Re: [asa] Artificial molecule evolves in the lab

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 17:46:44 EST

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Schwarzwald <> wrote:

> The problem I see here is that ID proponents are primarily concerned (or so
> they say) with justifying the inference of design.
I'd agree with that. yes they are. The problem with drawing such an
inference is it first requires design to exist. I think the ID Theorists
sort of assumed that one.

But if it exists, then to recognize it one needs an algorithm.

Thats true whether one is building software or if someone is building a
mind. Algorithms cannot exist if the math behind them doesnt exist. [Ok,
who is actually going to argue contrary to that> Somehow I expect someone in
this mottley crew to do so - I wouldnt be surprised at anything lately.
Well, if you are going to argue that, please don't give me a mathematical
model that says the math doesnt exist. :)].

> Questions of 'final' or 'desired' assemblage configuration are not
> absolutely necessary in that case - one doesn't necessarily need to know a
> piece of art is finished in order to infer that it's a designed product. (I
> suppose the MOMA would be of use here.)

It would depend on the algorithm, wouldn't it?

> And I don't see the automatic 'man-troubling reality' as being all that
> troubling.

I also agree here.

> Besides, between technology and the rate of evolution, I think a vastly
> safer bet is that whatever 'changes' may or may not come to humanity in the
> long-term, human design (and, as ever, God's will) will be in the driver's
> seat (Or at least take a vastly increased share of that control.)

Well, what's bothered me about the ASA pundits is the idea that there is no
algorithm for the human mind to implement. But it is also undeniable that
humans minds do recognize design.
And therefore the explanation is that human minds are supernatural, or
possess a supernatural infusion that is the basis for their recognizer
algorithm. As I say, I am troubled by this invocation of the supernatural.

Now, I'd have to ask, if one believes the supernatural is the source of the
human ability to recognize design, then is this consistent with believing
that an evolutionary process produced the ability?

I want to say "no".

But it occurs to me that the answer could be yes. It could possibly be that
no brain produced by physics and chemistry could ever produce a design
recognizer algorithm without a post-evolutionary download of intelligence.
This is a stunning idea. I never would have even considered it until Rich
Blinne suggested there is no mathematical basis for an algorithm for
recognizing design. I'm still thinking about that. I really don't see how
the algorithm would be inherited if it isn't programmed into the genome. Is
there a supernatural infusion of intelligence at conception or at birth?
I am not yet ready to believe any of this.

> We supposedly now have the first child born without the breast cancer gene
> - there was no need to wait around for that to happen 'naturally'.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jan 11 17:47:20 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 17:47:21 EST