JCFolsom:No, my statement is that, of the orders we have observed being created, those created by consciousness are more complex. Based on the structures we have observed being created (the original design, now), we can state that consciousness tends to create new structures that are more complex than the spontaneous structures of nature. I hope I'm being clear.
Ahh ok. That make a lot more sence, and I really can't refute it. I will not concede, however, that just because random chance has not produced something a complex as a digital watch that it wouldn't, given a few billion years. It really comes down to the old chestnut involving one or more monkeys, a type writer, eternity and Hamlet.
JCFolsom: When you lay out the cards, an order must occur. To use your card-dealing example, while it is true that any particular order is highly unlikely, that does not mean some orders are not more significant than others. A random array would raise no eyebrows, since, as I said, they have to be laid out in some order. But if you had them organized by suit and number laid out on the table, we could be confident that someone did that on purpose. It is both complex and unlikely and has recognizable significance in its order.
As I said, "It is certain that something would have happened, but extremely unlikely that life would happen." The result of life is only more significant than the others because it was the result. It life hadn't happened, something else would have. If you look at life as a result, not a goal, then it just happened that way by chance.
JCFolsom: JackCuyler: Water is more complex than either hydrogen or oxygen. Ice is far more organized than water.
Not really. To say water is more complex than hydrogen or oxygen is about the same as saying that a marble in a marble-shaped divot on a surface is more complex than the marble rolling around on the surface. The tendency of hydrogen to be bound to oxygen, a rather strong one, means that water is a lower-energy, more stable state than either hydrogen or oxygen gas, or particularly single atoms of hydrogen and oxygen.
Claiming water is not more complex than hydrogen or oxygen goes even further than claiming the pyramids are not more complex than bricks. Water has more parts than either. Water has completely different properties than either. Further, the fact that a water molecule is more stable than either a hydrogen or oxygen atom leads to the conclusion that natural forces are not necessaritly "neutral or actually reduce complexity," but rather will eventually achieve stability. Stability may be more or less complex.
JCFolsom: Contrast this with the chemicals found in life, which are either higher-energy states than the constituent chemicals or the constituent chemicals have other low energy states that are more easily accessible. This is one of the reasons we need to eat, see, because to make many biological compounds requires energy input, but of course, just energy by itself won't do.
I thought water was a chemical found in life. Regardless, I agree that life, even in its simplest form, is more complex than water.
JCFolsom: Plants gain energy from the sun. Try to do that yourself, and the radiation will just begin to break down the chemicals in your skin and eyes.
I'll also get vitamin D and a nice tan that will attract the ladies... until my skin turns to a leather-like consistency later in life.
JCFolsom: Darwin's theory had a profound impact, because it supposedly obviated the need for God, something the scientists of the day already deeply desired. Its widespread acceptance and even enforcement in government schools has led entire generations to view theistic explanations for life as childish and ridiculous. That's really just a prejudice, though. If you don't know enough to really take a side on this, it is because you choose not to. The information you need to at least lean one way or another is out there, and there are very well-argued books that exist to help (try Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe).
That's rather silly. Darwin's removed God as the creator of the species, not life. At no point does Darwin attempt to explain the origin of life, nor does current evolutionary theory. God could have created the universe, and all that was in it a few billion years ago, including the first bits of life, giving those first life forms the abilty to reproduce and to have mutant offspring. That supposition is perfectly harmonious with evolution. The only God that Darwin attempted to disprove was the Judeo-Christian God that supposedly created man out of dust and woman out of a rib six thousand years ago. Since you have consitently said you are not talking about this God, then why attack Darwin or evolution at all?
Finally, you are correct; rejecting the existence of a God is claiming that the universe was created without God. It is not more than that, though, and it certainly is not a claim that one does know how it was created. Given any simple problem, even if I do not know the solution, or the solution is unknowable, I may be able to eliminate some possibilities. "Given that X is a positive whole number, what is X + 6?" I may not know the answer, as it is unknowable, but I can tell you it's not 4. How did the universe come to be? "I don't know, but it wasn't God," is along the same line.