If something is complex, does that mean its designed?

Question

For example, my computer is a very complex machine. I find it hard to believe that something like this could pop out of nowhere. It was obivously designed.

Is the universe the same way? It is very complex. But does that mean it is designed?

Answer 1

Snowflakes are complex.



No design required.



The "argument from complexity" fails on multiple points, not least of which is the fact that the only reason we can even make the argument is because we RECOGNIZE THINGS THAT ARE NOT DESIGNED.



Your computer is complex, unlike a rock. Arguing that the universe was designed implies that the rock was designed, when it is just that which we use as an example of the undesigned.

Answer 2

The layout of sand on a beach is very complex. Was it designed? It is redesigned every time a wave comes in and moves some sand around?



If I design a wedge to stop a car from rolling while i work on the brakes, that is not complex, but it is designed.



There is no hard correlation between complexity and design or design and complexity.



The question is whether a complex structure can be be produced by natural forces over time.



A computer can not. Or it would be so ridiculously improbable that it is not worth considering.



The pattern of sand on a beach can. So it would be ridiculous to think it a design.





And once you understand how stars, planets etc. form and move you realize that the universe fits better into the sand-on-the-beach model than the computer model.



Likewise once you understand evolution and see the fossil record and the change over time from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures - life also better fits the undesigned model.





The key to this is understanding the straw man in your argument. If the universe or life had "popped out of nowhere" as it is then that would be a strong indicator that it was designed. But they did not. they grew from simple things following natural laws and became more complex over over long periods of time.

Answer 3

Depends how you define complexity, and how you look at creators. You see, I can build and program a machine to build and program computers. I am complex, that machine is complex, and that computer is complex, and we all have our own creators. In the same way, though, a mountain is complex, but it is created by fault lines, but do you call those fault lines it's creator?



The corrected word for making mountains is not create, but form. The Universe was formed, not necessarily created. Personally cosmogony aside, it is a matter of semantics only, so don't let this colour any specific arguments.



And besides which, compared to Earth I am not complex, but does that mean I had no creator?

Answer 4

The work of Alan Turing wasn't always about computer intelligence. He also pioneered work in the study of spontaneous complexity formation. It seems that is a natural phenomenon that can be described mathematically for things to clump together and get complex. He derived some math for it that was later shown to be relevant to chaos theory.



For something to be complex is no big deal. For something to be designed is no big deal. But the sad part is that folks do not realize that there are situations in which the two factors are totally independent of each other.

Answer 5

At a deeper level, can you even tell the difference between design, creation, evolution or accident?



For your example the computer is not purely a designed machine.

A lot of the discoveries that made it possible are purely accidental.

I don't think there is anybody that can point to the first computer.

Sometimes people mention the Jacquard Loom and Babbage's Machine as the ancestors of the computer, kind of like it was evolved instead of created.

Answer 6

A gamma ray burst is pretty complex. But I'm guessing if one blows the atmosphere off our planet and kills every living thing on it you're not going to be arguing for some grand scheme in that event (for at least one obvious reason)...



"I have a very hard time believing this is just happenstance."



The problem with your decree is, even if true, it doesn't point to any sort of intelligence in design, just a natural law. There is a physical gap between your logic and your conclusion that you're not filling in.



"For every law there is a lawgiver. This is consistent with what we have observed throughout time. Nowhere do we find an example of a law that has no lawgiver."



No, you're making an assumption. It does not follow, in any sense of the word, that merely because humans are conscious and make 'laws,' that all laws have a conscious being giving them. Especially given the fact that a 'human' law is utterly different than a physical or natural law.



You're again basing your conclusion on logic that does not follow it.

Answer 7

The idea of God is the only one who has been without creation - because he is and always has been eternal. Look at Mount Rushmore for example. Someone created it. I can guarantee that it was not years of erosion. So why say differently about the universe? It was perfectly set - up to the very last river on Earth. So would that itself not prove creation?





Edit: I see people have a point about snowflakes. But think about it, snowflakes are created. They are created by mother nature itself. The snowflakes do not just appear out of nowhere. They have to be formed somehow - in this case precipitation. That is creation.

Answer 8

Complexity is only part of the issue. The real signpost that points to design is the presence of a goal. Take DNA, for instance. It is a language, meaning that its purpose (it has a goal) is to pass on information that means something to whatever can interpret it (RNA). The simple fact that both DNA and RNA exist and work together to accomplish a goal (Protein synthesis) which leads to a second level goal of generating a life form, indicates that someone had to think this through. Perhaps rocks just happen, but things like that don't just pop up out of nowhere.

Answer 9

No matter how complex something may seem,it's just a compilation of simple parts and processes.



A computer really isn't that complex.A computer is simply energy being used to compute data(hence the name 'computer').If you were given step-by-step information a computer is given(in terms you could understand of course),you would be able to do the process very simply.



The universe is also not very complex(it's definitely not simple though).The universe is just energy(technically an absence of energy as there is an equal amount of negative energy as positive energy) undergoing simple processes(which can also simply be called energy).

Answer 10

If you started with just a pile of metal, plastic and some rubber, and it all of a sudden became a computer on its own, then you could compare it with the universe. The universe may very well be the result of a big bang,



Does a stick of dynamite which explodes show intelligent design for all the things that the explosion effected?

Answer 11

The network of ~10^28 air molecules floating around in your room is an incomprehensibly complicated system to a human mind. That doesn't mean it was designed, certainly not in your favor. I mean, you could suffocate on a carbon monoxide leak at random. Things are complex to us because a human mind can only process a few hundred bits (computer bits) of information at a time. Naturalistic vs. non-naturalistic patterns is the true consideration.

Answer 12

First, what makes something complex? What demarcates or separates "complex" from "not complex"? Is it the number of parts involved? Or is it that they interact in some non-additive way?



Second, let's take a nice example. Proteins gain their function by folding in specific ways to form a specific shape. Remove the shape, you remove the function because the function is dependent on the shape. Proteins are then 'complex' by non-additive considerations because "this amino acid + this amino acid +...+ this amino acid" don't intrinsically give the function but first must fold to obtain the function. Additionally, 'small proteins' are about 50 amino acids long. They qualify for complexity by virtue of many parts interacting.



Now, the function-giving folding is determined by the functional groups of the amino acids such that chemical affinities (negatively-charged side-chains and positively-charged side-chains interacting with each other) between both side-chains and the environment (most proteins have the less-charged amino acids on the inside away from the aqueous environment; the pH of the environment can deprotonate side-chains, making them more negative; etc). Additionally, there exist covalent bonds (like disulfide bridges) which affect folding.



So the folding CAN be brought to "A+B+...+ZZY+ZZZ" even though there is no human way to determine exactly why it folds one way and not this other way or that other way which has about the same energy.



We have reduced in the scientific sense the complex protein to a simple by explaining the non-additive in an additive way. This means that the complex in that sense DOES NOT need to be "designed." Proteins in fact fold rapidly and spontaneously form the most stable folding configuration simply because of the environmental and intra-protein reactions.



Now, the length of the amino acid chain is simple as well. It's a dehydration reaction where a water is removed (which is spontaneous because it's energetically favorable) to form a bond between the Amino group and Carboxylic (or Acid) group of the protein. So we have explained the addition of parts without recourse to a designer.



In short, the "complex" need not be "designed".



-----



There is, however, a 'partly-scientific' denotation to 'design' that is elaborated upon by Francisco Ayala. In this sense, "design" comes from being improved upon to better perform a specific function. In this way, natural selection (or the genetic increase that results from better enabling the organism survive and reproduce) is a perfect 'designer' although it is a non-sentient predominately-passive mechanism.



This way ALSO allows "simple" things to be "designed" and allows "complex" things to NOT be "designed". So it foils the question by making the dichotomy you posit invalid.



-----



The universe, now...is it really "very complex"? What is your basis for saying that it is?



It has only one necessary part to it--itself. NOT COMPLEX.



Its functions are additive because forces are additive. Where they are not directly additive, we have negative-additive (i.e. the effects of electrical repulsion against the strong nuclear force or gravity) and vector-additive (gravitational effects in three dimensions). In both cases, we are left with an additive understanding. NOT COMPLEX.



We could argue for 'design' in that it continues to exhibit stability. But because this doesn't affect whether it is or is not truly "complex" we must realize that this uses Ayala's meaning. Subsequently, it nullifies the point you make because it's design without necessarily having a designer AND because we have not determined it to be "complex." NOT DESIGNED.



---



By "Complex" you could be meaning "I can't understand all those equations which describe the universe" or "I can't solve this supposed problem" but...Let's ignore that I explained them to my friends enough that none of them failed Physical Chemistry. I have an Excel sheet of most of the fundamental and minimally-probabilistic equations for the universe. Sure there are some kinks in it, such as some things being half what they should be or ten times too large in the baseline (i.e. our) world. But these have consistently proven to be a combination of typos on my end and the equations being approximate.



The universe fits in a Microsoft Excel sheet. Not even a workbook. One. Sheet. I could print it out on a literal sheet if I wanted! So it's not necessarily complex in that way. Or I am a genius that rivals God in pure knowledge and intelligence. But you wouldn't concede that if you are arguing for the universe to have been designed.

Answer 13

What evokes the verdict of 'designed' is the rational element not the complexity. We do see a unity (hence the very word UNIverse), and we are struck by the interworkings of untold zillions of contingent separate things. But most of all the mathematical nature, the laws, the discoverability of everything -- that evokes 'design'.

Answer 14

A computer is complex because it's made by humans, and humans can't do "magic." If I could do magic, the computer I designed wouldn't need a keyboard - it would respond to thought commands. It wouldn't need a hard drive, processor, programs, etc. - it would work magically. If I could use magic to create thinking entities, they wouldn't require eyes to see, or mouths to speak, or ears to hear, and on and on, because they'd work magically. People don't realize that a magical being wouldn't be so limited as to have to create complexity.

Answer 15

Everything made has a maker. The more complex the more complex the Maker.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



How We Can Know There Is a God



ONE way to determine whether there is a God is to apply this well-established principle: What is made requires a maker. The more complicated the thing made, the more capable the maker must be.



For example, look around your home. Tables, chairs, desks, beds, pots, pans, plates, and other eating utensils all require a maker, as do walls, floors, and ceilings. Yet, those things are comparatively simple to make. Since simple things require a maker, is it not logical that complex things require an even more intelligent maker?





Our Awesome Universe





A watch requires a watchmaker. What of our infinitely more complex solar system, with the Sun and its planets revolving around it with split-second precision century after century? What of the awesome galaxy we live in, called the Milky Way, with its more than 100 billion stars? Have you ever stopped at night to gaze at the Milky Way? Were you impressed? Then think of the incredibly vast universe that contains untold billions of galaxies like our Milky Way! Too, the heavenly bodies are so reliable in their movements century after century that they have been compared to precision timepieces.





If a watch, which is relatively simple, implies the existence of a watchmaker, surely the infinitely more complex and awesome universe implies the existence of a designer and maker. That is why the Bible invites us to ‘raise our eyes high up and see,’ and then it asks: “Who has created these things?” The answer: “It is the One [God] who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Thus, the universe owes its existence to an invisible, controlling, intelligent power—God.

Answer 16

That depends on how you define complexity, for one thing.



The universe may look awfully complex from where we're standing, but remember that the vast majority of the universe contains pretty much nothing.

Answer 17

A designer would be complex too. Right? And would therefore himself have to be designed. So your thinking would just produce an endless row of designers.

Answer 18

If one makes an argument that complexity is a classifier for a design, then something as infinitely complicated as a God must certainly have had a creator.

Answer 19

Unnecessary complexity is actually a valid argument against the concept of design. Think about it, your computer has exactly what it needs to run, no more no less. It's functional by design, humans are not, our eyes are pretty meh compared to what's out there, we can choke to death thanks to our windpipe and esophagus using the same hole. We carry junk DNA for monkey tails, several organs are not only removable because they don't do anything but can also kill us if they aren't.



From a design perspective this is just shoddy workmanship all round. If you had a computer like this you'd probably want a refund because of all the extra wasted stuff you had to pay for.



So the simple fact is if your god designed us he did a **** job and that's just the short list of obvious flaws.

Answer 20

The argument from complexity/design is easily debunked and is a terrible argument. If you want to know why, watch "Growing Up in the Universe" or read "The Blind Watchmaker".

Answer 21

No. For example, the economy wasn't designed (it is an unintended consequence of human actions, governments try to regulate it but no one could consciously design and coordinate such a phenomena).



Life does not need to be designed because its existence is a function of its ability to reproduce, rather than its ability to meet a specific human need.

Answer 22

Complexity is just an arbitrary measure we give to all sorts of things. It says nothing about the mechanism by which the 'complexity' arose.

Answer 23

Exactly...

God made man, gave man the brains and intelligence to design a computer.

We didn't evolve, we didn't come from nothing.

We have a Creator, a Designer and is God, maker of heaven and earth.



Ecclesiastes 11:5

As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.

Answer 24

Anything that was made by human hands are tools designed for a purpose. Anything that has evolved from the universe have been glorious mistakes....but thats not my final answer

Answer 25

The greater the complexity, the greater likeliehood it was not randomized. This is especially true when the complexity helps to facilitate a cause or process.

Answer 26

There's more to it than complexity. There's also the issue of pattern. Of course, different people mean different things by "pattern". For it to be evidence of creation, there has to be more than mere symmetry, for example, which is what the appearance of pattern in snowflakes amounts to. There is also the matter of sequential order. When you look at a DNA molecule, which does not merely provide instructions for the creation of an organism but also provides the program for the order in which the various components are to be assembled, I think it's fair to say that we're beyond rocks and snowflakes.



As for Beau Nobo and all the other correspondents who think that "God is complex. Who created God?" is a sufficient answer, I will comment that, as a matter of fact, the scholastic theologians held that God was perfectly simple. I have almost 0 use for scholastic theology, but that's not because I find their conclusions illogical but because I think we should keep our mouths shut when we don't know what the daisy chain we're talking about, and the composition of God surely falls under that heading. For me, I'm satisfied with noting that creation implies time, and time is a constituent of the universe; therefore the Creator of the universe surely transcends time, which means that He transcends the need to have been created. Although Beau thinks he's talking sense when he asks, "Who created God?" , he's really asking "Who created that which enabled the conditions for creation in the first place?" which actually does not make sense.

Answer 27

Even if it was designed does not mean there is a god involved or a designer as defined by whoever.



That's the crux of the issue. It's easy to say "God did it", but there isn't even a reasonable theory for a god in order to test. As such, god is a philosophy, and wishful thinking.

Answer 28

Nope. A snowflake is very complex when you look at it closely. It's not designed by anything other than the shape of the molecule.

Answer 29

Yes

Answer 30

I can't think of any complex thing within the universe that's not designed. So it stands to reason that the universe itself is designed.



@ Beau Nobo: Fair point. Therefore we must conclude that if it is complex but not designed it must therefore be infinite.



@ Captain Sarcastic: Snowflakes are intricate, but they're not complex per se. However, the laws governing the structure of a water molecule that are ultimately responsible for water's behavior when forming crystals WERE designed. So the snowflake itself is not designed, but the processes that develop it are. Take a look at the unique properties of water. It is literally unlike any other fluid, compound or otherwise, in the universe. For starters, when it freezes it expands greatly before contracting. This is a very handy property to have when you're the one substance no known life in the universe can exist without. I have a very hard time believing this is just happenstance.



@ The Beat: For every law there is a lawgiver. This is consistent with what we have observed throughout time. Nowhere do we find an example of a law that has no lawgiver. We may therefore conclude that the laws of physics also have a Lawgiver.



@ Shade: First of all your argument is riddled with factual errors (we have no "junk" DNA, and every organ and appendage in our body serves a function). Second, if my computer's so much more efficient than my body, how come it only has a three year warranty? A warranty that can be invalidated if I expose it to ANY kind of physical abuse? Third, just because we haven't discovered the purpose of a particular system doesn't mean it lacks one.

Answer 31

Yes, the chicken came before the egg, and it also is a very complex design, which humans did not create. But you know deep down Who did.

Answer 32

Argument from Design. It's a common logical fallacy.



http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html

Answer 33

Yes, complexity can arrive out of what seems like nowhere in a chaotic non-linear system without design.



Look up emergent behavior... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Answer 34

"I find it hard to believe that something like this could pop out of nowhere." You find this difficult to understand? Well, let's re-write all the biology books, then.

Answer 35

I think complexity proves evolution. If God was smart, he could of done things a lot simpler and easier.

Answer 36

Some one or more beat me to it...

'God' is complex - who designed 'him'?



Gods and magic are the most ludicrous things primitive man ever came up with to explain anything... he may as well have suggested that a one-eyed Turtle with the assistance of half a dozen near-naked Flamingos did it... ;)

~

Answer 37

Sure. Why not? Diseases are very complex. God must have designed them to torture us out of sheer malignant boredom. Yaaaa God!

Answer 38

And there you have the non-sequitur of those who say that it is designed. We know from various examples that matter is self-organising and no supernatural explanation is required. So, it's an unwarranted leap to say that there is a creator.

Answer 39

quick question: what's the probability that everything complex in the universe (seen and unseen) came here by chance? and can you fit all of that within the time evolutionists give for the universe's age??

Answer 40

My dear friend,yes,you are right.In Hindu scriptures,if you read Time Theory in BHAVISHYA PURANA, (Surf net for that) or astronomy in Hindu scriptures,you will find,detail description of your theory.Even you can surf net for BAGVAD GITA.

Answer 41

Your computer does not have parts that have been observed to spontaneously self-assemble. Biological materials, on the other hand...

Answer 42

The watchmaker fallacy is a fallacy for a reason

Answer 43

Where is everyone getting these organic computers from? I can't find one anywhere. Of course a computer can't just appear out of nowhere.

Answer 44

Yes.

Answer 45

computers and women are the same iplay with them every day yet still idon't jnderstand either

Answer 46

the notion of "complex" is very subjective

Answer 47

---The anthropic principle---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

The puddle fits the hole, not the hole made for the puddle. (D.Adams)

What seems to be ‘grand design’ is actually a random chaotic universe,

but because we have become manifest in it, it seems familiar and ordered.

To another life form it would not seem so.



---Cellular Automata---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata

Matter can self organize itself, for instance under the constant pressure of sunlight,

and that it requires only a very few lines of program to create very complex structures.



---Fractals---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractals

An example of cellular automata.

Many websites are devoted to the beauty of these designs.

Which is similar to Islamic art, but are vastly more complicated.

Oh yes, you have all seen them before.



--- Mandelbrot feed back equation---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

An example of the maths involved, in fractals.

it is a simple equation, that involves adding 1

each time the equation is actioned.



In summing up, reality is decided at the sub atomic level.

Understanding how atoms and molecules join up or not,

pretty much explains the world and the universe.



It is much more logical to have everything,

materially unfold from a single origin in time and space.

Matter self organizes itself into life, and into intelligence.

This is a complicated process and is understood only by a few people.



What is the Only other explanation.



That a magic man suddenly created everything,

to his design, and has now mysteriously disappeared,

but who insists on being worshiped none the less,

the punishment being sent to hell at death if you don't.



And that explanation makes sense? I don't think so.

Answer 48

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

Answer 49

No... Complexity does not mean anything. What is complex to you, might be simple for others.

Answer 50

you are correct. Everything you see in creation has been ordained by God the Father. Not only did He get things started, He also upholds them on a daily basis.

Answer 51

I've seen complex disasters. They weren't designed.

Answer 52

No

Answer 53

Are u dumb? God did it. You should believe it. Thats the end of it. Stop overthinking this. U gonna end up in hell if you do.

Answer 54

No.

Answer 55

God is very complex. Who designed God?