|
Author
|
Topic: Specified Complex CBR -- revisited
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 27. March 2006 18:02
A few years ago, I offered what I thought was a counter-example to Dembski's claim that Specified Complexity is always an indicator of intelligent design. I suggested the hypothetical example of specified complex cosmic background radiation -- to be specific, CBR that repeated the prime numbers from 1 to 101. Though it was possible that such a situation was designed, it did not seem to be an example that would necessarily prompt us to expect design. We might just as easily think that it just showed that Pythagoras was right, and that reality was somehow constructed out of mathematical relationships.
Thinking it over, I realize now why my example did not prompt an intuitive sense that it was intelligently designed. I was assuming that such a pattern would have been designed by God, and it seemed somehow either beneath God -- or not in His character -- to try to communicate with intelligent creatures in such a way. Other, more profound and personal ways of communicating seemed to have been used in our religious traditions.
But if we don't assume that God would be the only one capable of creating such a pattern in the CBR, I think our intuitions that it was intelligently designed come back into play. I've heard it said that physicists think that someday we might be able to reproduce the conditions that lead to the Big Bang. I don't know if that hearsay is reliable, but assume it is. Assume further that the physicists would look for a way of leaving a signature that the universe they had created was made by intelligent, but finite creatures. If they found some way of programming the CBR of their universe to exhibit a pattern recognizable by scientists, such as the prime number pattern, they might try to make that happen.
So in that case, should we discover that the CBR does exhibit some such pattern, I think we might be justified in going beyond Pythagoras to infer intelligent design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 28. March 2006 17:39
The reason I decided to revisit this topic, is that I think it may reveal something significant about the psychology of inferring intelligent design. As an ID proponent, I am quite ready to accept the arguments of Behe and others that there is good evidence for Intelligent Design in living organisms. But I was not prepared to accept Specified Complexity in the CBR -- at least, not a mathematical pattern -- as evidence of intelligent design?
Why the difference?
I think it's because in the first case -- intelligent design in living organisms, I already believe there is a plausible designer. I believe that there is a God, and that designing life, or parts of it, is thoroughly consistent with God's character, and that there are no good theological reasons to believe otherwise. So it isn't difficult for me to accept evidence for this kind of intelligent design.
But as I stated in the opening post, when first considering Specified Complexity in the CBR, of a mathematical pattern, I did not believe there was such a plausible designer. Even though I believed God would be capable of creating such a pattern, I would not believe that He would do such a thing. And it did not occur to me at the time that there could be any other plausible designer. So discovering such a pattern would not automatically lead me to think it was intelligently designed.
But now, based on my hearsay evidence, should such a pattern be discovered, I have what appears to be a plausible designer -- physicists. So I am more ready to make the inference to intelligent design.
So now let's apply this to the issue of intelligent design in living organisms. Do most critics of ID reject it because they do not believe there is a plausible designer? Either because they do not believe God exists, or because they do not think God would do such a thing? And do they find existence of other designers to be implausible -- time travelers, extraterrestrials, or Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis?
If so, then I think it should help the proponents of ID to understand why there is such resistance to the concept.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 28. March 2006 19:18
What I really like about your post is that you have suggested a plausible designer that actually created the universe but is someone very much unlike the God of the Bible, someone not unlike what we envision our progeny to become.
Though my bias is to believe that the God of the Bible did it, I also respect the need that people have to find an alternative explanation. I think it would give more people the opportunity to consider ID as a possibility.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 29. March 2006 17:16
When it comes to life, it's my bias, also, Bruce. It seems quite commensurate with God's grandeur. Mathematical patterns in the CBR do not seem commensurate.
Suppose we found morse code in the CBR. If long and complex enough, I think we would be forced to admit it was intelligently designed. I would think that it would not be commensurate with God's character, and would object to identifying God as the designer in such a case. But I would have to admit there was a designer. We would have to rule out our hearsay physicist, since she probably wouldn't know our language or code.
So we would have a known intelligently designed phenomena without a plausible designer. I think this deserves another thread.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 18. June 2006 20:39
By the way, I'm willing to go out on a limb and make a prediction: If they find a mathematical pattern in the CBR, the numbers will have some sort of Biblical significance. I'm basing this on two previous discoveries:
First, it appears the universe has the shape of a dodecahedron, and each side is a pentagon. So we have the numbers 12 and 5. 12 is signficant for the 12 tribes of Israel. 5 for the number of Books in the Torah (Pentateuch).
Second, we have the three significant parts in the cell: DNA, RNA, and proteins. All RNA is made of right-handed nucleotides. RNA is the expression of DNA. We could call it the "Word" of DNA. In the Bible, the Word of God -- the expression of God -- is associated in the New Testament with the Messiah, who sits at the right hand of God.
Meanwhile, all protein is made of left-handed amino acids. And protein is what does the real work in the cell. In the Bible, the Spirit of God is that which does the work. Now the Spirit is never called the "left hand of God" in the Bible. But starting with the 2nd century theologian Irenaus, that is the unofficial title given to the Spirit of God.
So based on these two examples, if we find a mathematical pattern in the CBR, I expect there to be some connection to the Bible.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 19. June 2006 00:01
Jules:"it appears the universe has the shape of a dodecahedron, and each side is a pentagon." I have not heard this. Could you show me published evidence of it?
As far as numbers having some Biblical significance, you wouldn't mind listing which numbers have which significance for me would you?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 19. June 2006 17:28
For the shape of the universe, try here:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/10/5
It needs to be tested further, so obviously I'm jumping the gun. We religious fanatics like to do that.
As to Biblical numbers, I only have the two examples I've mentioned, so far: The shape of the universe -- giving us 12 and 5. And the 3 principle parts of the cell -- DNA, RNA, and proteins, which seem to correspond in chirality and function to what is known as the Trinity. I even found a place where Crick refers to DNA, RNA, and proteins as a "trinity." I can try to find that for you, if you wish.
So does two examples justify my prediction? Nah. It's just a hunch. I've got a feeling that if God put a mathematical message in the CBR, it will be Biblically related.
Of course, that soccer ball shape of the universe makes me wonder: Is the universe getting kicked around in some giant Universal Cup match?
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 19. June 2006 17:33
Jules, if it is discovered that the universe is a dodecohedran, I will be very surprised! Albiet, I have been surprised before.
As far as numbers go, I am not looking for numbers which have shown up in science, just Biblical numbers. Does 1 have significance? I would presume, as there is one God.
How 'bout 2. Three is the trinity, yes? Four?, Five? Isn't six the number of man? Seven is perfection, yes? What other numbers are there: 8, 13, 24 that carry Biblical significance?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 20. June 2006 16:21
Gee, we specify ahead of time what numbers have Biblical significance, and they don't show up in the CBR message, then we've blown it. I prefer drawing my target around the arrow, thank you. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic