon, 1985, p.148).

>>4) Out of interest - some reading I've done recently points towards complexity being on an interface between chaotic behaviour and ordered systems. In chaos theory we learn complex behaviour can be generated by simple systems.<<

5.12 Still searching for truth at "Wikipedia"? "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY….Its structure allows any individual….to alter the content found here. Therefore, please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the particular areas of expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information about any subject….be advised that Wikipedia CANNOT guarantee, in any way whatsoever, the validity of the information found here. It may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the particular area you are interested in learning about." (Disclaimer) So be careful.

5.13 Anyway, life didn't originate from matter. With or without '
Chaos Theory', complex creatures don't 'generate' from 'simple systems'. As the evolutionist Carl Dunbar says, "Fossils provide the only historical documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms". (p52 Historical Geology. NY Wily & Sons Inc. 1949). The only problem with fossils, is as the evolutionist says –

"The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time — what appeared to be simple…now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which ‘does’ show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling." (Dr. D.M. Raup "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology". "Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin", vol. 50 (1) 1979 p.25).

5.14 Its common knowledge. Many evolutionists know about the lack of transition fossils "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (S.J.Gould (Prof., of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard Univ), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" "Paleobiology", vol. 6 (1) 1980, p.127.

>>5) As a side note the chaotic fractal geometry of the cardiac impulse is well documented. And in case you've never watched a cardiac echo there's quite a bit of turbulent blood flow around the valves (hence the transmission of heart sounds) however flow does become more laminar in the great vessels.<<

5.15 Chaos theory? Blakefield wrote, (I can't quote it all) "scientists….are continually baffled by unexplained phenomena and systems that seem to act against the laws they have set forth to explain these actions. Wobbles in the orbits of planets, turbulence in airflow… these systems and others fail to conform to the simple equations.' So they, 'are finding chaos where they thought they would find order. But then, looking more closely, they are finding unexplained order in what looked like chaos. With the development of faster, more powerful computers, they have been able to test equations they have been relying on for years. They have found that, under certain conditions, some of these equations produce ‘chaotic’ results. Then they realized that these systems that seemed to be so disordered were actually following strange and intricate patterns.'

'Put simply, the equations repeatedly describe the same general shape but never repeat themselves precisely. Other chaotic equations form complex branching patterns that duplicate themselves repeatedly, but on a diminishing scale — each branching pattern a replica of the last but much smaller, just as we see in the structure of many plants.

All chaotic systems seem to have an unusual sensitivity to initial conditions. They are systems in which seemingly inconsequential changes turn into major differences in outcome. Scientists have found evidence of ‘chaos’ in astronomy, epidemiology, meteorology, air turbulence, the stock market and the human body. It is in the study of the human body that some scientists are beginning to realize just how important chaos is. Ary Goldberger of Harvard Medical School believes he has discovered not only that the rhythm of the human heart is chaotic, but that chaos in the heart is necessary. When he compared the variations in the heartbeats of a healthy person to those of one suffering from heart disease, the healthy heartbeat was actually the more chaotic.

This has opened some scientists’ eyes to the possibility that chaotic behaviour may not be an abnormality, but a characteristic essential to the design of some systems....consider.... complicated patterns found in chaotic systems, it appears the theory was misnamed. ‘Chaos’ ordinarily describes any kind of disorder or confusion. In this case, what appeared to be chaos, on closer examination is another layer of more complex order

5.16 Christopher Lampton - "Traditionally, experts have blamed these surprises on outside influences or imperfect data. . . . But now scientists, studying the world around us with the aid of powerful computers, are beginning to realize that surprise is inevitable. Systems such as the weather . . . have surprise built into them. They will always behave in unexpected ways, no matter how well we understand them. It is in their nature to do things we can’t predict". ('Science of Chaos: Complexity in the Natural World' p.13 Franklin)

5.17 Chaos theory doesn't explain how disordered chemicals could have assembled themselves into the first self-reproducing machine, contrary to the 2nd Law. Blakefield - "One of the classic examples of such ‘order out of chaos’ is the appearance of hexagonal patterns on the surface of certain oils as they are being heated. The minute the heating stops, this pattern vanishes once again into a sea of molecular disorder. These patterns, like the swirls of a hurricane, are not only fleetingly short-lived, but are simple, repetitive structures which require negligible information to describe them. The information they do contain is intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the matter involved, not requiring any extra ‘programming’. Living things, on the other hand, are characterized by truly complex, information-bearing structures, whose properties are not intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the substances of which they are constructed; they require the pre-programmed machinery of the cell."

>>6) In biology natural selection is pretty much synonymous with evolution. DNA mutations are DNA mutations after all. Survival by death of less fit. Even the notion of common origins is a feature of both. Are you wanting to pick and choose implications?<<

5.18 You haven't read what I wrote. Read again. Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection gets rid of information (and even mutations) it doesn't create information. Mutations are bad news, the creatures don't survive or they pass them on. There are no creatures in the fossil record with half-feathers, half-eyes. Having half-legs is a problem, no help. What's the use of half an arm? An evolutionist -

"There is no doubt that natural selection is a mechanism, that it works. It has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. There is no doubt at all that it works. But the question of whether it produces new species is quite another matter. No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how a species originates and it is there that natural selection seems to be fading out and chance mechanisms of one sort or another are being invoked." (Dr. Colin Patterson, on the subject of "Cladistics" interview BBC 1982. Patterson was Senior Paleontologist, Museum of Natural History, Lon).

5.19 As Pierre-Paul Grasse wrote, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution" [Evolution of Living Organisms. Acad. Press NY 1977 p.88]. You can cross dogs, but not a dog and horse.

>>7) I will have a look at Gitt, promise, but we may still have validation problems at the end of the day. To argue that all informtion has a intelligent sender is like the 'arguement be design' it is an argument from analogy. Weaker though, as we both know that we frequently recognize patterns in clouds, tea leaves, daily events - that are really just our brains natural efforts to recognise patterns.<<

5.20 Do check out Dr Gitt. There is no intelligent information in 'cloud' patterns or 'tea leaves'. Patterns in nature - ripple marks on beach sand are an example of a structure which originated through the input of energy. But the ordering is NOT based on information, no code is involved. The kind of information within a intelligent code requires a sender. So the existence of that information remains a powerful argument for God's existence.

>>8) Intelligent designer. So given the complex brain of God. (Tracking and supporting the 10^90 particles in the visible universe through billions of years, designing the human form, earths ecosystem and the fabric of the cosmos.) where did that complexity come from? another designer? Given that you argue the appearance of structures by chance is inverse proportional to their complexity. Does that make God infinitely improbable? Until later Andrew<<

5.21 If you want to know more about God go to the bible, not philosophical reasoning. The bible is the most authoritative and reliable record about God's mind and actions. Given the fact He is uncreated, spirit, light, love, eternal, self-existent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc., how do we understand Him? Only because He has personality, seen in Jesus Christ. Here are two verses about God, have a think.

From eternity to eternity I am God. No one can oppose what I do. No one can reverse my actions” (Is 43:13)

"Have you never heard or understood? Don’t you know that the Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of all the earth? He never grows faint or weary. No one can measure the depths of his understanding. He gives power to those who are tired and worn out; he offers strength to the weak" (Is.40:28-9)


His Reply