How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't fit with evolution since life requires a great deal of information which cannot be produced by random processes

This is what reflects the problem with the view of many Christian fundamentalists. Words like 'random,' 'randomness' and 'chance' are thrown around like manure in a stockyard, and do not describe the cause and effect of natural events.

There is no such thing as 'random processes' or 'chance' occurrences in nature. The processes of nature and the range of possible outcomes of cause and effect events are governed by Natural Laws. The variation of cause and effect in the events of nature are fractal in nature (chaos theory), and do not have a causal relationship to the outcome of events themselves.

 

[Etritonakin]

Given that we have a propensity to recognize patterns and see symmetry in nature, it leads to IMO, erroneous conclusions that such things are intentionally designed. Concepts and beliefs come about because we do see patterns and symmetry in a state of stability, therefore people come to the conclusion that it is somehow manufactured or created by a higher power or supernatural intelligence.

Very rarely have I ever seen creationist address chaos and randomness that is common place in nature. So I ask it here.

How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

The only thing that can be truly random is true decision -or that which is random by decision.

Decision need not be based on anything -except the ability to decide.

The ability to decide was necessarily preceded by that which could not be decided upon.

The ability to alter the otherwise-inevitable was inevitable.

 

[godnotgod]

This is what reflects the problem with the view of many Christian fundamentalists. Words like 'random,' 'randomness' and 'chance' are thrown around like manure in a stockyard, and do not describe the cause and effect of natural events.

There is no such thing as 'random processes' or 'chance' occurrences in nature. The processes of nature and the rand of possible outcomes of cause and effect events are governed by Natural Laws. The variation of cause and effect in the events of nature are fractal in nature (chaos theory), and do not have a causal relationship to the outcome of events themselves.

How do you reconcile your position with that of Quantum Physics, which essentially says that this so called 'material' world of 'things' (the alleged product of cause and effect) is actually a 'superposition of possibilities'? Add to this the Buddhistic view of Interdependent Origination, which says that all such 'things' are empty of any self-nature as definite 'things', simply because they co-arise with all other such 'things' in an interdependent relationship, thereby negating the notion of cause and effect.

 

[Straw Dog]

Given that we have a propensity to recognize patterns and see symmetry in nature, it leads to IMO, erroneous conclusions that such things are intentionally designed. Concepts and beliefs come about because we do see patterns and symmetry in a state of stability, therefore people come to the conclusion that it is somehow manufactured or created by a higher power or supernatural intelligence.

Very rarely have I ever seen creationist address chaos and randomness that is common place in nature. So I ask it here.

How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

After about three decades of experience as a 'human being', I agree that these are erroneous conclusions and I do know specifically what would change my mind and yet has not. Perhaps I perceive randomness more acutely than most, but nothing about my experience indicates intelligent design. I can certainly perceive a very unintelligent design, with deep seated problems that serve no real purpose. It's strange that we're still hung up on this, like change the broken record already. I guess that some people don't perceive this record as being broken and I should be more sensitive about it...

 

[Kemosloby]

It fits in just fine since randomness and chaos would be difficult to design. Sort of like the difference between a landscaped yard and the beauty of nature. Rarely is ever awestruck by a landscaped yard but often by the beauty of nature. It's the subtle mix of organization and randomness that really shows the masters hand.

 

[allfoak]

No because we already understand fairly well how things work on molecular and atomic levels using chemistry and applied physics as it pertains to how molecules bond and separate under a wide variety of natural conditions. Why materials can be more stable than others, for how long, and the conditions under where such materials can be formed or destroyed by way of its structure and the properties of molecular structure.

As a result we better understand principles behind stability and instability today then had been in the past, where assumptions of intelligent design gave way to more natural explanations as our collective understanding grows and that knowledge is shared.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you reconcile your position with that of Quantum Physics, which essentially says that this so called 'material' world of 'things' (the alleged product of cause and effect) is actually a 'superposition of possibilities'? Add to this the Buddhistic view of Interdependent Origination, which says that all such 'things' are empty of any self-nature as definite 'things', simply because they co-arise with all other such 'things' in an interdependent relationship, thereby negating the notion of cause and effect.

No reconciliation needed in this case. The primary discussion here is how science functions in the macro universe, in particular the science of evolution. Quantum Mechanics describes the behavior of the basic particles of matter and quantum gravity (not fully understood yet) in the Quantum world measured in Quanta. Even though some Quantum like behavior has been observed in the macro world, but the Natural Laws we apply to the macro world do not apply to the Quantum World such as the Law of Gravity.

Regardless of what is known and unknown at present concerning the Quantum world the behavior of Quantum particles is not a mystical mystery, have predictive behaviors.

The Vedic, Buddhist, Taoist, and Baha'i spiritual view are subjective and concerning the nature of the Quantum world is a religious view and not directly related to science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The only thing that can be truly random is true decision -or that which is random by decision.

Decision need not be based on anything -except the ability to decide.

The ability to decide was necessarily preceded by that which could not be decided upon.

The ability to alter the otherwise-inevitable was inevitable.

Nonetheless the variation of our decision making process is not random. We make our decisions within a limited range of choices and they follow a fractal pattern and are not random. The biggest erroneous statement I have seen from fundamentalist Creationist is the odd 'random processes.' In nature there are no 'random processes' in nature. ALL processes in the macro world are determined by Natural Laws.

Our physical existence in the macro world is fundamentally deterministic and predictable. The question of our will whether it is free or deterministic is an open question. This is a more involved complicated issue and the subject of another thread. Nonetheless I support a form of compatablism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It fits in just fine since randomness and chaos would be difficult to design. Sort of like the difference between a landscaped yard and the beauty of nature. Rarely is ever awestruck by a landscaped yard but often by the beauty of nature. It's the subtle mix of organization and randomness that really shows the masters hand.

And when such a garden is left to fend for itself???

 

[Kemosloby]

And when such a garden is left to fend for itself???

It will look as bad as a room children have been playing in.

 

[shunyadragon]

It fits in just fine since randomness and chaos would be difficult to design. Sort of like the difference between a landscaped yard and the beauty of nature. Rarely is ever awestruck by a landscaped yard but often by the beauty of nature. It's the subtle mix of organization and randomness that really shows the masters hand.

This goes back to the problem of what is random in nature not considering human manipulation to create an artificial order as in a garden. Again our natural world as in the natural forest and prairie are not the product of randomness.

 

[shunyadragon]

It will look as bad as a room children have been playing in.

Eventually it will return to the orderly natural ecosystem of the climate, soils and geography

 

[shunyadragon]

How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

Intelligent design is an artificial concept concocted by apologists to create an artificial argument for the existence of God. It has no real context in the natural world we live in.

 

[Kemosloby]

And when such a garden is left to fend for itself???

It will look as bad as a room children have been playing in.

 

[Kemosloby]

This goes back to the problem of what is random in nature not considering human manipulation to create an artificial order as in a garden. Again our natural world as in the natural forest and prairie are not the product of randomness.

They're a combination of randomness and order. A seed blown on the wind is about as random as it gets, but a natural order which allows the seed to take root only under certain circumstances is intelligent design.

 

[shunyadragon]

They're a combination of randomness and order. A seed blown on the wind is about as random as it gets, but a natural order which allows the seed to take root only under certain circumstances is intelligent design.

No this is not explained by randomness. The seed blown in the wind is a terrible example. The circumstances of our physical existence are explain by Natural Laws as a matter of fact of the objective verifiable evidence of science, and not the artificial constructed concept of Intelligent Design.

God is a Creator and not an engineer. Humans design things not God.

 

[Kemosloby]

Eventually it will return to the orderly natural ecosystem of the climate, soils and geography

Or it could look like Detroit.

 

[Kemosloby]

No this is not explained by randomness. The seed blown in the wind is a terrible example. The circumstances of our physical existence are explain by Natural Laws as a matter of fact of the objective verifiable evidence of science, and not the artificial constructed concept of Intelligent Design.

God is a Creator and not an engineer. Humans design things not God.

Ok Blind man, who do you think made the laws of nature? God designs and creates everything, the seen and the unseen. Even some things men build. God designed Noah's Ark. God designed the Jewish temple.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok Blind man, who do you think made the laws of nature? God designs and creates everything, the seen and the unseen. Even some things men build. God designed Noah's Ark. God designed the Jewish temple.

This is a subjective religious claim. There is no objective verifiable evidence to support this. You lack any objective verifiable evidence to support your argument for Intelligent Design.

For years apologetic institutions like Discovery Institute have tried to demonstrate a scientific basis for Intelligent Design, and have failed. The elephant in the room is that it is not possible to falsify a 'negative hypothesis' that our physical existence could not have come about by natural laws and processes. The Dover trial concerning the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools demonstrated the over whelming failure of Intelligent Design advocates to demonstrate a scientific basis for the concept.

Based what is known of our physical existence the Natural Laws have no known origin and as far as science is concerned some sort of natural laws has always existed.

I believe in God as the Creator, but I do not use the phony artificial Intelligent Design arguments to argue for the existence of God.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It will look as bad as a room children have been playing in.

I liked your response but begs a question as to who are the "children" themselves?

That's where I say the "design" lay by which some think intelligent design via supernatural and other's, natural unguided process.