Q&A: On the physico-theological proof based on the 'laws of nature' that produced complexity
On the physico-theological proof based on the 'laws of nature' that produced complexity
Question
In the book The First Existent you bring the Darwinists' argument that refuted the proof from design, namely that the system of constraints in nature [mutation, natural selection, etc.] is an inherent cause that produces ever more improved and stronger outcomes, like the parable of the drunk who falls into the ditch randomly, and so on.
And you rejected this by revising the proof: that the proof from design is not from the design itself, but from the laws that brought about this designed state.
But I did not understand the proof. After all, the natural state in which the strong survive is not some law that could not arise randomly; it is something elementary that should arise on its own once there is life on earth. It is obvious to everyone that when there are creatures, the weak survive less than the strong, so there is an external system of constraints that improves creatures over the generations. What here points to wisdom and complexity from which one can bring a proof of design? What intelligent law are you talking about??
Answer
I explained there that without the specific system of laws of our world, such complex creatures would not have come into being. I also explained that without genetics, for example, even if there were natural selection, everything would immediately die out and start over from the beginning. Therefore it is not correct that the survival of the fittest is enough to explain the formation of complex systems. See in more detail in God Plays Dice and in the summary article here on the site.
Discussion on Answer
Genetics is not created through a process of natural selection. Systems of laws are not created by natural selection.
It is possible that the Big Bang is not unique of its kind, and that in billions of galaxies laws did not develop. The complexity in the laws does not mean there is no chance they would exist, only that the chance is remote. It may really be that out of billions of "bangs," only in our universe are there such laws, and in others the living species did not survive because of the lack of those laws.
I answered this in detail in my book God Plays Dice and also in The First Existent. First, even if universes are created, there is some mechanism that creates them, and that itself requires an explanation. God can be an explanation for that. Beyond that, since we have not seen all the bangs that create universes with other systems of laws, this hypothesis has no basis, and it is also not probable, because if we have not seen them then they probably do not exist. One can always make up theoretical possibilities and thereby reject a probabilistic conclusion. Every strange and rare event can always be explained by such a theory.
What creates them could be primordial matter.
I agree that the theory has no basis.
Primordial matter does not create anything.
Is the wording the problem?! "That from which they were created is primordial matter."
But I still haven’t had time to read the physico-theological proof, so if it is explained there, I’ll read it there.
You wrote: "Genetics is not created through a process of natural selection. Systems of laws are not created by natural selection."
I did not understand why. A creature whose formation took place without the possibility of passing its strength on to its offspring survived less well, whereas a creature in which, over the course of the attempts, a system of genes arose that is inherited by the offspring succeeded in fixing its strength and passing it onward.
Genetics is a mechanism, not a law, and a mechanism is something that can develop according to the evolutionary model.
In short, I don’t understand what you wrote.
That is not important. So biology or physics are not created through an evolutionary process. In any case, genetics would not even have been possible. We always assume a framework of laws in the background of the process, and the fundamental laws (as distinct from the mechanisms within them) have no evolutionary explanation.
The genetics you brought as an example is not a law but some kind of complex system, and even it itself can be understood as a product of natural selection: before it developed, the stronger organisms could not pass their strength on to their offspring, so reality forced creatures to develop a genetic system in order to survive, and so it happened, without any design.
You can argue that this is not probable, but if you agree that the constraints of nature are a cause that selects the more complex and better systems, then there is no proof here at all.