Darwin follower really mad that information theorist can speak at his U

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 9, 2014

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

We didn’t know Jerry Coyne’s U (Chicago) was a religious institution, dedicated to Darwin worship. Learn something new every day. Here’s the wail:

Creationist Dembski gives academic talk at MY university!

And, gee, that cat is sitting in MY chair too.

An outraged alumnus of the University of Chicago called my attention to an upcoming “Computations in Science” Seminar.

On conservation of information theory.

So Dembski is going to come here and talk to a bunch of computational scientists about how evolution can’t be right because of his No Free Lunch Theorem, which has already been debunked (see here. here, and here for the debunking). I can’t believe that my own university, proud of its reputation and academic rigor, is presenting creationism as serious science. As my correspondent noted: “WTF is happening at my alma mater?”

If Dembski is right, Darwin is dead.

That is what is happening.

More: Here.

Watch for Dembski’s book, Being as Communion.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Comments

Fossil & Dionisio: My tongue was thoroughly in cheek in my comment about "University". Still, your explanation of the correct definition is good. Uni's are supposed to be a place for learning from diverse disciplines and ideas rather than teaching dogma. The ability to "think outside the box" is helpful in all of life. All the more reason to ban Dembski (or anyone challenging NDT) from speaking (more TIC!).leodp_{August 10, 2014
August
08
Aug
10
10
2014
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

' The handwriting in our DNA – December 27, 2013 Excerpt: Stephen C. Meyer,, told cnsnews.com the story of a former Microsoft software engineer: “He walks into my office one day, throws a book down on the table. It’s called Design Patterns — standard textbook for computer design engineers — and he says, ‘I get the eerie feeling, when I’m looking at what’s going on in the cell, that’s somebody’s figured this out before us.’ And I said, ‘What do you mean?’ And he says, ‘Well, it’s the design patterns,’ and then he points to the book. . . . ‘We’ve got design logic for processing information, for doing error correction, for doing distributed data retrieval and reassembly, and for hierarchical organization — we’ve got files within folders, like on your desktop, you know, in the hierarchical filing system.’ And he says, ‘All those design patterns are inside the cell, except they’re using a design logic that’s like an 8.0, 9.0, 10.0 version of ours. It’s the same basic logic, but it’s more elegantly executed,’ and he says, ‘It gives me an eerie feeling.’” http://www.newsday.com/opinion.....-1.6683000 Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created. Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, 1996, p. 188' Talk about a keeper, BA! Surely a classic 'coup de grace'. Even makes Einstein's 'library' seem a bit shabby, in the light of the new discoveries concerning the primordial nature of information at the most foundational level, which will resonate with the modern generations of computer-savvy people.Axel_{August 10, 2014
August
08
Aug
10
10
2014
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

And as would be expected if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:
The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.” Kevin Moran – optical engineer Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
It seems readily apparent from the evidence that we have now examined that when one allows God into math, as Godel indicated must ultimately be done to keep math from being ‘incomplete’, then there actually exists a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a ‘Theory of Everything’! As a footnote; Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to the ‘Theory of Everything’, also had this to say:
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection music video) Lyric “Death has lost and Love has won!” http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX
bornagain77_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

But alas, infinity is not so easily ignored. Infinity pops up again in the attempt to reconcile Special Relativity-Quantum Mechanics (QED) with General Relativity.
Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed. In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to. If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you’ll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity.html THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY
An interesting nuance to draw out of this irreconcilable infinity problem between Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity (QED), and General Relativity, is that we have two very different ‘eternities’ associated with Special Relativity and General Relativity. i.e. A very orderly (1 in 10^10^123) one associated with Special Relativity, and a very destructive one (black holes) associated with General Relativity.
Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit
Thus, with all that in mind, Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics-Special relativity (Quantum Electrodynamics), offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:
The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.” http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
With all this in mind and in light of this dilemma that the two very different eternities present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19tGkwrdg6cu5mH-RmlKxHv5KPMOL49qEU8MLGL6ojHU/edit A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation
bornagain77_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Dionisio as to:
The final product existed first in the designers’ minds, long before it was developed, tested, implemented. That’s priceless. Everything else can be bought with Visa or MasterCard ;-)
Indeed, one of the most powerful arguments I've seen over the years on UD, IMHO, has been the argument from mind. A commenter named William J. Murray, who comments here from time to time, summed it up best in these following comments.
"In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place." - William J. Murray “If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.” - William J Murray
APM also had a good insight into consciousness's primacy:
What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! - APM - UD Blogger
William J. Murray, and APM, have some powerful clout behind their assertion that "Mind", unencumbered by anything else, must be first:
What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness - Nov. 2013 Excerpt: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness." Max Planck "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797) “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays” Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” - Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 – “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.) https://uncommondescent.com/physics/what-great-physicists-have-said-about-immateriality-and-consciousness/ Alan Turing and Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/ "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine." - Kurt Gödel BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Moreover, Quantum Mechanics has certainly not been stingy in providing evidence for the assertion that consciousness precedes material reality:
Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that strongly indicates that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
What is also interesting, Dionisio, in what you pointed out, i.e. that computer programs 'existed first in the designers’ minds', is that the argument that the universe is 'merely' a computer simulation has been extended. (I might add that it is a argument that is much stronger than many people realize). Extended to point out that 'if' the universe is a computer simulation then it must be a simulation that ultimately resides in the mind of God:
Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas Digital Physics Argument Premise 1: Simulations can only exist is a computer or a mind. Premise 2: The universe is a simulation. Premise 3: A simulation on a computer still must be simulated in a mind. Premise 4: Therefore, the universe is a simulation in a mind (2,3). Premise 5: This mind is what we call God. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Supplemental Notes: Richard Feynman, who was instrumental in unifying special relativity and quantum mechanics (QED), states that ‘it takes an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’.
“It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?” - Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
I don’t know about Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:
John1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic
In fact, the unification of Quantum Mechanics and special relativity, i.e. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), was only possible by ‘brushing infinity under the rug’.
THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.” http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/tackling-infinity
bornagain77_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Dionisio #10, perhaps it was. In that case I should apologize. Was it just a joke or was it serious?fossil_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

To me the OOL discussion seems highly speculative, considering we still don't understand many things in the biological systems. I would rather put more effort on trying to figure out how things work, before trying to find where they came from, regardless of the worldview one might have. But obviously some people like to speculate.Dionisio_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

fossil, Perhaps leodp was joking when he wrote his comments?Dionisio_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

bornagain77
So, since computers can simulate evolution happening much faster than evolution can actually occur in the real world, and since the programming found in life is orders of magnitude more complicated than any man has ever programmed in his computers, then why hasn’t Bill Gates fired all his software engineers and just allowed evolutionary algorithms to devise ever more sophisticated versions of software for him to sell?
Good question. why didn't Bill Gates fire all his software engineers and just allowed evolutionary algorithms to devise ever more sophisticated versions of software for him to sell? Perhaps because Mr. Gates was serious about his software business. Software development is not philosophical chatting. Had Mr. Gates been interested only in selling books telling 'impressive sounding' stories about how software works and what it does, even without knowing all the required details, he wouldn't have hired those software engineers. What for? I remember years ago my wife complained about my lack of abilities to repair or build anything at home. When I mentioned that to the director of software development, who was my supervisor at work, he said he didn't care about my abilities as handyman, because they had hired me to write software according to the technical specifications the engineers wrote. However, had my employer hired a bunch of experienced software developers, but no engineers to write the technical specs, they would not have produced the successful engineering design software they did. Totally guided process. Ideas go first, then development, testing and implementation. The software my fellow programmers and I wrote was based on our correct interpretation of the technical specifications written by the engineers after discussing the project ideas of the director. The final product existed first in the designers' minds, long before it was developed, tested, implemented. That's priceless. Everything else can be bought with Visa or MasterCard ;-)Dionisio_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

To Leodp #6. According to Dictionary.com the term university is defined as, “an institution of learning of the highest level, having a college of liberal arts and a program of graduate studies together with several professional schools, as of theology, law, medicine, and engineering, and authorized to confer both undergraduate and graduate degrees.” In other words it is an institution that brings together many different disciplines under one roof rather than one way to think. So, it doesn’t mean singular thought and certainly doesn’t mean dogmatic enforcement of only one concept. In fact what the business world around us needs are people who are trained to think outside the box who can come up with new ideas and that means that students at universities cannot be trained to think in a rut, in terms of only one way to look at problems if they want a job after graduation. Y’all know the difference between the two ways to teach and why it is important and what a university really is?fossil_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Darwin follower really mad that information theorist can speak. there. fixed it fer ya!Mung_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

If it were a "Diversity", Dembski could speak. But it's a "University", and uni means only one viewpoint on origins is allowed. Keeping the Academic Breed pure is of utmost importance. (Y'all follow that, right?)leodp_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Awstar,
But Jesus was dead and is now alive, and that is their real problem with Creationists talking at THEIR university.
That's the main issue at the end of the day, after all the surface scratching and deep digging is done.
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him. [Hebrews 9:27-28 (ESV)]
Dionisio_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

If Dembski is right, Darwin is dead
Even if Dembski is wrong, Darwin is still dead. But Jesus was dead and is now alive, and that is their real problem with Creationists talking at THEIR university.awstar_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Darwin's followers have nothing but positions now.News_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

LoL! Considering what Jerry thinks is serious science no one should listen to him when it comes to this topic. Hey Jerry, if you had some evidence for your position ID would be dead. So start with the science and stop attacking us with your willful ignorance.Joe_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

So, since computers can simulate evolution happening much faster than evolution can actually occur in the real world, and since the programming found in life is orders of magnitude more complicated than any man has ever programmed in his computers, then why hasn't Bill Gates fired all his software engineers and just allowed evolutionary algorithms to devise ever more sophisticated versions of software for him to sell? Notes
The handwriting in our DNA - December 27, 2013 Excerpt: Stephen C. Meyer,, told cnsnews.com the story of a former Microsoft software engineer: "He walks into my office one day, throws a book down on the table. It's called Design Patterns -- standard textbook for computer design engineers -- and he says, 'I get the eerie feeling, when I'm looking at what's going on in the cell, that's somebody's figured this out before us.' And I said, 'What do you mean?' And he says, 'Well, it's the design patterns,' and then he points to the book. . . . 'We've got design logic for processing information, for doing error correction, for doing distributed data retrieval and reassembly, and for hierarchical organization -- we've got files within folders, like on your desktop, you know, in the hierarchical filing system.' And he says, 'All those design patterns are inside the cell, except they're using a design logic that's like an 8.0, 9.0, 10.0 version of ours. It's the same basic logic, but it's more elegantly executed,' and he says, 'It gives me an eerie feeling.'" http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/o-reilly-the-handwriting-in-our-dna-1.6683000 Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created. Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, 1996, p. 188 LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW - William Dembski - Robert Marks - Pg. 13 Excerpt: Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case. http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ On Algorithmic Specified Complexity by Robert J. Marks II - video (All Evolutionary Algorithms Have Failed) - Marks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg “The computer is not going to generate anything realistic if it uses Darwinian mechanisms.” Dr. David Berlinski: Accounting for Variations - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE In computer science we recognize the algorithmic principle described by Darwin - the linear accumulation of small changes through random variation - as hill climbing, more specifically random mutation hill climbing. However, we also recognize that hill climbing is the simplest possible form of optimization and is known to work well only on a limited class of problems. Watson R.A. - 2006 - Compositional Evolution - MIT Press - Pg. 272 Evolutionary Computation: A Perpetual Motion Machine for Design Information? By Robert J. Marks II Final Thoughts: Search spaces require structuring for search algorithms to be viable. This includes evolutionary search for a targeted design goal. The added structure information needs to be implicitly infused into the search space and is used to guide the process to a desired result. The target can be specific, as is the case with a precisely identified phrase; or it can be general, such as meaningful phrases that will pass, say, a spelling and grammar check. In any case, there is yet no perpetual motion machine for the design of information arising from evolutionary computation. http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Evolutionary%20Computer%20Simulations.pdf
bornagain77_{August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply