EXPLAIN THIS: Neural Complexity of a Single Brain Cell Boosts Intelligent Design?

When Charles Darwin wrote “Origin of the Species,” the scientific community viewed single cells as exceedingly simple entities. Given the limited microscopic technology available in his day, it’s not surprising that such a view prevailed. A recent article in Quanta Magazine, however, suggests just how mistaken a view that was.

“How Computationally Complex is a Single Neuron?” describes a study in which three scientists from Hebrew University, according to Quanta Magazine, “trained an artificial deep neural network to mimic the computations of a simulated biological neuron. They showed that a deep neural network requires between five and eight layers of interconnected ‘neurons’ to represent the complexity of one single biological neuron.”

I’m a journalist, so I don’t claim any particular scientific expertise, but this Quanta Magazine piece reminds me of something credited to the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (the nucleosynthesis guy): “Random and impersonal chance does not create complexity and design.”

More Complexity =s Less Chance?

If Hoyle is correct, as I think he is, then one tentative conclusion suggested by the Quanta Magazine piece and the study it describes might be expressed with something like this: Greater complexity reduces the probability of a chance explanation for the existence of a single biological cell and increases the necessity for intelligent design as the explanation.

Similarly, writing for Dr. Frank Turek’s cross-examined.org, retired mathematics lecturer Julie Hannah observes:

“In general, there is a problem with the popular belief that infinity renders anything possible. For example, monkeys typing for an infinite length of time are supposed to eventually type out any given text, but if there are 50 keys, the probability of producing just one given five-letter word is:

Julie Hannah equation

“This is a tremendously low probability, and it decreases exponentially when letters are added. A computer program that simulated random typing once produced nineteen consecutive letters and characters that appear in a line of a Shakespearean play, but this result took 42,162,500,000 billion years to achieve!”

And perhaps not coincidentally, just this week, renowned atheist/scientist Richard Dawkins tweeted that the complexity of DNA, as presented in an animation he recommends “knock[s] me sideways with wonder at the miniaturized intricacy of the data-processing machinery in the living cell.”

HillFaith is blessed with a highly intelligent readership that represents a wide spectrum of views on this and related issues, so I invite all to read the Quanta Magazine piece with an open mind, give it some thought and then share your ideas in the comments.

Here’s that animation that Dawkins praised:

UPDATE: Eagle-eyed readers may note that a question mark has been added to the headline at 7:45 pm. This was done to make absolutely, positively, without-a-shred of doubt that the post is intended to raise a question that seems to this author to be suggested by the Quanta Magazine article.

Apparently, the subhead that has been on the post since it first was published — More Complexity =s Less Chance? — was insufficiently clear on the point. As were the multiple qualifiers in the paragraph that followed that subhead.


If … Then

If You Work On Capitol Hill … Or You Care About Those Who Do … Then You Should Follow HillFaith Today.

(Check out the top of the right sidebar on the Home page)


 

Are You Following HillFaith Yet?

9 Comments

  1. Brian Macker on September 8, 2021 at 11:21 am

    The Quanta Magazine article had absolutely nothing to do with ID and provides no evidence for ID. This article in Hill Faith is a complete distortion of the article in Quanta Magazine.

  2. Mark on September 8, 2021 at 1:27 pm

    Sometimes it seems as though belief in “rocks to people” evolution serves as an inhibitor chip to logical reasoning.

  3. BEN G on September 8, 2021 at 1:37 pm

    Claiming that this, “Random and impersonal chance does not create complexity and design,” could be interpreted to mean, “Greater complexity reduces the probability of a chance explanation for the existence of a single biological cell and increases the necessity for intelligent design as the explanation,” is dishonest.

    Do better work. This piece is just a rehash of the “god of the gaps” argument.

    You owe your readers better.

  4. BEN G on September 8, 2021 at 1:52 pm

    Is two critical comments in a row too much for you people?

    Do yourselves a favor and respond to it or let others respond to it instead of hiding and running from it.

    You owe your readers better.

    • Mark Tapscott on September 8, 2021 at 2:10 pm

      Why do you assume I’m “hiding and running from it,” Ben, when you have absolutely no idea of how this web site is produced? For the record, I approve all comments, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with something on HillFaith. The only exception is when a commenter personally insults another individual. I seek honest, engaging discussion and debate, not ad hominem, personal insults of anybody or snark.

      • BEN G on September 8, 2021 at 3:49 pm

        It’s hard to have honest discussion on a piece with such a dishonest premise.

        • Mark Tapscott on September 8, 2021 at 7:43 pm

          OK, Ben, you get one more shot at offering a specific illustration of “a dishonest premise” rather than a vague insult.

  5. Viet Hung Pham on August 17, 2022 at 12:03 am

    An interesting article.
    Fred Hoyle is completely right!
    I am a mathematician and I understand what he said.
    Please allow me to republish this article on my website.
    Thankfully
    Viet Hung Pham

    • Mark Tapscott on August 17, 2022 at 8:42 am

      Can you provide me with the link to your web site?

Leave a Comment