That's okay - everyone's been offline for the last day or so around here ;)
I'm afraid that too many high school and college students (and, apparently, FReerepublic posters) become enamored of the images (in a superficial ?video game? way) and miss out completely on the universal beauty of the mathematics behind them.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Are you suggesting that, because a (human-programmed) computer generated the non-existent (in nature) fern, that God's footprints, therefore, are not to be found in everything that exists in the universe? (i.e., man can 'create' outside of His influence?)
Not really, no. Good guess, but wrong.
What I am suggesting is that, for many, many years now, the complexity and diversity of life on earth, and the structure of the universe in general has been promoted as evidence of the existence of God. But here we have what is, to our eyes, a very complex structure, which is the result of some rather simple algorithms. The product is complex, but the process is not.
The assumption all along is that complexity and diversity require some sort of superbeing, some awesome intelligence capable of designing such things. But when one has a look at the mathematical blueprint for a fern, the blueprint is simple enough that we can reproduce it on a $100 programmable pocket calculator. This hardly smacks of omniscience and omnipotence.
Let's say an acorn falls to the ground and then takes root, or is purposefully planted by a human hand, and a large oak tree results a hundred years (four human generations) later. That oak tree is then felled, and its wood used to make a group of beautiful oak tables. Because, a hundred years after the acorn took root, there is no visible sign of a 'connection' between that acorn and the beautiful tables, does that mean that the acorn either (1) never existed, or (2) had nothing to do with the creation of the beautiful furniture?
No. On the other hand, if someone asks me to show them an acorn, I can show them an acorn. I can even show them an acorn sprouting, and a oak sapling, and a mature oak tree. I can show them lumberjacks and sawmills. I can show them furniture makers and delivery trucks and showrooms. I'm not reduced to trying to argue the existence of some mysterious and all-powerful invisible acorn, or "Acorn," which is the source of all things table-ish. What would your reaction be, I wonder, were I to posit such a thing to you?
The difference between the two is clear, and an example of why argument-by-analogy is generally not a good idea. I can show people acorns, as many as they want. The argument for the connection between acorns and furniture is strong, because we can see every step in the process, including the starting acorn. Any attempt to make an analogous argument about the connection between all life on earth and the existence of God is bound to fail, because such an argument cannot help but beg the question, and assume to be true the very thing it is supposed to be proving to be true - that God exists. IOW, a clever form of petitio principii.
The question is: who/what provided them? A chance/coincidental combination of random events occurring over an indeterminate amount of time, which just 'happened' to result in a universe which exhibits a degree of order and design which boggles the human mind, and only a pitiful fraction of which the human mind has yet to discover, let alone comprehend?
Come now - you wish to argue both ways here. The "order" is evidence of design, but oddly, so is the incomprehensibility of it. When it's neat and orderly, that's evidence of design. And when it's messy and incomprehensible, why that's evidence of design, too. That is, needless to say, a rather convenient proposition for you. Everything is evidence of design - end of debate. The value of such self-contained and self-reinforcing arguments is rather doubtful, I think.
For you, the question of the existence of God is not an open one, I would imagine. Be careful not to let that color your views and affect your ability to view evidence as though the question were open. IOW, you don't have to give up on believing in God, but the ability to look at things objectively is a useful one.
But let's try this one. What generated that fern - a simple process consisting of a few simple rules, or a vast and omnipotent deity who personally reached down to arrange the very atoms into that particular pattern. Occam's Razor works both ways, I think ;)
BUT, when, in 'nature', the exact same entities (mathematical constants, geometric forms, behaviors predictable by algebraic/trigonometric functions, etc., etc.) seem to occur, time and time again, in such seemingly unrelated objects/occurrences (from the substance and motion of sub-atomic particles, to the substance and motion of the largest known bodies in the universe), these amazing 'connections' cannot possibly be explained by use of the term 'coincidence.' When one finds a figurative 1776 in innumerable (otherwise seemingly unrelated) places, the words significance/design/order/intelligence are far more compelling than chance.
Even though I don't find it particularly persuasive myself, I dragged out the old "why is pi everywhere?" argument myself, to see how well it fit. It didn't, at least not very well. If you'd like, though, longshadow was my foil, and might be willing to discuss this particular aspect of the thread with you further. You can refer to posts 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 505, 508 for how that discussion developed.
And I must point out that the fact that something has significance to us is not itself evidence of intelligence behind that thing, or operating in the creation of such a thing. I find it significant that my senators are senators Schumer and Clinton, but I defy you to discover any rational intelligence that could produce such a perverse outcome ;)
I feel used....
;-)
Messy and incomprehensible are your words....absolutely not mine! My words were ....which boggles the human mind, and only a pitiful fraction of which the human mind has yet to discover, let alone comprehend. Simply because something boggles the human mind, and because the human mind cannot (yet) comprehend it, it hardly justifies the leap to describe it as 'messy' (unless one arrogantly assumes that everything incomprehensible to him deserves such a label). Should the average ten year old, when confronted with the theories of Isaac Newton, or the written choral music of Bach, feel justified in calling such works of genius 'messy', rather than simply acknowledging that they are 'incomprehensible' to him (yet)?
(I'm not one to proffer ultimatums, but, should you say 'yes,' I'm about to give up on you.... :)
And I must point out that the fact that something has significance to us is not itself evidence of intelligence behind that thing....
As I must point out that the fact that something can be traced back to an origin which is either readily visible, or comprehensible, to the human mind should not be one of the prerequisites for acknowledging its existence. How arrogant we are as a species when we require our own intelligence/senses/cognition to be the determining factor as to the very existence of something -- especially when (speculation has it, in many circles that) that Something may even be responsible for the fact that we possess intelligence/senses/cognition at all.
What generated that fern - a simple process consisting of a few simple rules, or a vast and omnipotent deity who personally reached down to arrange the very atoms into that particular pattern.
Even though I am not particularly impressed by the Barnsley fern itself, I am in awe of the development of the mathematics that made its representation possible. And no, it was not generated by a 'simple process' consisting of a few 'simple rules'. Its creation would not have been possible just a few years ago, simply because the theory/technology/programming techniques did not exist. That so-called 'simple process' was centuries in the making.
Your labeling the fern as 'simple' would be analogous to someone saying that turning on a light fixture and lighting up a room is 'simple'. A few centuries ago, such an event would have been considered impossible. But today, because we have unearthed (not created) the necessary technology, the turning on of the light and the creation of the virtual fern, appear simple, yet they are anything but. And it all goes back to the fact that (as you yourself say) appearances are deceiving. We tend to take for granted all of the intelligence/inventiveness/'progress' that had to take place in order for the flicking of a light switch (or the viewing of your fern) to occur. And, even more importantly, we tend to overlook that which made the intelligence/inventiveness/'progress' possible.
Of course God didn't arrange the very atoms into that particular pattern. Even though we seem to vehemently disagree on the core of this argument, you surely know that that is not what I am saying. Let me explain further after I (*cough*) refer to another of your statements:
....the blueprint [for the Barnsley fern] is simple enough that we can reproduce it on a $100 programmable pocket calculator. This hardly smacks of omniscience and omnipotence.
I had to pick myself up off the floor before even attempting to respond to this one. (Excuse me for a moment. I need to brush the rug lint off of my skirt)....
So you're saying (please tell me you're not) that, because man can so easily program a $100 pocket calculator to design the image of a virtual fern, all of the wonderful and miraculous designs of (non-virtual) 'nature' are, similarly, easily accomplished/understandable/reproduce-able? Or (my second guess) are you saying that I was somehow foolish to trace the genesis of the Barnsley fern back to God (in that He provided man with the mind/tools/formulae with which to design it)?
God didn't place the prerequisite matter/mathematical formulae/intelligence here so that man could specifically design such fractals. He provided the tools and the raw materials. What we do with them is a product of our own free will. Whether we choose to occupy ourselves with frivolous pursuits (such as the creation of virtual whatevers), self-defeating inventions (such as weapons of mass destruction), or aesthetically uplifting creations (such as the works of Rembrandt or Beethoven) is the ongoing product of man's free will. I am in awe of the tools we have been given with which to work (more and more of which we 'discover' every day). I am often in dismay regarding the ways in which we choose to use them, or the way we (1) so frivolously take them for granted, or (2) choose to pat ourselves on the back, not for our (sometimes justified) wise and judicious use of them, but rather for our 'creation' of them. Man has 'created' nothing. He has merely used (sometimes wisely, inventively, and intelligently....sometimes foolishly, unimaginatively, and stupidly) that which was created for him.
The wise, humble and judicious man takes credit for unearthing buried treasure. The foolish, arrogant and careless man claims that it is, and always has been, his.
My senators are senators Schumer and Clinton, but I defy you to discover any rational intelligence that could produce such a perverse outcome.
The search for consistency is one of the most valuable endeavors in the examination of anything. If nothing else, the state of New York exhibited that attribute to a remarkable degree by electing the two you mentioned above. At least you can reliably count on the (sad, but no less consistent) fact that your senatorial representation is bent on destroying our republic. I live in the state just to the south of yours. Our senators are the honorable Rick Santorum and the less-than-honorable (I am nothing if not delicate, n'est-ce pas?) Arlan Specter. Consistency appears to be an alien concept to the schizophrenic voters of the state of Pennsylvania. Count your (mixed) blessings.
On my way to a late supper. (Yes, I do believe that whatever I will order was placed there, indirectly, by the grace of God. No, He didn’t catch the fish or grow the beans, or bake the potato. But He had a hand in providing men the wherewithal to do all three….:)