jim@ISM780B.UUCP (08/12/85)
[ellis]
Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential
truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only
it was dormant -- exactly like a seed....
[balter]
The complexity is not there, only the *potential* for the complexity.
These are vastly different. Imagine throwing a bucket of paint at a wall
and having it drip in the form of a familiar face. Was the face in the
bucket, or in the thrower, or in the wall, or in the air? I would say mostly
it was in the process. It *happened*, as the result of all the mechanisms
that were involved. In the case of the evolution of the universe,
it appears that QM plays a very important role in the actual universe
resulting; the relative quantities of bosons and fermions and matter and
antimatter are the result of which way various assymetries developed;
other universes could have arisen from the same initial state, and in a
multiple worlds model these other universes can be considered to "exist"
(they can be be derived consistently from the initial state and can be
modeled and discussed even though they are not the universe we happen to
inhabit). Only in a strictly deterministic universe can the initial state
be considered to *necessarily* result in the final state, and can the
initial state be analogized to a seed (but even a seed only contains the
phenotype; the genetic determination is only a part of the determination
of the outcome (sociobiologists be damned)).
[rosen]
That's not strictly true either, unless you once again define some
"planning force" that designed the complexity.
[balter]
Given a "planning force", the complexity might be dormant within the "seed"
if the force is static, or it might not if the force is dynamic.
Without a "planning force", the complexity might be dormant within the "seed"
(through circumstance; perhaps a the complexity of a contracting universe
was captured (no contradiction with the above; our cosmological knowledge
is still probabilistic, not certain!); real seeds imply great complexity,
but evolutionists would explain it by evolution
(unplanned, but not "random"!)), or it might not (standard QM model
mentioned above). So I don't follow Rosen's argument but I share his
disagreement (beware standard rhetorical traps! a bad argument against is not
a good argument for!)
[ellis]
I refer you to the much debated `Design Implies Designer' argument. Both
sides have been adequately presented, and I have nothing new to add on
this point.
Incidentally, it is peculiar to hear the watchmaker argument coming from
you, Rich.
[balter]
Just to throw in my 2 cents worth, Design -> Designer has no deductive force;
all arguments for it assume the conclusion.
[rosen]
You miss the point. I was saying that the position above only has meaning
if you assume a creator who "designed" the complexity.
[balter]
I disagree with the "only", but I agree that the position does make
unwarranted assumptions.
[ellis]
Then you are saying that the existence of a seed-like proto-universe
would imply a Creator?
[balter]
I believe that what Rosen was saying was that your claim that evolution
implies a seed-like proto-universe only follows if you assume a creator.
Your failure to see that you made this assumption led you to turn Rosen's
position topsy turvy, by misinterpreting what he was referring to by
"the position above". I'm sure I have merely made this all the more
confusing. It would be simplified if you went back to your original statement
("... if evolution is true ... then the present complexity was there from the
beginning, only it was dormant -- exactly like a seed....") and justify it.
This seems to be the crux of the debate; evolutionists say that complexity
can arise from simplicity; you are claiming that complexity must have arisen
from complexity (dormant, seed-like, enfolded, but still complex).
(If either God or Stephen Jay Gould are on the net, would you please step in
and clear things up for us?)
-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)