
God and Design Patterns - jester5
In programming there are many levels of abstraction as well as predefined structures, functions, variables and alot of other stuff.  Through the detailed analysis of a program, routine, or algorithm we can see and apprehend a creator/programmer.  Such organization and complexity all working together demand that we infer an originator of that unique line of instruction.  Is it possible that we can infer that a creator exist through similiar  measurements of the complexities in the earth?  From the various predefined DNA structures and all the way out to the physical analysis of orbital rotation can we infer signature, originality and creation, thus a God Creator.  Is it more logical that order can exist  and come out of chaos?  Or would induction lead us to and only to that perfect order(design)leads to chaos?
======
chrisbennet
_. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an
interesting world I find myself in'an interesting hole I find myself in'fits
me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
been made to have me in it!_ -Douglas Adams

If you want to see a designer behind something, you will. Humans are very good
at pattern matching; so good that they will see patterns even where none
exist. If you look at clouds you and you want to see a rabbit, you will.

------
JamieLewis
This is quite a common teleological argument known as the Watchmake Analogy -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy>

Instead of going over the common ground, I wish to present to you some
examples of Computer Science (and other areas) finding the exact opposite
(that is complex systems often have no defined controller or designer) is
true.

Time after time, Computer Scientists, Physicists, Mathematicians and
Biologists modeling behaviors of fractals, bacteria, flocking birds, ants,
fluid, fish and even people have learned that systems with very simplistic
rules can produce insanely complex behavior.

NASA famously developed a program that would design antennas with great
success:
[http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2004/04_55AR....](http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2004/04_55AR.html)
, these antennas worked extremely well, but were created by a computer
following a few "simple" rules, but the results were outstanding. There is an
entire branch of Computer Science dedicated to researching Evolutionary
Algorithms(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm> ), these
algorithms produce solutions.

Now if I was to say to you that I was going to start a company with a few
workers, each worker could do what they wanted at any time and in 5 years I
expected to have to giant skyscraper (which would be constantly cleaned -
remember I am not telling anyone to clean!), thousands or millions of workers
and a constant supply chain. You would probably call me crazy (mostly for not
having any plan at all!), yet almost this exact situation happens all across
the world, every single day and has been doing so for millions of years.

Ants. Ants as you may know live in colonies, and generally produce huge
underground nests. They are often able to find the shortest path to food and
building supplies, the nests are kept free of obstacles and defended to the
death. Yet, there is no central controller (the "queen" is a misnomer, all she
does is give birth) that indicates where the tunnels go, noone is telling an
ant what to do at any other time. The system evolves naturally out of very
simple genetic rules and is based on communication between peer ants. Deborah
Gordon gave a brilliant TED talk on the subject of how clever ants (or at
least collections of ants) can be :
<http://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_gordon_digs_ants.html>

(Note: I am not advocating trying to form a company as described above!)

A few books for those who want to research further into this fascinating area:

[http://www.amazon.com/Computational-Beauty-Nature-
Exploratio...](http://www.amazon.com/Computational-Beauty-Nature-Explorations-
Adaptation/dp/0262561271/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326749973&sr=1-1) \-
The Computational Beauty of Nature - Computer Explorations of Fractals, Chaos,
Complex Systems, and Adaptation

[http://www.amazon.com/Turtles-Termites-Traffic-Jams-
Explorat...](http://www.amazon.com/Turtles-Termites-Traffic-Jams-
Explorations/dp/0262680939/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326750171&sr=1-1)
\- Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel
Microworlds - The book that started me in this field

And some Google (other search engines are available) search terms:

\- Fractals \- Ants / Termites/ Turtles Behaviour \- Flocking Algorithms \-
Cellular Automata

~~~
jester5
I see where your going with this and you are right. In any of these scenarios
there are no central controllers identified. At the same time these do not
deal with identifiable traits the display a signature of an "originator". For
instance with the antennas, there was still an initial program/programmer that
designed the program that would carry out instruction to design antennas. With
the ants we are still not dealing with the how did ants get here? Why do ants
have such a variety of complex and unique genetic structure design?

    
    
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208186/
    

What I'm getting at is at the root level there always seems to be a
implication or inference of design. Yes, these design patterns seem to
formulate behavior and gradual change within their domain. At the same time
the domain of change is limited to measurable spectrum of analysis. Who
defines these domains? Who set the spectrum in which they are distributed? At
the lowest level of biological organization who initially places the
constraints in which these systems and species can move and evolve.

