[_ Old Earth _] What Brought About Order In The Universe

[Drew]

Perhaps this is one of those "debates" where the 2 participants just cannot seem to be able to make much progress. That is not the end of the world.

I will ask one last time:

1. Do you or do you not agree that the 2 examples I have cited (low entropy sunlight + the "lightning" experiment) clearly shows that order be built up without an intelligent agent being involved?

2. Do you or do you not agree that the possibility of other universes can be used as an argument to lessen the necessity to choose design as an explanation for the special conditions that have lead to life in this universe?

 

[PDoug]

Perhaps this is one of those "debates" where the 2 participants just cannot seem to be able to make much progress. That is not the end of the world.

I will ask one last time:

1. Do you or do you not agree that the 2 examples I have cited (low entropy sunlight + the "lightning" experiment) clearly shows that order be built up without an intelligent agent being involved?

No. Why? Because any ordering that is present in our universe, has to be produced from intelligent beings. Therefore whatever ordering you see in nature, has to be from intelligent beings you cannot directly perceive. So, if as you put it, "streaming" "'low entropy sunlight" "into a primordial earth" causes "more ordered structures to develop out of simpler ones", this takes place only because intelligent beings establish and maintain the ordering of our world to support this occurring. Likewise, if there are 'laboratory experiments where a "soup" of simple molecules is zapped with electricity (simulating lightning) and organic molecules are produced', these are able to take place only because intelligent beings we cannot directly perceive, establish and maintain the ordering of our world to support this occurring. (And incidentally, just because you see these phenomena occur on a limited scale in a lab, that does not mean it is possible to reproduce them on a planetary scale.)

So what is my justification for asserting that order can only be established in our universe by intelligent beings? The fact that we see that law being observed in every area of our lives from when we manufacture cars and food, to when we set up companies, etc. E.g. you cannot place the raw materials to build a car on a manufacturing floor, and expect the car to form on its own. Likewise you cannot expect that atoms, molecules, planetary systems, and everything else that shows order in our universe came into being all on their own. In all situations, intelligent beings are required to establish order.

2. Do you or do you not agree that the possibility of other universes can be used as an argument to lessen the necessity to choose design as an explanation for the special conditions that have lead to life in this universe?

No. For two major reasons.

1. The notion that invisible intelligent beings establish and maintain order in our universe is consistent with the creation story and with various scriptures in the Bible.

2. My own personal experience with having faith (Mark 11:22-24), has enabled me to see that faith really works. Furthermore, having faith (correctly) causes a number strange things to happen to you in a manner that is consistent with what is in the scriptures. (Such as your behavior improving all on its own [Romans 9:30].) Therefore when I have faith, I find out for myself that what the scriptures say are true, and by extension, the fact that God is truthful. Now if God says there was nothing before Him, and that all things came from Him, and that he set up creation in a way such that invisible intelligent beings (spirits) establish order, then I believe Him.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

During the Inflation period of the Big Bang the universe developed pockets of lesser and greater density. The Subsequent propogation of the universe caused these lesser density pockets to swell and the greater density pockets to squeeze together. The greater density pockets accreted into Nebulae, Galaxies, Stars, Planets, etc.
There you go.
Here's a picture of the universe 300,000 years after the Big BangNote: Higher density => Higher Temperature)
http://msowww.anu.edu.au/news/archive/2 ... WMAP_1.jpg

 

[PDoug]

During the Inflation period of the Big Bang the universe developed pockets of lesser and greater density. The Subsequent propogation of the universe caused these lesser density pockets to swell and the greater density pockets to squeeze together. The greater density pockets accreted into Nebulae, Galaxies, Stars, Planets, etc.
There you go.
Here's a picture of the universe 300,000 years after the Big BangNote: Higher density => Higher Temperature)
http://msowww.anu.edu.au/news/archive/2 ... WMAP_1.jpg

Yes. But all the phenomena you sighted contained gigantic amounts of highly coordinated ordering. If when we look around us we notice that the only way we can get ordering across a large cross section of things in our lives (e.g. materials into cars, houses, computers) is by the action of intelligent beings, why does it not follow that all things that show ordering have been made that way by the actions of intelligent beings - most of whom we cannot directly or readily perceive? Also we notice that greater intelligence is required to produce more sophisticated ordering, yet there are those who stipulate that the ordering that we see e.g. in biological systems, which far exceeds anything man has ever accomplished, happened without the actions of intelligent beings.

 

[Drew]

Hi PDoug:

I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish, but I am afraid that your logic is simply not correct. In your latest response to me, you basically assert that order in the universe can only be established through the action of intelligent because we know that all man-made ordered things (like cars) are (not surprisingly) the action of intelligent humans. But, it simply does not follow logically that order in the natural world has to the be result of design.

If I am capable of making a spear through intelligent action, this does not mean that "natural" spears cannot arise (e.g. if a straight tree branch splinters off and falls to the ground). The fact that certain things (cars, houses) have been designed is not sufficient grounds. by itself, to conclude that all things with order have been designed.

You will understandably respond that a spear is an overly simple example and I agree. And I am not disagreeing with your conclusion. But the actual case is a lot more sophisticated. It is simply not correct argumentation to say things like (I have added bold to certain of your words):

"Because any ordering that is present in our universe, has to be produced from intelligent beings. Therefore whatever ordering you see in nature, has to be from intelligent beings you cannot directly perceive. So, if as you put it, "streaming" "'low entropy sunlight" "into a primordial earth" causes "more ordered structures to develop out of simpler ones", this takes place only because intelligent beings establish and maintain the ordering of our world to support this occurring"

This is called "begging the question" - you are essentially assuming your conclusion and then just restating it. Any philosophy professor will tall you that you need to justify (make a case for) all these "has to be's".

Now to be fair to you, you do indeed start to make a case when you argue by similarity to man-made order. But this argument is obviously not sound in its present form - just because some ordered things have been designed simply does not allow one to conclude that all ordered things have been designed.

The form of a serious argument for design would look at the particularities of the natural world and entail a long sophisticated arduous analysis to show why order cannot (or likely cannot) occur from purely natural processes. You cannot just state "this takes place only because intelligent beings establish and maintain the ordering of our world to support this occurring". In a world as mysterious and complex as ours, you cannot simply use superficial analogies to establish your case. You (and I) need to get down into the awful technical details to make a real case.

 

[Sabazi]

There's no logic in your argument Pdoug. All you're saying is that the universe is this way because it has to be. You're not offering any proof.

 

[Sabazi]

Order in the universe comes largely from gravity. Gravity pulled the stars and planets together.

Evolution makes perfect sense if you actually look at it. Why is it a "poor hypothesis"?

 

[Sabazi]

Order in the universe comes largely from gravity. Gravity pulled the stars and planets together.

Evolution makes perfect sense if you actually look at it. Why is it a "poor hypothesis"?

Why does any ordering have to come from intelligent beings?

 

[PDoug]

Now to be fair to you, you do indeed start to make a case when you argue by similarity to man-made order. But this argument is obviously not sound in its present form - just because some ordered things have been designed simply does not allow one to conclude that all ordered things have been designed.

The form of a serious argument for design would look at the particularities of the natural world and entail a long sophisticated arduous analysis to show why order cannot (or likely cannot) occur from purely natural processes. You cannot just state "this takes place only because intelligent beings establish and maintain the ordering of our world to support this occurring". In a world as mysterious and complex as ours, you cannot simply use superficial analogies to establish your case. You (and I) need to get down into the awful technical details to make a real case.

When Newton determined his second law of motion (F = ma), did he test it on every single object in the universe, or did he examine a cross section of objects, and then stipulated his law? Now we know in principle that to order something into being in a fashion that is not supplied by nature, an intelligent agent has to cause it to happen. Therefore if you would rather live in a regular house instead of a cave, you would need intelligent beings (humans) to order your house into existence. Similarly if a bird, or alligator would like to have a nest, that creature itself (bearing some intelligence) would have to order its abode/nest into being. Now this is a universal law. Astronauts on Mars cannot place raw materials on the planet and expect the materials to form a vehicle on their own, anymore than people can do the same thing here on earth. The question now is, why do think it is unreasonable to stipulate that this universal law acts on all levels: from the subatomic level, to galaxies, and even higher? We see when a builder builds a house, he builds on or uses materials which in turn have been ordered by others. Why then do you think it is unreasonable to stipulate that our existence is built on the ordering of others, when we see this law also exists in nature when we live our lives?

Now, if you could identify exceptions to the two laws I just stipulated (that: 1. to order something into being in a fashion that is not supplied by nature, an intelligent agent has to cause it to happen; 2. intelligent beings build on things that have been ordered beforehand) then you could begin to punch holes in my case. In addition, what I've stated is supported by Occam's razor since it is more straightforward and elegant to state that everything in our universe has been purposed, the concept of chance does not exist, and that a great intelligent being has ordered our universe into existence through a myriad of intelligent beings, who set up coordinated spheres of order, in the same way we and all visible forms of life do.

 

[Sabazi]

You're using an inaccurate cross-section. You're using all similar objects.

Newton used familiar things, on a familiar scale. It turns out that he was wrong for very large, small or fast objects.

 

[ThinkerMan]

PDoug:

It's also worth noting that the universe was more ordered just after the big bang then it is now.

In order for entropy to increase, the universe had to be more ordered (but not perfectly ordered) at the beginning of time when entropy began.

When you refer to specific more-ordered objects such as planets, houseflies and stopwatches, that ignores the fact that the universe as a whole is substantially LESS ORDERED than it was billions of years ago.

I'm sure either Quath or Syntax or others could articulate this better, but it is important to recognize that the universe is continually decreasing in order and increasing in entropy. Specific open system increases in order such as here on earth bely the overall nature of the entire universe.

 

[Sabazi]

Entropy in specific areas can decrease, but it still results in a net increase.

When the planets were formed, the process let out alot of heat energy.

Scientists talk about the universe ending in a big crunch or rip, but it may just become so entropic (is that a word?) that nothing can form.

 

[Sabazi]

Pdoug, are you a mormon?

 

[Drew]

Hi PDoug:

Again, I appreciate that we are able to have this discussion without the inflammatory rhetoric that too often appears on this board. When I challege your assertions, you respond very reasonably. This is how we both (and others) can make this a mutual learning exercise.

Now to the topic. I still think you are essentially assuming that a certain principle (that order derives from intelligent agency) is universal. I suppose that I would agree with you that a house would not appear by natural means even if zillions of years were available and even if violent earthquakes and / or winds provided a mechanism to move raw materials around. However, a house has a certain inherent type of complexity that is not necessarily shared by something like a human being. Now I know that we would all agree that a human being is much more of a complex thing than a house. But that is not the point. The key question to ask is: is there a plausible mechanism by which a human being can be built through a natural "evolutionary" process? I have never taken a biology course, so I can not say anything authoritative.

A house could probably never evolve naturally because of the principle of "irreducible complexity" - there do not seem to be any "intermediate forms" - there seems to be no natural selection pathway that could lead to a house. This is not necessarily true in the case of a human being. The key issue is not so much our inherent complexity, but rather whether there exist possible mechanisms by which humans can evolve from the primordial goop. I do not know anything about such mechanisms, but I will say 2 things. First, I never claimed such knowledge, I merely challenged your claim - you have not made a case that order cannot arise naturally. I actually agree that design is part of the history of the universe (but that's another story for now). Second, it seems implausible that tens of thousands of scientists who believe evolution is a plausible mechanism are either all incapable of seeing the validity of your argument or are engaged in an extremely implausible conspiracy to keep the truth from us.

In any event, the initial claim that order requires design requires more than simply claiming that since "x" had to be designed (where x could be a house, a car, a cathedral, etc.) that there is some kind of universal law that all order requires design. This is simply not legitimate logic. You ask me why I don't necessarly believe that this law operates "on all levels". My answer is that perhaps it might (although I doubt it - the example of low entropy sunlight building up order seems perfectly "naturalistic" to me), but unless we do a lot of work such as, for example, showing that the "building of the house" is a structurally similar problem to the "building up of a human", we do not have the grounds to claim victory for the design claim.

In short, you need to make an actual case that the development of ordered beings like us can only be achieved through design. The fact that we are more complex than houses is not good enough to seal the deal - you need to show that a human being cannot (or likely cannot) be produced through mechanisms like mutations and natural selection, and whatever else those evolutionists have come up with. I will concede that houses probably cannot evolve - but a house is a house - there would appear to be no mechanisms for gradual evolution of a house. Not so with human beings (the evolutionist will claim).

As for your 2 points, I am not sure precisely what you are asking me. Could you possibly rephrase?

 

[keebs]

Scientists talk about the universe ending in a big crunch or rip, but it may just become so entropic (is that a word?) that nothing can form.

That would eventually happen to a universe that undergoes a big crunch as well, however it would happen over many collapses and expansions (unless, of course, the laws of thermodynamics are violated during the collapse and expansion...and there's no reason to think that they wouldn't be violated either).

 

[PDoug]

Pdoug, are you a mormon?

Nope. Why do you ask?

 

[PDoug]

Order in the universe comes largely from gravity. Gravity pulled the stars and planets together.

When I talk about ordering, I talk about the ordering of atoms, molecules, energy, rocks, plants, animals, man, clouds, etc. into existence. All these things show a tremendous amount of sophistication in design - some more than others. Besides that, all these things are ordered in such a highly coordinated way, that they are able to support a world and an entire universe.

One last thing, relativity won out over Newtonian physics because that latter suggested that gravity could be transmitted instantly between bodies, when observations indicate nothing travels faster than the speed of light. Also the force of gravity could be explained away by noting that just because a mass may accelerate towards another mass in close proximity to it, that doesn't necessarily mean that an intrinsic force exists between the two bodies. There could be another cause for the two masses accelerating towards one another. In relativity which explains these two weaknesses of Newtonian physics away, gravity does not exist. One body will accelerate towards another body, because the fabric of spacetime which runs throughout the universe that connects the two, is such that it causes the first body to move towards the second body in an accelerated fashion. (You can read about what I just wrote here.) Therefore while we still use Newtonian physics a lot because it is a more straightforward model of how our world works (and the math is a lot simpler), our 'best' model of how the universe works does not accept the existence of gravity.

 

[keebs]

When I talk about ordering, I talk about the ordering of atoms, molecules, energy, rocks, plants, animals, man, clouds, etc. into existence.

Chemical bonds...mainly a result of electromagnetism.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

PDoug-
The way that the universe works determines how the universe falls into place. Because electromagnetism is able to keep atoms from passing through each other it results in the diversity of chemical reactions that occur in the universe. It didn't "order" itself, matter was simply conforming to the way that things work.

 

[PDoug]

Evolution makes perfect sense if you actually look at it. Why is it a "poor hypothesis"?

There are a number of key things. If we say that the universe developed by chance, this means, that ultimately everything came about by chance - including the mechanism called natural selection. Therefore if natural selection is the product of chance, it means that ultimately the development of species into others, came about by chance. Therefore if you were to do the math to see the likelihood of a fish e.g. developing into an amphibian, the theory of evolution wouldn't pan out. E.g. if we were to start from the foundation of all things, this would mean that the various forms of energy, matter (including its subatomic, atomic, molecular, and other characteristics), the sophisticated mechanism called natural selection, the development of the first form of life, etc. all came about by chance - while at the same time building on each other. The math however states that the above scenario is statistically impossible.

Second: in order for e.g. a fish to evolve into an amphibian, mutation would have to occur in the correct set of genes that affect a range of internal systems in the organism (e.g. the respiratory, circulatory, skeletal, nervous systems) - all at the same time. Beyond this never being seen before in nature, the odds of this happening makes it impossible.

Third: genes found in DNA are found to encode information in the form of a language. (A language is said to have the following characteristics: "an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose. ") The alphabet is the nucleotides that form codons (or words) that make up the genetic code of genes. A codon or word corresponds to an amino acid in a protein - therefore for a protein to be correctly built, the words in a gene must be correctly 'spelt'. Further, for you to obtain a proper protein, the codons or words that make up a gene, must be in the correct order to obtain the protein with its aminio acids in the correct order. A genetic word has meaning in the sense that it represents an amino acid. Lastly, the purpose of genetic code is for the creation of protein molecules.

The only phenomenon that has been found in nature to express or use language, has been mankind or human intelligence. This suggests that the genetic language found in all forms of life (as we traditionally know it) has been placed there by an intelligence - in opposition to the notion that life developed ultimately by chance, in the absence of intelligence.