How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

[dianaiad]

I think that when people look at the universe and say 'Random chance" or 'chaos,' they are just as subjectively incorrect as those who look at the same thing and say 'godidit' without any further investigation.

We simply do not know enough yet to declare that what we perceive as 'random' actually is....and we know too much to dismiss everything as 'godidit' and simply coast.

What we need to do is keep looking, and learning. Now me, I believe that God DID 'do it,' but that doesn't mean we are excused from learning how and what He did. We have brains...whether He made us smart or we simply evolved enough to be curious about this stuff, but as much as we CAN understand and investigate, we should. IMO, of course.

The point is, Whether God created everything and controls the movement of every single molecule....or whether He simply started the Big Bang and sat back to see what happened...or something in between those two possibilities, OR whether there actually is a Creator, deciding that ANYTHING is 'random' and leaving it at that is lazy science. It's a cop out.

It is, as I have already stated, every inch as silly as those who believe the earth is flat because their religious leaders of two thousand years ago thought it was and wrote that down. I don't much like declarations such as this, either way. We just don't know enough to make final decisions like this.

 

[sealchan]

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?

If literalists would give up their traditional literalism...they would see such things as a great opportunity to ground their understanding of God in recent scientific perspectives (Chaos theory, complex adaptive systems, etc). Stuart Kauffman makes this case in his book Reinventing the Sacred. God is not some being lost behind the moment of creation sometime in the past but is ever-present as the inscrutible source of creativity in the layers of natural and cultural adaptive systems that have flourished throughout the universe. In this reading God is alive and seen quite keenly via the scientific method and computer modeling of systems.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If literalists would give up their traditional literalism...they would see such things as a great opportunity to ground their understanding of God in recent scientific perspectives (Chaos theory, complex adaptive systems, etc). Stuart Kauffman makes this case in his book Reinventing the Sacred. God is not some being lost behind the moment of creation sometime in the past but is ever-present as the inscrutible source of creativity in the layers of natural and cultural adaptive systems that have flourished throughout the universe. In this reading God is alive and seen quite keenly via the scientific method and computer modeling of systems.

There has to be a component by which a god is precieved and recognized as being such past issues of something just being complex and or organized in and of itself.

What is it that exclusively points a god out that is seen quite keenly via the scientific method?

 

[shunyadragon]

There has to be a component by which a god is precieved and recognized as being such past issues of something just being complex and or organized in and of itself.

What is it that exclusively points a god out that is seen quite keenly via the scientific method?

I think 'exclusively points a god out that is seen quite keenly via the scientific method.' is an overstatement of the intent of the post. I believe the intent of the post was that many theists take a adversary view of science concerning the nature of God and Creation, but the reality of attributes of God would be reflected in science. I do not believe the intent was to demonstrate or 'prove' the existence of God.

I believe in God,and from my perspective IF God exists, God's attributes are reflected in and in harmony with science.

 

[godnotgod]

Actually no, there is no relationship between the Law of the 'Law-Giver' (God) and the science of Natural Laws. In fact the Judeo-Christian beliefs and many old OT Laws, have been in conflict over the centuries with science. Many theist believers wrongfully accuse science of being atheistic.The science based on Methodological Naturalism basically religious belief neutral, and cannot falsify nor address religious beliefs.

That the notion of law existing came from religious dogma, and was simply passed on to science. In reality, there are no such 'laws', but instead 'patterns'. You were closer to the truth when you mentioned fractals.

 

[godnotgod]

What you are describing above is subjective by definition, because it cannot be objectively verified by physical evidence. The transcendent and science of the mind you describe is subjective.

To be subjective requires a self. There is no self in the Buddhistic experience.

Do you understand that 'subjective' and 'objective' are only mental concepts?

 

[sealchan]

There has to be a component by which a god is precieved and recognized as being such past issues of something just being complex and or organized in and of itself.

What is it that exclusively points a god out that is seen quite keenly via the scientific method?

I wouldn't say that science proves the existence of God. God is largely an unnecessary and un-useful concept for scientific purposes. But for those who find God useful for subjective purposes of truth or meaning, science can be a rich source of mystery and wonder that can help flesh out an understanding of God. If people in the past had a simpler understanding of God's role in creation, they can still see God in the newer and more complex understanding of creation. This creative interpretation/appropriation of science need not invalidate or negate science's value.

Additionally, what all people should recognize is that we make decisions at best only partially rationally. There are too many unknowns (logical, computational or simply outside the scope of our data collection resources) for us to adaptively make decisions and even significant commitments without operating on faith based methodologies aka myths or other axioms. Keeping one's myths tuned to the latest scientific developments can/should aid in the quality of those assumptions and their compatibility with what science has to offer in the realm of truth without jeapordizing those myth's usefulness in making decisions against a greater unknown realm of possibility and providing the individual with a meaningful experience of life.

The usefulness of seeing God involved in creation is to have a person one can contemplate/imaginally talk to/think about/relate to and a body of literature and teaching that will aid in that process (and hopefully not over-simplify it) when trying to come to grips with the unfairness and difficulty of life. He/She/It is a single simple being that one can have a relationship with in some way and thereby express one's own subjective response to the whole of an overwhelming objective reality. As a social species this imaginal interaction allows us to utilize many psychological tools to address psychological issues we may have in our lives. Science does not yet provide us with a complete and practical means for achieving such psychological balance. It certainly does contribute, but it is not adequate, I think, for almost anyone.

Of course many people don't see their belief in God in this way as it "smells" too much of self-deception. But self-deception is unavoidable, I would say, for all of us. To the extent that Truth is a Balance, then countering one self-deception with another is the best way to orient one's self to what is ultimately true.

 

[shunyadragon]

To be subjective requires a self. There is no self in the Buddhistic experience.

Do you understand that 'subjective' and 'objective' are only mental concepts?

I understand the meaning in the English language of objective and subjective,

You acknowledged the mind existing in your reference to the 'science of the mind.' By definition the Buddhist experience, science of the mind, and the transcendental, are subjective concepts in the English language, because they are are not objective - testable by objective evidence outside the mind. The manner you are describing your Buddhist belief system you are considering all existence an illusion, which by its nature is a subjective concept. Of course, the problem here is you are trying to communicate with people that do not 'believe' as you do, and asserting that your belief is true and the others are false. I prefer to communicate with people of different people of different beliefs without assuming one belief is true and the others false as you are doing.

Central to the problem is religious beliefs, even yours and mine, are essentially subjective and can only be supported by anecdotal evidence.

 

[sealchan]

If you encounter the man seen in the Ten Oxherding Pictures, kill him!

(This is a paraphrase of a famous Buddhist quote and not meant to be understood or interpreted as any kind of call to physical violence)

 

[Darkstorn]

A seed blown on the wind is about as random as it gets

How is it random? Wind is not random, the seed getting propagated isn't random. There's an explanation for both phenomena. A seed blown in the wind, at least to my apparently limited mind, is completely explainable, logical and ordered.

but a natural order which allows the seed to take root only under certain circumstances is intelligent design.

But a seed getting blown in the wind is NOT intelligent design? How do you decide which is which?

I mean, wind is the primary method of propagation for MANY seeds. Apparently you think this is just a random event and that it takes external intervention to fix this randomness.

I think your argument is at best random.

 

[sealchan]

There is really no such thing as a process that generates random outcomes if by that you mean that no order lies behind it. However any system that generates behavior that another measuring system cannot predict outside of some simple statistics is effectively random. Certainly it is ambiguous at best to try and deduce a designer from an outcome or product unless you have a good definition of what all designers are capable of and then you are left with the conundrum of things most difficult to account for being uncreated, undesgned. This runs counter to the whole intuition that creationists find appealing...that what is most difficult to account for is precisely that which must he designed.

 

[Kemosloby]

How is it random? Wind is not random, the seed getting propagated isn't random. There's an explanation for both phenomena. A seed blown in the wind, at least to my apparently limited mind, is completely explainable, logical and ordered.



But a seed getting blown in the wind is NOT intelligent design? How do you decide which is which?

I mean, wind is the primary method of propagation for MANY seeds. Apparently you think this is just a random event and that it takes external intervention to fix this randomness.

I think your argument is at best random.

The appearance of randomness. To us it seems random.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you encounter the man seen in the Ten Oxherding Pictures, kill him!

(This is a paraphrase of a famous Buddhist quote and not meant to be understood or interpreted as any kind of call to physical violence)

This is similar to the Buddhist koan, "If you meet Buddha on the path kill him!"

My interpretation is that one should not seek an Enlightened one or Master to idolize and follow.

 

[godnotgod]

I understand the meaning in the English language of objective and subjective,

You acknowledged the mind existing in your reference to the 'science of the mind.' By definition the Buddhist experience, science of the mind, and the transcendental, are subjective concepts in the English language, because they are are not objective - testable by objective evidence outside the mind. The manner you are describing your Buddhist belief system you are considering all existence an illusion, which by its nature is a subjective concept. Of course, the problem here is you are trying to communicate with people that do not 'believe' as you do, and asserting that your belief is true and the others are false. I prefer to communicate with people of different people of different beliefs without assuming one belief is true and the others false as you are doing.

Central to the problem is religious beliefs, even yours and mine, are essentially subjective and can only be supported by anecdotal evidence.

You understand models of reality defined as 'subjective' and 'objective'. Both are mental constructs about reality; they are not Reality itself.

Without a self, there can be no subjective view. Buddhism is a view transcendent of both subject and object, and as such, is not a belief, even though doctrines are to be found within the formal teaching that is Buddhism. The actual experience is not one of a doctrinal belief, but of direct experience with Reality itself. Because you are looking at Buddhism via the mind, you conclude that it is a personal view. (it isn't).

While I did say that Buddhism is a 'science of the mind', that is merely a conditional statement, since most people believe that the entity called 'mind' is real. In reality, mind is a self-created principle, and as such, is illusory. So really, the Buddhistic experience (esp in Zen) is that of 'no-mind'). it is more an experience in pure consciousness rather than in 'mind'. 'Mind' thinks; consciousness sees. Patanjali, in his Yoga Sutras, stated:

"Yoga (ie; 'direct union with the true nature of Reality) is the cessation of all the activities of the mind".

It is this yoga which the Buddha himself experienced.

It is this 'direct seeing', via consciousness, into the true nature of Reality that 'mind' can be accurately examined, and seen for what it actually is. Either we see things as they are, or as they are not. It is the mind that creates delusions and distorts how we see reality, even in science.

 

[Darkstorn]

The appearance of randomness. To us it seems random.

I was trying to make the point that your example of randomness wasn't really random. It was an incredibly easily explainable phenomenon. There is absolutely nothing random about a seed blowing in the wind.

Yet you not only made the statement that it's random, you also used it as reasoning to make another statement that there's a higher intelligence supposedly fixing this randomness.

But REALLY the fix to this perceived randomness is for you to gain more knowledge regarding the subject. You can't just say "to us it seems random" when you in fact mean that to you it seems random.

 

[godnotgod]

The problem is random, randomness is defined as:
From: random
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.

The range of results of cause and effect events in nature including rolls of the dice follow a distinct fractal pattern, and are not random in nature.

When we look up into the night sky, we see stars that adhere to no specific pattern, purpose, or objective. And yet, every star is perfectly placed without seeming to be out of place in any awkward manner. If you were given the task of placing the stars in the heavens in a deliberate manner, your method would stick out like a sore thumb. There is an exercise in the Japanese world of art wherein students are told to place dots onto a canvas in such a way as to make them appear totally guileless.

The intelligence that is nature is not one that thinks things into existence in a planned manner. It is a different kind of intelligence than what we know of as the intellect.

"The geese, when flying over the still pond, do not intend to cast their images, while the still pond does not intend to reflect them"
Zen source

 

[godnotgod]

This is similar to the Buddhist koan, "If you meet Buddha on the path kill him!"

My interpretation is that one should not seek an Enlightened one or Master to idolize and follow.

No. The meaning is that if you see something in your mind on it's way to becoming the Buddha, kill that idea. No one becomes a Buddha. That which is becoming is an illusion. This is the meaning of Nirvana, or 'extinguishing'. That which is experiencing greed, hatred, and lust is the illusory self and must be extinguished. A Buddha is That which already IS, and has always been.

 

[shunyadragon]

That the notion of law existing came from religious dogma, and was simply passed on to science. In reality, there are no such 'laws', but instead 'patterns'. You were closer to the truth when you mentioned fractals.

Again, you are not allowing alternate views and perspectives, which makes dialogue difficult if not impossible. You are asserting your view only.

 

[shunyadragon]

The appearance of randomness. To us it seems random.

In this case 'appearances' involve presuppositions as to what random means. There is actually no appearance of randomness in our physical existence once it is understood.

 

[godnotgod]

Again, you are not allowing alternate views and perspectives, which makes dialogue difficult if not impossible. You are asserting your view only.

So discuss, then. Nothing is preventing you. If my statement that the notion of 'laws' as they pertain to the natural world did not originate in Judeo-Christian doctrine, then tell us why you disagree. The very concept of 'law' implies a conscious and deliberate imposition which nature must obey.

"When you lose sight of the fact that the order principle and the random principle go together, that's exactly the same predicament as losing sight of the fact that all individually delineated things and beings are connected underneath."
Alan Watts