Intelligent Design Probability

Karsten Pultz on why randomness depends on order

Spread the love

Our Danish correspondent Karsten Pultz, author of Exit Evolution, offers some thoughts on the meaning of randomness, a concept especially prized in Darwinian theory, formed while riding a bike:


Random mutation is a phenomenon that only can be observed because we have the order and precise meaningful arrangement of the genome, which constitutes the background on which the randomness can be observed.

Random events can be observed only in relation to or more precisely in contrast to existing order.

This would indicate that randomness cannot exist without order and that order therefore precedes randomness. If this is true random mutation and all other random events can’t produce order hence ruling out Neo-Darwinian evolution as plausible explanation for life.

Could it be argued that randomness is a mere property of order?

The random outcome of a coin toss is only possible because of the inherent order of the coin. The same goes for the random outcome of throwing a dice. A dice contains a high degree of order that forms the well defined background on which the random outcomes are produced when the dice is rolled. No order no randomness because order forms the background on which we can detect randomness.

Bestil Exit Evolution på nettet. 198 kr.

The constructed order of a dice is much bigger than the randomness it can produce, and the construction of the dice of course precedes the randomness. Neo-Darwinists and materialists have put the cart before the horse, not realizing that if there were no horse (order) there could be no cart (randomness).

Comparing to evolution, the randomness produced by the orderly dice, would be the same randomness having produced the dice itself, because that’s how evolution works, slowly building order by random events from the bottom up. Applying the same hypothetical process to bicycles the random event that I get a puncture when riding my bike would be the same type of event which initially created the bike.

I think this makes very little sense. But what makes sense though is if randomness is a mere property of order. When the constructed order we call a bicycle is brought into existence, the possibility of the random flat tyre or broken chain is also brought into existence. When a dice is made the randomness it can produce is also brought into existence. If this is a general rule random events like mutations cannot produce order because order must precede randomness.

Looking at random mutations and assume randomness produced the whole shebang in the first place, is like looking at a flat bike tyre and assuming that the same odd random event of a puncture is the same kind of event that initially brought the bike into existence.

In evolutionary theory this is exactly what is claimed; it just requires a lot of time to work. But obviously the random event of a punctured tyre could not exist without the order of the constructed bike, so why assume that random events like mutations can exist without the meticulous order of (in this case) the genome existing prior to the random mutations?

The Neo-Darwinists are narrowing their reductionist focus down to the small exceptions, namely the random mutations, and have completely lost sight of the surrounding unfathomable order constituted by the whole organism. Not being able to see the forest for the trees seems to be the problem. The order of the genome can be equated with meaningfulness because it has purpose. In contrast to this stands random mutations which represents meaninglessness because they obviously have no purpose, – that’s in fact how we detect randomness, by observing the fly in the ointment. Neo-Darwinian evolution and the whole materialistic paradigm which spawned it are based on the assumption that out of meaninglessness grows meaning (order out of chaos).

Looking at coin tosses, dice rolling and flat tyres though, it seems like order necessarily must exist before any randomness emerges. I assume the universe is a massive phenomenon of order with a bit of randomness distributed all over, like sprinkling on a cake — after all, we observe order everywhere we look. Any randomness we see is actually only the sprinkling, not the cake itself.

It might be that the second law of thermodynamics is true for a closed system, but if, considering quantum entanglement, everything is connected to everything else, an
actual closed system doesn’t exist. A pocket of randomness will eventually be overtaken by order like the decaying city of Chernobyl is slowly being taken over by the order of living nature.

Randomness, I suggest, is there to prove that order exists, serving as the exception that confirms the rule.

Also, I will argue that order precedes randomness. The random mutations are only there because of the intelligently designed order of the genome which creates the foundation for any randomness to exist and be observed at all.

The inherent order of the universe is treated by Neo-Darwinians as a free lunch whereby, because there’s something rather than nothing, they can spend their fruitless time pondering on how the something came from the nothing.

Evolution is an error driven process. Errors are precisely the meaningless exceptions we find in organized meaningful systems. Evolution is thus a self refuting theory because by being error driven it depends on preexisting, highly ordered, meaningful systems in which errors can occur.

Obviously we can’t have errors before we have an orderly system that defines what an error is. Being an error driven process, evolution points to the necessity of pre existing orderly systems, which we must assume only can have been brought into existence by the same sort of causal agency that makes bicycles.

The assumption that order precedes randomness and chaos is the foundation of Christianity. John 1:1 states: “In the beginning was the Logos.” Logos was the Greek term for order and knowledge introduced by Heraclitus (c. 535–c. 475 BC).


You may also wish to read:

Why a mechanic infers design — Karsten Pultz explains.

7 Replies to “Karsten Pultz on why randomness depends on order

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Random events can be observed only in relation to or more precisely in contrast to existing order.

    In a materialist world, there should be no order.

    But also, randomness can only be recognized in contrast to order.
    Mind can only be identified in contrast with mindless.
    Determination can only be recognized in contrast with free-will choice.
    Consciousness can only be recognized in contrast with unconscious.
    Flaws can only be recognized in contrast with perfection.
    Lack of purpose and meaning can only be recognized in contrast with existing purpose and meaning.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Obviously we can’t have errors before we have an orderly system that defines what an error is. Being an error driven process, evolution points to the necessity of pre existing orderly systems, which we must assume only can have been brought into existence by the same sort of causal agency that makes bicycles.

    Is a mutation an error?

    If it is neutral, in that it has no observable effect on the organism one way or the other, is that an error? If it causes the inhibition or even the complete deactivation of one function but activates a different function which proves to be as advantageous to the organism, if not more so, than the function that was lost, is that an error? Even if the mutation proves to be deleterious to the organism’s survival is that an error or just an accident?

    If one car crashes into another because the driver was not paying attention, that can reasonable be described as driver error. But if the crash was caused by a tire blowing and the driver did not have time to take corrective action is that an error?

  3. 3
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    If one car crashes into another because the driver was not paying attention, that can reasonable be described as driver error. But if the crash was caused by a tire blowing and the driver did not have time to take corrective action is that an error?

    For me, the strongest evidence that mutations are “errors” are that the cell has built-in error-correction or repair mechanisms. In other words, it establishes a norm or functional status, and then works to prevent mutations which would be errors.
    That’s actually evidence against evolution. Because if mutations were not errors but actually were the source of innovation and greater success for the organism, there wouldn’t be repair mechanisms built to prevent them.

    If one car crashes into another because the driver was not paying attention, that can reasonable be described as driver error. But if the crash was caused by a tire blowing and the driver did not have time to take corrective action is that an error?

    It’s always difficult to get the right analogy but this one seems mixed.
    You are applying error to the driver in this case. The car crashed in both cases. In one, you’re seeing an error by the driver, but in the other no error by the driver.
    But the error has to refer to the effect not to the mechanism. The effect in both cases is a crash. If there’s an error in the first case, it’s by the driver. In the second case, it’s by the tires.

  4. 4
    martin_r says:

    Silver Asiatic @1 @3

    In a materialist world, there should be no order.

    the strongest evidence that mutations are “errors” are that the cell has built-in error-correction or repair mechanisms

    indeed, in a materialist world, there should be no proofreading and error correction systems … yet, in the cell, there are many …

    the existence of DNA proofreading/repair systems is an ultimate and undeniable proof of designed life.

  5. 5
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Martin_r

    the existence of DNA proofreading/repair systems is an ultimate and undeniable proof of designed life.

    Exactly. Living organisms work to preserve themselves and defend against mutations. So, they’re working against evolution, which means they could not have been created by evolution, and also since the organism strives to protect itself, what it is by its nature, species, form – was not just an accidental combination, but was designed to be what it is.

  6. 6
    Fasteddious says:

    Hmmm, not sure I buy this.
    Look at phase changes; for example when water freezes the molecules are initially arranged randomly (liquid state), but as it freezes, order (ice crystals) comes out of disorder (randomness) by simple physical processes (minimizing energy during cooling). The same goes for other crystallization, and magnetic domains in a cooling ferromagnetic material : order out of disorder. Then read Genesis 1:2, order out of chaos (disorder/randomness?) at the word of God.
    Of course the opposite physical change takes place upon heating: ice melts, magnetization fades, etc. But which is more fundamental? Yes, in some cases “random” only makes sense with respect to order or structure, but in other cases, the random state is easier to grasp; again molecules in liquid water — random (isometric) orientation is simpler than the directional axes (and properties) of ice crystals.

  7. 7
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Fasteddious

    Then read Genesis 1:2, order out of chaos (disorder/randomness?) at the word of God.

    Yes, but the highest degree of order preceded that chaos. Not only God, but He spoke that word (logos) which is the principle of order and the rational construct of the universe. The chaos He created was bound within limits of the created world – but perhaps His message through that is that we, ourselves, should bring order out of chaos. And we are the order that comes before the chaos, since we are rational and thinking and we apply that to the chaos of life wherever we find it.

Leave a Reply