Monday, 1 December 2014

A post on UD: order vs. organization

I recommend reading an excellent original post published at on 27 November 2014. The post discusses the differences between order and origanization. What is also worth reading is the insightful comments by the author (niwrad) and Upright Biped.

I believe that it is right here at the order/organization dichotomy lies the gist of the Intelligent Design argument. Arguments based on pattern recognition or statistical abductive design inference are a lot weaker and sometimes even appear naive though most probably valid. For this reason they cannot be considered the solid foundation of the ID argument. It is not possible to say that ID totally depends on these.

Living systems are characterized by semiosis, prescriptive information, code, hierarchical control, i.e. organization (irreducibility of a whole to its parts). Organization must not be confused with order. Order, or antichaos in Stuart Kauffman's terms, cannot serve an exhaustive description of what constitutes the phenomenon of biological life. Function, organization are an altogether different category. This is why conflating order/chaos with organization is a gross category error.

Of special interest in the comments to the note are references to the works of Professor Howard Pattee on biosemiosis (such as this one), as well as the work of  Stephen Talbott on the causal role of form in biology.


  1. Pattee, H.H.. [2001], The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut. Biosystems. Vol. 60, pp. 5-21 (full text available here).
  2. Stephen L. Talbott. [2014], How Does an Organism Get its Shape: the Causal Role of Biological Form. (full text available here). 

No comments:

Post a Comment