SOS and the design argument

In summary, the conversation discusses the existence of organization in the universe and whether it supports the design argument for God. It also explores the possibility of organization arising from chaos and the role of intelligence in the origin of organization. The concept of cellular automata and its relation to the laws of physics is also mentioned. The conversation concludes with a question about posting images on the forum.
  • #1
RAD4921
347
1
SOS links:
http://www.ncst.ernet.in/kbcs/vivek/...1/sos/sos ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization


I think most would agree that there is organization in the universe whether it be from biological systems or inorganic systems such as super-cooled helium or superconductors.

Does organization support the design srgument for God? Can organization arise from pure chaos? If there is no hiearchy of intelligence then where does organization originate?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
RAD4921 said:
I think most would agree that there is organization in the universe whether it be from biological systems or inorganic systems such as super-cooled helium or superconductors.
Certainly.
Does organization support the design srgument for God?
Certainly not.
Can organization arise from pure chaos?
What do you mean by "pure chaos"? If nothing else, the universe has a set of groundrules that have been in effect since it started, so I'm not sure you can say there was "pure chaos" at the beginning.

Besides - entropy is a measure of "chaos" or disorder, and the total entropy of the universe has been increasing since it's start.

However, if you are asking if localized order can result from relative disorder based on the laws of physics, the answer is most definitely yes. The laws of physics make pockets of order an absolute inevitability.
If there is no hiearchy of intelligence then where does organization originate?
Why does there need to be an origin to the laws of physics?
 
  • #3
I think simple cellular automata like rule 110 below:
rule110orangeyellow.gif

Give us a big hint as to the true source of all the apparent design in the world:
250px-Textile_cone.JPG

OK, the automata running on the shell is only decorative (the rules are played out by the molecules of pigment in the developing edge of the shell ) but the principle is being visibly played-out by nature. But none of the rules we know about are anything special, in the case above they are inevitable when combinatorial state spaces are explored. Randomness like Brownian motion, acting on materials (molecules) is all it that's required for this so long as it all takes place away from thermal equilibrium. This much alone ought to put pay to the ID theorists.
Why we have a universe with sufficient variety of combinatorial state spaces is another matter. However there are some good theories that posit unlimited scope to the application of the evolutionary principle. After all, why should it only apply at a biological level?
PS Is there a way to post images on these forums? Normal BB code doesn't seem to work
 
  • #4
droog:

tags are only turned on in the General Discussion forum. If you want to imbed a picture in your post, you'll have to upload and attach it. A decently sized thumbnail will show at the bottom of your post.
 

What is SOS and how does it relate to the design argument?

SOS, or "survival of the fittest," is a concept from Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. It suggests that in a competitive environment, the organisms that are best adapted to their surroundings are more likely to survive and reproduce. The design argument, on the other hand, posits that the complexity and order in the universe point to the existence of a designer or creator. Some argue that SOS supports the design argument by showing that organisms are perfectly adapted to their environments, suggesting intelligent design.

What evidence is there to support the design argument?

Proponents of the design argument often point to complex and intricate biological structures, such as the human eye or the structure of DNA, as evidence for intelligent design. They argue that these structures are too complex to have arisen through random chance and must have been intentionally designed by a higher being.

How do critics of the design argument respond to this evidence?

Critics of the design argument often point to the flaws and imperfections in biological structures as evidence against intelligent design. They argue that if these structures were truly designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful creator, they would be flawless and free of imperfections. Additionally, they point to the theory of evolution as a natural explanation for the complexity of these structures.

Can the design argument be used to prove the existence of a specific deity?

The design argument is often used to argue for the existence of a higher being or intelligent designer, but it cannot be used to prove the existence of a specific deity. This is because the design argument is based on philosophical reasoning and does not provide concrete evidence for a specific religious belief.

Is the design argument scientifically valid?

The design argument is not considered scientifically valid as it is based on philosophical reasoning rather than empirical evidence. Science relies on the scientific method and empirical evidence to make conclusions, while the design argument relies on logical reasoning. Therefore, the design argument is not accepted as a scientific explanation for the complexity of the universe.

Similar threads

On Fine-Tuning and the Functionality of Physics
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
53
Views
9K
Rejecting Intelligent Design: A High Schooler's Arguments
    • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
6K
NOVA's Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
61
Views
13K
Temporal Relation Between Cause and Effect
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
3K
Intelligent Design Without God
    • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
7K
Requesting suggestions for languages, libraries, and architectures for parallel (and sometimes non parallel) numerical and scientific computations
    • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
8
Views
2K
Thoughts on A.I. and Self-Preservation
    • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
1
Views
1K
Is Intelligent Design Theory a Valid Scientific Argument?
    • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
3K
Dynamical Systems and Intelligent Design
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Evolution vs Intelligent Design
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
40
Views
9K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top