Refractor

It depends on how you want to look at it. It could be that the production systems (like biological reproduction) were originally created to work flawlessly, but were not created to be IMMUTABLE. In other words, they were created to work flawlessly, but were not immune to degradation or corruption over time. It is important to understand the distinction between perfection, and immutability. Something can be perfect, but not be immutable, and vice versa.

Obviously, I believe an intelligent designer created secondary-causal processes (such as biological pro-creation) to work without any errors at all. But there is no reason to think that the original systems would've been immutable, and would have been incapable of degrading from their initial state of efficiency. Some Christian philosophers theorize that "sin entering the world" is what opened the door for the gradual degradation of the initial perfection of systems. As of now, I am undecided regarding that particular idea.

Mageth

A snowflake can be considered a "complex arrangement of matter"

I don't know how to tell you this, but so can you.

And what generated the snowflake? Is the water cycle not a complex system?

and obviously natural processes cause snowflakes.

Likewise, natural processes cause you, another complex arrangement of matter.

No mindless natural process has ever created a complex system.

Obviously, a tenuous position to hold, as one can't prove your position. And all it takes is one example to disprove it.

Would you consider the process of sexual reproduction (sperm+egg->zygote->embryo->fetus->baby->adult), to be a "mindless process" that produces a complex system worthy of consideration?

Would you consider a biome, the product of many life forms in a particular environment participating in a complex, self-sustaining system, worthy of consideration? There are many small to very large biomes that could be posed as examples, including some (e.g. some of the islands formed when Krakatoa erupted) that we have observed actually forming without help of a designer.

Would you consider a star, such as the Sun, a complex system, or a complex arrangement of matter? Explain why.

Would you consider an ant nest, termite nest, or bee's nest, with all of its inhabitands "mindlessly" doing their various chores, a complex system? If so, did a designer generate them, or the insects?

Look here for some interesting images depicting Nonlinear and Complex Systems. Read up a bit on complexity theory, complex systems, emergent phenomenon, chaos theory, etc. You have a lot to learn. Nature is a lot more "clever" than you think.

Mageth

It depends on how you want to look at it. It could be that the production systems (like biological reproduction) were originally created to work flawlessly, but were not created to be IMMUTABLE. In other words, they were created to work flawlessly, but were not immune to degradation or corruption over time. It is important to understand the distinction between perfection, and immutability. Something can be perfect, but not be immutable, and vice versa.

Obviously, I believe an intelligent designer created secondary-causal processes (such as biological pro-creation) to work without any errors at all. But there is no reason to think that the original systems would've been immutable, and would have been incapable of degrading from their initial state of efficiency. Some Christian philosophers theorize that "sin entering the world" is what opened the door for the gradual degradation of the initial perfection of systems. As of now, I am undecided regarding that particular idea.

OK, now you are going to have to explain how a production system "designed to work flawlessly", embodied in "flawless" original entities, which would produce flawless product (with flawless production systems themselves) could ever result in a product that was not flawless. When, where, and how would the flaw come in? How does a truly flawless production system ever produce a flawed product?

Do you see the logical flaw in that argument? If at any point a flawed product was produced, then that means the production system of the producer of that product must have been flawed, and so on back to the original!

You might say "something external introduced a flaw in the production system of one of the products after it was produced." But if it can be broken and produce (flawed) product, then it's not flawless!

Refractor

Yes, humans are complex arrangments of matter, but they are also complex SYSTEMS. A snowflake is not a system.

No, because procreation is a secondary process. That's why its called PRO-creation instead of primary creation.

All of those phenomena descend from the existence of other complex systems that are at work. They are secondary-causal processes. There is no reason to think that the existence of causal chains and secondary-causal processes undermine the notion of an intelligent designer.

Same as above.

Same as above. The termites, bees, ants, etc, are all complex systems themselves.

Thanks for the link. I should tell you that I have read up on these complexity theories in the past and was convinced that it is not nature that is clever, but merely these *theoretical interpretations* OF nature that appear "clever". But I'll take a gander at it and see if any new ideas have surfaced.

Mageth

No, because procreation is a secondary process. That's why its called PRO-creation instead of primary creation.

What difference does it make if it's a secondary process? It would still qualify as a "mindless natural process" that produces a complex system, would it not?

All of those phenomena descend from the existence of other complex systems that are at work.

Not "descend". A biome emerges from multiple various organisms, environmental factors, raw materials, and the complex interactions among them. There's no way to predict from the input exactly what the output (a biome) will be. I would classify a biome as an emergent phenomenon, one that arises naturally in a "mindless process" from the participants, the environment, and the raw materials available.

They are secondary-causal processes. There is no reason to think that the existence of causal chains and secondary-causal processes undermine the notion of an intelligent designer.

And, again, there's no reason to assume that such complex systems require a designer. If a biome, obviously a complex system, can be generated by the organisms, the raw materials, the environment, and the interactions between them (without requiring a designer), why not life initially, which was much less complex than any biome we have today? Perhaps the only difference would be, at some point, "organism" would be replaced with "self-replicating molecule."

Mageth

I would suggest that, if this line of discussion is going to continue, that it be taken to the Evo/Cre forum.

Refractor

Flawless does not equal immutability. How the flaws came into the picture is an unresolved question in my mind. I am open to different ideas on this point.


Again, you are falsely equating "flawless" with "immutable". If you look those two terms up in the dictionary, you will not find them to be synonyms. The definition of "flawless" does not include the condition of immutability. If you claim that flawless = immutable, then you are basically saying that mutability is a "flaw".

Refractor

Done. I posted my response to you over in that forum.