There's a term floating about that I have an epistemological problem with: irreducible complexity. The premise of this phrase is that the modern biological systems that make up our bodies and those in nature are too complex to have happened "by chance." To me, the use of this argument represents a lack of understanding of many different concepts: chaos, evolution, time, probability and history. Funny enough, these are the very subjects I've been studying over the last year, so I'm prepared to give a brief glance over them here.
To understand how our biological systems came to be so complex, you must understand the concept of a self-organizing system like evolution. The coupling of the chaos theory and natural selection perfectly explains it, but first, you must change your perspective to a very impersonal, time's eye view. The chaos theory states that in a given dynamical system (on the micro level, this would be the interaction of elements), while individual reactions are predictable, chains of reactions become exponentially more random. For instance, I was playing pool last night and I could accurately predict the angle of any ball bouncing off my cue-ball. I could not, however, guess what would happen to any particular ball on a break. With so many reactions happening that depend upon each other, the fate of any particular ball is completely up in the air.
Now that we understand the randomness that is provided by chaos, we must understand the behavior of the elements subjected to it. Elements, as we know, come in various flavors, each with different behaviors and tendencies to combine. Some, like helium, are not very reactive, but others, like carbon, are complex and eager to create many different compounds. Not only that, every compound has its own shape. We understand this through the formations of crystals. This is all to say that elements themselves are self-organizing.
Now that we have self-organizing elements in a chaotic system, let's add another ingredient: time. 4.6 billion years, to be exact (or, 14 billion years if you want to take it one step further). To most, this much time is almost impossible to comprehend, so let me put it this way: in this much time, if something is remotely possible, it is almost sure to happen at least once. This goes for abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life), with the right conditions. Then, once we have life, we start the evolution engine! Now we're talking about self-organizing elements lively participating in a self-organizing system of natural selection.
Here's where "irreducible complexity" likes to sink its slimy fingers in. From our perspective, as intelligent humans with culture and ego, and from the present looking into the past, we see a string of events that all chained together to create our "perfect" bodies and the amazingly coincidentally harmonious dance of nature. The problem with this perspective is that it completely neglects all of the paths that evolution went down, only to reach a dead end. There have been quite a lot. Like history told through the eyes of a 11pm news cast, we see just the facts that are important to the story. We see our past as a narrative; one thing leading to another, which leads to another, until we arrive at the present. It is easy to be deceived by this view because it plays right into our self-centered tendencies.
The universe doesn't work like that, though. At any given time, there is an innumerable amount of activity and we only see the result of a very small fraction of it. This is where probability comes into play. With enough time, we are given a nigh infinite number of chances to become what we are now. Evolution through natural selection is nothing but a massive trial and error scheme that trends toward improvement. What works survives and reproduces and what doesn't work dies off. We would surely have a greater appreciation for the process if we could see it happening before our eyes, but, once again, the severe amount of time we are up against clouds our vision.
Taking all of this into consideration makes it very plausible to consider our current existence as both a lucky one and an inevitable one. However, to ignore the very systems that combine to create our wonderfully complex bodies and claim that we must have been designed is a cop-out. Even if you argue that a creator set all of this in motion, you still have to contend with all of the failed trials that gave way to the successful ones that eventually begot you. If you see it the way I do, you'll realize there is no design, only a framework. Within it: ataxia. Any complexity and order you see within that framework is a result of the intricacy of its building blocks and the sheer amount of time they have had to develop.
2 nibbles: