>Notice that the evolved programs were better than the intentionally designed
>programs. The interesting thing to me is that in a real sense both types of
>programs are designed. The traditional algorithm is well thought out by an
>intelligent agent with each part intricately designed. The other is designed
>by designing an environment in which solutions to various problems can be
>found via random mutation. Design can take several forms. It does not have
>to be the traditional form of design.
This reminds me of the argument that was used by ICR in response to Miller's
chemistry experiment that formed amino acids using only simple gases,
electricity and a water trap. The rebuttal was that the experiment was
man-made, therefore it was an example of intelligent design.
Such an argument can be made against any laboratory experiment, right? That
means that NO experiment can rule out intelligent design as a possibility. Or
conversely, it implies that intelligent design is a non-falsifiable notion.
ICR also rebuts arguments about the early history of the universe, by asking,
"How do you know? Were you there?" This argument implies that ANY inference
about the past is suspect. In other words, drawing any inferences from the past
is not valid. Alternatives such as instantaneous creation with the appearance
of age therefore cannot be falsified in principle.
So we see that neither experiment nor historical inference can decide questions
about origins. That doesn't leave any empirical alternatives, so I guess we
will have to take the creationist's (revealed) word for it.
(Warning to novice readers: some of the above may be sarcastic).
Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084
(301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)