My two cents to ID
On Intelligent Designer
by Jason Dax
The consept of Intelligent Design is supported by a notion that the Universe requires a Designer due to the complexity of structures of the Universe (from subatomic particles to biomolecules, organs and solar systems). The purpose of this paper is to compare the complexities of the Universe and the Designer and what conclusions can be drawn from them.
The model of the following comparison is the following: Lets assume the existance of two objects, O1 and O2. Lets also assume that both objects have their own complexity C and O2 is the result of O1 (O1→O2).
Lets also make three assumpions about the relative complexities of the objects. The first assumption holds that the first object is less complex that the second object, or C(O1)C(O2).
Lets view the first assumption. According to it a simple object can yield a more complex object. In other words, simple particle, interactions and structures can yield more complex particles, interactions and structures. Therefore it is justified to assume the complexity of the present universe is a result from the simplicity of the past universe. Simple particles have created more complex elements, simple atoms have organised to complex molecules and simple molecules have formed more complex molecular structures. This can be called evolution in which simple biological structures have formed more complex biological structures. According to this assumption, the Universe does not require an Intelligent Designer, because the complexity of the Universe can be explained by a past simplicity.
The second assumption holds that an object creates another object of equal comlexity. In the case of Intelligent Designer, the Universe is equally complex to this Designer. If the argument for Intelligent Designer claims a necessity for a Designer for the Universe, then this Designer also requires a designer. Because the same can be applied to the other Designer and to all the following Designers, the number of Designers would increase to infinity.
The third assumption follows the logic of the second assumption. If a more complex object can only produce an object more simple than itself, then accoring to the Intelligent Design-model the Designer is more complex than the Universe. Therefore the Designer need a Designer more than the Universe. As in the second assumption, this model produces an infinite line of Designers. However this model also insists that while following the line of Designers to infinity, also the complexity of the Designers start to reach infinity.
As a conclusion I state that the argument for Intelligent Designer is worthless. Two assumptions lead to an irrational result and one assumption removes the need for An Intelligent Designer.
- MisterDax's blog
- Login to post comments
You are very right in
You are very right in saying that a creator has to be first created...if you are talking about finite beings. I have just written a post about the famous, fabulous, all be it, fictional and false particle, which apparentlly exploded and made all that is around us. Who created said particle? How did it get there? Did a particle explode and make that one?
Now, philosophy, even for this mysterious and marvelous particle, calls for what Aquinas and others have called "The Uncaused Cause". Despite your believe system, or faith system you have, there must be an Uncaused Cause, or else nothing it here. Be that your fictional particle or an intelligent God that created a universe.
Now, on the idea of intelligent design, the truth is that most atheist I know are not being intellectually honest with themselves or others for that matter. If I pointed to a pile of scrap metal and told you that if that sits long enough it will become a fully functional 747, you would think me crazy, yes? If I then told you that, if it sat for even longer, a crew would appear inside, having evolved from gunk between the seats, you would simply walk away.
I assume you believe that the universe is much more complexed than a 747, yet the universe needs no intelligent being to create it? If I told you a chair, simply wood and nails, happened from an explosion in the forest, you would think me crazy? But you would claim that billions of galaxies happened by sheer accident? Sounds interesting to me, and since you cannot re-produce that idea in a laboratory, sounds a lot like the "F" word...."faith".
Literacy, any one?
So, you didn't even bother to read the text?
LOL! No, I read it...the
LOL! No, I read it...the whole thing. I found one part quite intriguing personally: "Lets view the first assumption. According to it a simple object can yield a more complex object. In other words, simple particle, interactions and structures can yield more complex particles, interactions and structures. Therefore it is justified to assume the complexity of the present universe is a result from the simplicity of the past universe."
Now, my question, which is probably going to be quite obvious, is this: From where did this first (or billionth for all we know) universe come from? Your assumption still requires something to be, in effect, eternal. Why? You need something/someone who created the first universe, which then gave rise to the second...third...fourth and so on, however many universes we have, yes?
This is why I wrote what I did originally. Yes, I was slightly being "punkish", but at the same time you run into a snag if there is no "Uncaused Cause". With no such thing/being you have nothing. You end up falling backwards into the logically problem of that 2 created 1....what created 2? 3 created 2, but what created 3 and so on. Science cannot say what came first (and we are not talking chicken and egg)
But yes, I read the entirety of your article.
Ok, just checking
Apparently I did not fully understand the purpose and message of your original answer. I apologize.
However, I feel that you did not understand my point either. The argument for Intelligent Designer does not involve the complex object being created in the first place, but rather how complexicity can arise from simpler objects. The point of the text was to compare the qualitative complexicities of the two objects, assuming that the first object can be viewed as the "Intelligent Designer", and to draw seom conclusions from these comparisons.
I have posted the text to other forums as well, but unfortunately I have not received much comments. Therefore I thank you for commenting my text and any points where my text and its logic might fall.