Rube Goldberg Uber Alles

One of the continuing staples in the Creationist/Evolution debate is the Watchmaker Hypothesis. Briefly put, it says whatever is under examination at the moment (species, biology, stars, the universe, etc.) is far too complex not to have been designed. I'm not discuss the fallacy of this argument but instead go into its symbolism.

Back when I was in college, one of my professors suggested that God is the black box in which you put your lack of understanding of the universe. His thesis was as human beings understand more, the size of the black box decreases and, therefore, the role of God in the universe decreases. Daniel F. Galouye even wrote a book, The Infinite Man, that dealt with a similar concept where God starts out pushing every photon in the universe at c and just starts getting tired.

The point I'm getting at is the concept of a simple universe versus a complex universe is a human construction. Since we have difficulty handling complex tasks we presume that a complex universe must derive from something higher. A self-organizing complex universe is difficult for us to comprehend.

A good example of simple thinking versus complex thinking is how we look at the greenness of biofuels. Matt Ford, over at my favorite blog, Nobel Intent, talks about some recent evaluations of biofuels and how they are not as green as you might think. Another is brain function. We think we know what the brain is doing. Hey, it's a computer, right? But we really don't know that much at all, as Chris Lee points out here.

Often in engineering we talk about the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Systems that are more complex than they need to be for the task at hand are referred to as "Rube Goldberg" systems, after a cartoonist that created bizarre solutions to simple problems.

This is not because "simple" is the best solution but because "simple" is often either easier for us to understand or cheaper to implement, or both. Simplicity is often considered a virtue: "Tis a gift to be simple", as in the Shaker hymn, or "The Simple Life". We glorify simplicity as a virtue in and of itself rather then as an artificial means of managing ourselves. Simplicity, in these contexts, is really a realization of our difficulty and limitation, not a goal by itself.

One of the problems people have with science in general and biology in particular is that the closer you look at things the less simple things are. We used to think of atoms as indivisible. But now we know they are. Then, we had a simple proton/neutron/electron model. But it didn't take too long for that model to fall apart. Then we had the Standard Model of quantum physics-- what drives most particle physics. Of course, that falls apart when gravity is introduced.

Similarly, we had all sorts of nice models of biology until Darwin came along. Some of them had God driving the works from afar, some had him pushing every animal behavior everywhere. But we were, of course, on top and the only divine creation with free will. Like most things in the world, things became less simple. Darwin came along and created a model where God didn't have to be there: things could self-organize.

Prior to Einstein and other early 20th century physicists, light was considered a wave. It certainly behaves like a wave: it obeys the inverse square law, it reflects, there are angles of refraction, etc. All of which can be modeled in a wave tank with water ripples. But physicists couldn't imagine a wave propagating without a medium to propagate within. So they invented the aether: an undetectable medium in which light propagated. There were some experimental problems with this model. Einstein came along and presented a model in which light needed no medium in which to propagate. Aether may or may not exists but it was no longer needed to describe light propagation.

Darwin did something similar in biology fifty years previously: God may or may not exist but we certainly don't need Him in order to explain biology. Or geology. Or other things. The modern view of living things is that they are self-organized mechanisms that have no internal mechanisms that are intrinsically different from non-living things. We came from the dust and to the dust we shall return and, by the way, the same mechanisms that operate in dust operate in us, too.

To accept this, however, requires an understanding that living systems (or any other natural system we look at) is a complex system and not simple. Living systems operate by the same chemical laws governing non-living systems but those chemical laws are functioning together in a vastly more complex way. And, since they evolved, they show relics of ad hoc, roundabout solutions that are far more reminiscent of Mister Goldberg than an elegant God.

So: to understand the universe we have to give up simplicity. Or, at least, recognize that any simple representation of any part of the universe must be an abstracted and flawed view.

I submit that the view of systems, be they biological, physical or political, as complex must become a world view. Simple solutions are suspect. Complex solutions must be proven. Rigor in thinking must be preserved. And Rube Goldberg must be recognized as contributing engineer.