The Problem of Complexity

[Matthew78]

Many antievolutionists will critique evolution and defend creationism by appealing to the complexity of living organisms and their organ systems or even cells. Creationists will say that something, be it the cell, the human eye, the wing of a bird, or some other marvel of the living world is "too complex" to have evolved and, therefore, it had to be designed. This is despite the fact that many creationists will never give a cogent argument for design or describe the criteria by which they distinguish a designed object from a nondesigned object. They will appeal to complexity and describe something as "too complex".

But how complex is "too complex"? This argument supposes that there are built-in limits to the amount of complexity that nature is capable of generating. If there is, how is this the case? What is the limit?

Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that complexity can be measured. Let's invent a unit to specify a given amount of complexity. Let's call it a complexicon. This unit is an analog to the "mole" in chemistry and the Astronomical Unit in astronomy. So a "complexicon" is a unit describing a certain amount of complexity.

So how many complexicons is nature capable of generating? Let's suppose that the human eye has X number of complexicons. Let's suppose that the living cell has Y number of complexicons. Two human eyes have 2X complexicons. So how many complexicons is the minimum requirement for an intelligent designer? I am asking creationists here to specify the amount of complexity that a complexicon can have and to specify how many complexicons nature is capable of generating before intelligent design has to be invoked.

 

[Meow Mix]

This is sort of like the problem of a grain of sand clearly not being a "heap" of sand; but then asking the question, "If I add a grain of sand at a time, when does it start being a heap of sand?"

I think creationists would be well within reason to simply point out that we might not be able to draw a line in the sand (pun intended) but we can grossly assert when something is a heap of sand or not.

 

[Matthew78]

This is sort of like the problem of a grain of sand clearly not being a "heap" of sand; but then asking the question, "If I add a grain of sand at a time, when does it start being a heap of sand?"

I think creationists would be well within reason to simply point out that we might not be able to draw a line in the sand (pun intended) but we can grossly assert when something is a heap of sand or not.

Interesting point. However, I don't think the analogy really holds. A "heap" is merely a human convention that we give to a pile of sand. It's subjective by nature. I think the argument that something is "too complex" is, by definition, objective and pretends to be something that can be objectively measured given the right criteria and tools. I can definitely see creationists using this analogy. But it's self-defeating.

 

[PolyHedral]

Let's suppose that the human eye has X number of complexicons. Let's suppose that the living cell has Y number of complexicons. Two human eyes have 2X complexicons.

That doesn't follow; if I want to build two eyes, I don't specify exactly how the two eyes will be built. I specify one eye, and say, "That, and then that again!"

 

[shawn001]

The weak anthropic principle. If the universe didn't evolve the way it is we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

 

[shawn001]

S=k log W

 

[Photonic]

The weak anthropic principle. If the universe didn't evolve the way it is we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

What's your point?

 

[painted wolf]

This is sort of like the problem of a grain of sand clearly not being a "heap" of sand; but then asking the question, "If I add a grain of sand at a time, when does it start being a heap of sand?"

I think creationists would be well within reason to simply point out that we might not be able to draw a line in the sand (pun intended) but we can grossly assert when something is a heap of sand or not.

I'm going to have to agree with Mathew on this.

Creationists claim that complexity can be measured and that the complexity of life is "too great" to be natural.

Thus it stands to reason that there must be a "line in the sand" that determines the maximum complexity of a natural system and the minimum complexity of a designed system.

Otherwise how can you claim to be able to detect design?

wa:do

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm going to have to agree with Mathew on this.

Creationists claim that complexity can be measured and that the complexity of life is "too great" to be natural.

Thus it stands to reason that there must be a "line in the sand" that determines the maximum complexity of a natural system and the minimum complexity of a designed system.

Otherwise how can you claim to be able to detect design?

wa:do

Well, suppose you have some sand on the table and you assess that it's "too great" to not be a heap. Even so, you wouldn't be able to take away a grain at a time and find an "aha!" moment where it ceases to be a heap. I was just agreeing that it's within the realm of reason to make an assessment on a gross structure where there is no easily/objectively defined demarcation.

I'm not saying it works for creationists -- this is because of broader reasons, e.g. having a known mechanism that can mimic intentional design. Paley's proverbial watch fails as an analogy for groups of things that reproduce, mutate, inherit mutations, and pass on their genetic material non-randomly.

However, teleological thinking has a valid (if non-scientific and non-falsifiable, but metaphysically valid) point when applied to any seemingly complex and specific system for which there are no known mechanisms that mimic so-called "intelligent design." This is true even if we're not able to draw an objective line somewhere and say, "this is when it's too complex and specific to reasonably believe it probably happened by chance." I'm essentially just splitting hairs, honestly, but the point I'm making is that teleological arguments' achilles heel isn't in the subjectivity of demarcating "too complex to have been chance" from "not too complex, could have been chance." Paley's Watch has much bigger problems than that

 

[Drolefille]

Well, suppose you have some sand on the table and you assess that it's "too great" to not be a heap. Even so, you wouldn't be able to take away a grain at a time and find an "aha!" moment where it ceases to be a heap. I was just agreeing that it's within the realm of reason to make an assessment on a gross structure where there is no easily/objectively defined demarcation.

But if you were really trying to measure sand, you'd be trying to get a gram of it or an ounce or a teaspoon. Similarly if you could measure complexity as posited there would have to be a cut off point, wouldn't there?

Now whether such a point is knowable without having real measurements is another question.

 

[painted wolf]

Well, suppose you have some sand on the table and you assess that it's "too great" to not be a heap. Even so, you wouldn't be able to take away a grain at a time and find an "aha!" moment where it ceases to be a heap. I was just agreeing that it's within the realm of reason to make an assessment on a gross structure where there is no easily/objectively defined demarcation.

I'm not saying it works for creationists -- this is because of broader reasons, e.g. having a known mechanism that can mimic intentional design. Paley's proverbial watch fails as an analogy for groups of things that reproduce, mutate, inherit mutations, and pass on their genetic material non-randomly.

However, teleological thinking has a valid (if non-scientific and non-falsifiable, but metaphysically valid) point when applied to any seemingly complex and specific system for which there are no known mechanisms that mimic so-called "intelligent design." This is true even if we're not able to draw an objective line somewhere and say, "this is when it's too complex and specific to reasonably believe it probably happened by chance." I'm essentially just splitting hairs, honestly, but the point I'm making is that teleological arguments' achilles heel isn't in the subjectivity of demarcating "too complex to have been chance" from "not too complex, could have been chance." Paley's Watch has much bigger problems than that

If you want the argument to not be scientific then you have a very valid point. If you want ID be scientific then you have a problem.

wa:do

ps... I love things like this, especially when someone is willing to take the other side for the sake of having a fun reasonable discussion.

 

[Meow Mix]

If you want the argument to not be scientific then you have a very valid point. If you want ID be scientific then you have a problem.

wa:do

ps... I love things like this, especially when someone is willing to take the other side for the sake of having a fun reasonable discussion.

Ha ha, indeed. We're in complete agreement here, and there's only so far a devil's advocate can run with the ball in such a tiny court

 

[ScottySatan]

I really don't understand the irreducible complexity argument, especially with the eye as an example. There are eyes that are a little bit simpler than ours, eyes that are moderately simpler than ours, and eyes that are much more primitive than ours. Dictyostelium make a functional eye by having a bunch of unicellular microbial organisms aggregate into a colony in the shape of a lens, and it guides the shape of a colony towards the light. We have seen the spontaneous generation of an eye in real time by very primitive creatures.

Do people really think that our eye is the first structure of its kind? Did the person to popularize this argument even bother to look this up?

I don't see the eye as being very complex. Why not use a really complicated structure, the human brain, as an example? Because it's common knowledge that there are many brains out there less complex than ours by many different degrees.

 

[Meow Mix]

I really don't understand the irreducible complexity argument, especially with the eye as an example. There are eyes that are a little bit simpler than ours, eyes that are moderately simpler than ours, and eyes that are much more primitive than ours. Dictyostelium make a functional eye by having a bunch of unicellular microbial organisms aggregate into a colony in the shape of a lens, and it guides the shape of a colony towards the light. We have seen the spontaneous generation of an eye in real time by very primitive creatures.

Do people really think that our eye is the first structure of its kind? Did the person to popularize this argument even bother to look this up?

I don't see the eye as being very complex. Why not use a really complicated structure, the human brain, as an example? Because it's common knowledge that there are many brains out there less complex than ours by many different degrees.

I know where you're coming from. It surprises me that there exist some people with a fair amount of knowledge of how evolutionary processes work, yet still raise such feeble objections as "irreducible complexity." Is it some sort of ultimate statement on the efficacy of American degrees (considering some of the most outspoken, yet educated, folks such as Behe and Dembski are American)?

As a skeptic myself, I get the whole skepticism thing. What I don't get is feeble skepticism when it isn't warranted given the data, which some of these people have access to. I don't get it.

 

[outhouse]

Did the person to popularize this argument even bother to look this up?

Not at all.

Its based on ignornace and directed to a very ignorant audience.

 

[Alceste]

Many antievolutionists will critique evolution and defend creationism by appealing to the complexity of living organisms and their organ systems or even cells. Creationists will say that something, be it the cell, the human eye, the wing of a bird, or some other marvel of the living world is "too complex" to have evolved and, therefore, it had to be designed. This is despite the fact that many creationists will never give a cogent argument for design or describe the criteria by which they distinguish a designed object from a nondesigned object. They will appeal to complexity and describe something as "too complex".

But how complex is "too complex"? This argument supposes that there are built-in limits to the amount of complexity that nature is capable of generating. If there is, how is this the case? What is the limit?

Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that complexity can be measured. Let's invent a unit to specify a given amount of complexity. Let's call it a complexicon. This unit is an analog to the "mole" in chemistry and the Astronomical Unit in astronomy. So a "complexicon" is a unit describing a certain amount of complexity.

So how many complexicons is nature capable of generating? Let's suppose that the human eye has X number of complexicons. Let's suppose that the living cell has Y number of complexicons. Two human eyes have 2X complexicons. So how many complexicons is the minimum requirement for an intelligent designer? I am asking creationists here to specify the amount of complexity that a complexicon can have and to specify how many complexicons nature is capable of generating before intelligent design has to be invoked.

The irreducible complexity argument hinges on the disastrous misapprehension that evolution is an entirely random process. I can't take it seriously - to me it seems that if I could only convey the concept of natural selection, the irreducible complexity argument would vanish in a puff of smoke.

Like all creationist arguments, it seems to require the proponent to fail to understand anything at all about evolutionary biology.

 

[Matthew78]

Well, suppose you have some sand on the table and you assess that it's "too great" to not be a heap. Even so, you wouldn't be able to take away a grain at a time and find an "aha!" moment where it ceases to be a heap. I was just agreeing that it's within the realm of reason to make an assessment on a gross structure where there is no easily/objectively defined demarcation.

I get your point but I still think that there is an objectivity vs. subjectivity issue here. A "heap" is just a label for convenience. But I don't know if anyone would try to make an argument that there is just too much sand in a given sample for it not to be a heap. I don't know where one would take a single grain away and then come to the heap vs. nonheap line, whereas just a single grain of sand qualifies it as a heap.

Creationists are making an actual argument with complexity. Their attempt to make an argument supposes that there are built-in-limits to what nature can accomplish. Creationists like to pretend that their arguments are scientific, and, will appeal to complexity. To make it at least sound scientific, especially on paper, their argument presumes an objective standard of between "complex enough" and "too complex".

You're right in a sense that creationists might try to fall back on the "continuum fallacy" but at the risk of doing fatal damage to their argument. They need to be able to draw a line in the sand in order for their argument to seem like it is scientific. What I'm doing, though, is trying to get creationists to specify where the said line is to be drawn.

 

[crystalonyx]

Complexity needs to be reduced to its component parts. An entire computer application for some entity like a hospital, for example, may seem incredibly complex if you view it as a whole. Reducing down to its component parts, or programs, one can make sense of individual units, and come to a realization of how the whole system came to be.

 

[javajo]

I believe in creation. Of course I believe Jesus walked on the water, too. Neither can be scientifically explained, they were supernatural events. Although I will say I don't believe that little river carved out the whole Grand Canyon, perhaps another supernatural event such as the Deluge...

 

[Matthew78]

Complexity needs to be reduced to its component parts. An entire computer application for some entity like a hospital, for example, may seem incredibly complex if you view it as a whole. Reducing down to its component parts, or programs, one can make sense of individual units, and come to a realization of how the whole system came to be.

I can agree but what I'm trying to accomplish with OPs, like the one I began this thread with, was to know where creationists are drawing their line in the sand by appealing to complexity. When a creationist says "The human eye is too complex to have evolved", I want to know how they know this. The only way that they can know this is if they have successfully demarcated the boundary between "complex enough" and "too complex".

Meow Mix has argued that creationists can try to get around this by appealing to the "continuum fallacy" (sometimes called the "fallacy-of-the-heap"). I think that this is what the argument really boils down to. When pressed, I suspect that creationists really cannot draw the line between what kind of complexity nature is capable of and what kind of complexity is beyond nature's capacity. They will resort to the "heap fallacy" destroying their argument in the process.