Using The Science Term: Complexity

There is much ambiguity using this term coming from creationists and intelligent design proponents. I believe the ambiguity of this particular term causes a bit of confusion as a result, because it doesn’t fully display the meaning when used in general.

Complexity is a term generally used two things which are  unique arrangements and specified arrangements. The likes of President-Elect Obama in describing his opposition for intelligent design said that saying life is just too complex, didn’t fit science.

Others have also jumped on the ambiguity of using the term, “complexity” when describing science. PZ Meyers a militant atheist who spends much of his blog time fighting Christianity and religion in general states…

“The lesson of Darwin is that unguided natural processes have the ability to generate complex functionality, so it takes more than just showing complexity and function to demonstrate purpose. Creationists don’t understand that at all, so they keep whining “it’s complex.”

It’s more than merely “complex.”  Michael Behe wasn’t the first to use irreducible complexity, one can go back as far as 1968 Professor Michael Polanyi FRS who wrote an article called “Life’s irreducible structure.” In the article, Polany argued that all living organisms have a machine-like structure in them that cannot be reduced to the physics and chemistry of the molecules of which they consist.

We do find complexity in nature that is non-living material as well. For example, ice crystals are very complex when water freezes. However, ice crystals are unable to catalyze the formation of other ice crystals. This reason for this is because chemical reactions only go so far till  they reach equilibrium.

As stated in a previous post, RNA in a controlled setting, can replicate itself with the help of biologists. It’s a very complex procedure. While RNA might be able to replicate itself with a duplicate of itself in a lab, it cannot do anything else. Scientists have had admitted, that’s as far as the discovery goes. So it doesn’t really have a practical application for producing life.

Living cells need an operating system, genetic programming, and a translator which can not only encrypt the code but needs a translator which can decrypt the code as well. Specified information is the key to life not just complex information.

Evolutionists contend this simply happened because of the time factor. It’s quite a leap of faith because the theory has no hypothesis for a mechanism that is testable.  Information as has been observed like human language, computer software, machines, all have a pattern of being purposefully designed. DNA’s language was purposefully designed.

Chaperonins these highly specialized proteins shelter certain other proteins from water which gives  them time to fold properly.  Chaperonins have precise expansion, flexible gateways, a timed sequence of chemical events, and other capacities.

So using the term, “complexity” I believe can have too much of a broad meaning. It’s not just complex like stones being blown around on the surface of Mars that is complex or a snowflake, but specified complexity like Chaperonins, computer software, DNA, human languages, and so on.

Nature demostrates the all wise and all powerful Creator who is God (not intelligent agents) as some others would like to speculate.


4 thoughts on “Using The Science Term: Complexity

  1. Your last sentence is completely out of context: it pops up out of nowhere, with no proof or anything of the sort, and has nothing to do with the rest of the post …
    You seem to do this regularly. Could you elaborate on why you do this ?

  2. Put it this way, when one finds an old painting, how can you test that to know if the painting was intelligently designed or someone just filling up the paper randomly with paint?

    Also to clarify for you, “intelligent agents” is not God, that’s an ID concept not a creationist one.

  3. Ehh … that’s not an answer to my question, which is an argumentative one. Your last sentence pops out of nowhere, and does not relate to the rest of the test, and comes without any sort of argument why that should be the case.

    But it is your blog, of course, so you can just ignore such worries …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s