Re: Evolutionary rate

From: Joel Peter Anderson (
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 22:38:18 EDT

  • Next message: Joel Peter Anderson: "Re: Evolutionary rate"

    On Thu, 8 May 2003, Howard J. Van Till wrote:

    > In response to the article on "Digital organisms" someone posted:
       (me; at last I'm a "someone"!)

    > > In other words, "a bunch of us deliberately set out to design a system in
    > > which certain things would happen, when they happened, we announced that
    > > our role in the process was unnecessary"
    > I consider that to be an unfair caricature that misses the point of ID's
    > Designer role.

    Hm - I thought one of the more serious and valid criticisms was that the
    "ID's Designer role" isn't well defined...

    > Once again, it seems that the character of the ID thesis is lost in a sea of
    > ambiguity.

    Like I said...

    > In this experiment, the equivalent of Intelligent Designer action posited by
    > the ID movement would have been quite different:

    How do you know this? ID isn't so precisely defined that you can say

    The experiment simulated what it set out to simulate - that computer
    programs can be created that will evolve. This doesn't happen in the wild
    though - you have to design an environment that will let it work. This
    isn't news and this isn't surprising. What would be surprising is if the
    programming environment itself had come into being by chance. It didn't.

    > ID is not about the mental action of design, it is about non-natural,
    > hand-like assembling action.

    Again, you are pretty explicitly telling us what ID is - the books I have
    on ID don't give me that kind of definition.

      joel anderson * * 612-625-7389
                           --> pager: 612-648-6823
                    vaccines save lives

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 10 2003 - 17:17:44 EDT