Re: [asa] LHC, TOE, and the limits of knowledge

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Sat Sep 20 2008 - 14:43:15 EDT

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> I think your designs also evolve.
>
Not in the biological sense. Not even in the chemical sense. It's
scientifically inaccurate to conflate the evolution of galaxies, for
example, with biological evolution. Even if both are completely natural.

One example: biological evolution has to do with biological populations, not
biological individuals.

I've said for years that Fords evolve. In the historical sense. Obviously
the model-T came first, then the Mustang. (The edsel died out). Why cannot
creationists recognize that historical evolution can be determined
scientifically? But this is a matter of scientifically determining
historical fact. Not of determining driving causes.
Its historical evolution, not biological evolution. We must be clear as to
the difference.

Computer design has nothing to do with biological populations.
You may as well argue that rocks evolved into Roman arches all on their own,
without a higher intelligence than rock-hood intervening (I refer to the
Romans).

As to the theory of computer design is evolution in action....

Let's ask, tongue-in-cheek, what if you or I were supernatural? Would you
then say the same about computer design? That what we are doing is
evolution? Or would the design then be disallowed because a divine foot
(supernatural foot) cannot be allowed in the door of evolution? See the
problem this causes?

How do we know humans don't have a Divine Spark? Are you going to force
everyone who does science to assume no Divine Spark in intelligent (in this
case intelligent human beings).

This is one reason intelligence is commonly ruled out as governing natural
processes.
If its intelligence-driven then by definition its not natural. This is why
the hunt for measuring intelligence is forbidden.

A TE, seems to me, might argue that yes a divine intelligence could
design computer systems, and many other things, and that this wouldn't make
computer engineering non-science. Do I understand TE correctly? If so,
sounds like you are merely stating a TE belief of some sort. Is that what
you are saying?

But Bernie, I also think it sounds like you could be very close to the
position of Paul Davies in Cosmic Jackpot.
At the end of the book Davies postulates a superintelligence outside the
universe that has programmed a supercomputer simulation of the entire
universe, including all particles and particle interactions. He indicates
that creatures inside this simulation couldn't easily tell the difference
between that all-natural intelligent designer and the supernatural (God).
Its an amazing position thats very close to ID, albeit not a Christian type
of ID.

I haven't heard anyone criticizing Davies, BTW.

My conclusion is you are referring to historical evolution, not biological
evolution. Confusing the two harms science education.

You're not going to do thousands of cores until you do a few. Even the
> creativity you have in creating new architectures is born out of previous
> experience gained personally and from others. None of your designs are by
> fiat, which I think is the opposite of evolution.
>
>
>
> Sure- evolution also makes bad things, but I also think it makes all the
> wonderful things. I like how CS Lewis talks about it in his last chapter of
> "Mere Christiainty" and uses evolution for an analogy for a spiritual sense.
>
>
>
> I also work in computer design.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:19 AM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] LHC, TOE, and the limits of knowledge
>
>
>
> Bernie,
>
>
> That's evolution- creating new and wonderful things that can't be imagined
> in the present state.
>
>
> --
>
> Forgive me for saying this, but thats NOT what evolution is. I hate to
> be nit-picky about accuracy of terminology. But the subject of evolution
> is far too important to not seek precise language from scientists.
>
> Controversies over biological evolution have nothing to do with the change
> over time of human electronics technology. Humans design their changes in
> technology. That is what I get paid to do, btw. Design technology. I am
> working on a machine that has hundreds of thousands of cores.
>
> Best Regards,
> David Clounch
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 20 14:43:55 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 20 2008 - 14:43:56 EDT