Home » Intelligent Design » Dennett and Dawkins are “Darwinian Fundamentalists” — Dennett says so himself

Dennett and Dawkins are “Darwinian Fundamentalists” — Dennett says so himself

[Excerpts from a lecture by Daniel Dennett in March this year:]

The late Steve Gould was really right when he called Richard and me Darwinian fundamentalists. And I want to say what a Darwinian fundamentalist is. A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. It is the unexceptioned view that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the original driving engines, but recent effects that marks, I think, the true Darwinian fundamentalist.

How can such heartless culling produce the magnificent designs that we see around us? It seems just about impossible that such a simple mechanical sieve could produce such amazing design in the biosphere.

Francis Crick called Orgel’s Second Rule. “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”

Again and again evolutionists, molecular biologists, biologists in general, see some aspect of nature which seems to them to be sort of pointless or daft or doesn’t make much sense – and then they later discover it’s in fact an exquisitely ingenious design – it is a brilliant piece of design – that’s what Francis Crick means by Orgel’s Second Rule.

This might almost look like a slogan for Intelligent Design theory. Certainly Crick was not suggesting that the process of evolution was a process of intelligent design. But then how can evolution be cleverer than you are?

What you have to understand is that the process itself has no foresight; it’s entirely mechanical; has no purpose – but it just happens that that very process dredges up, discovers, again and again and again, the most wonderfully brilliant designs – and these designs have a rationale. We can make sense of them. We can reverse-engineer them, and understand why they are the wonderful designs they are.

It would help us to understand how this is possible if we could break all this brilliant design work up into processes which we could understand the rationale of, without attributing it to the reason of some intelligent designer. [In other words, it would help if there were a shred of evidence for Darwinian algorithms having the creative power that Dennett attributes to them. --WmAD]

These processes are arms races. Not just arms races between armies of intelligent people, but arms races between trees, and between bacteria, and between any form of life you want to name. We can watch an arms race generate more and more design, more exquisite solutions to problems, in ways that are strikingly similar to the more intelligently (but not very intelligently) guided arms races that give us the metaphor in the first place.

Of all the species on the planet, Homo sapiens, is exceptional: it is the only species that has evolved that can understand that it’s one of the fruits on the tree of life.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06_index.html

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

31 Responses to Dennett and Dawkins are “Darwinian Fundamentalists” — Dennett says so himself

  1. “In other words, it would help if there were a shred of evidence for Darwinian algorithms having the creative power that Dennett attributes to them.” –WmAD

    This really is the heart of the matter. Has any serious effort been made to demonstrate such creativity is, in principle, possible? I am familiar with a few instances of darwinian-like algorithms being used to solve explicitly defined problems, but none that could not easily be dismissed as either trivial (compared to biocomplexity) or “front-loaded” in some fashion by the programmer. I would be very interested if someone could point to literature where someone has made an honest effort to show evolutionary algorithms can build signficant complexity/information over time. If not, why not? Sure, it’s a tall order to recaptitulate biocomplexity in full, but–at least on the surface–it would seem that a mathematically/computationally-minded evolutionist would be able to establish, in a much simplified system, a fundamental tendency inherrent in evolutionary algorithms as a whole, of information/complexity accumulation from which further projections about feasibility could be made. The most difficult part, as far as I can tell, would be in designating an appropriate environment/landscape for the RM+NS algorithm to operate in. If there really is no such “proof of principle” out there, it is definitely an achilles heel for modern evolutionary theory.

  2. I wonder if Henry Rollings was aware of Dennett’s views when he called the idea of irreducible complexity one of “breathtaking stupidity”…

  3. Lets follow Dennets train of thought for three paragraphs:

    “Francis Crick called Orgel’s Second Rule. “Evolution is cleverer than you are.””

    “Again and again evolutionists, molecular biologists, biologists in general, see some aspect of nature which seems to them to be sort of pointless or daft or doesn’t make much sense – and then they later discover it’s in fact an exquisitely ingenious design – it is a brilliant piece of design – that’s what Francis Crick means by Orgel’s Second Rule.”

    “This might almost look like a slogan for Intelligent Design theory. Certainly Crick was not suggesting that the process of evolution was a process of intelligent design. But then how can evolution be cleverer than you are?”

    When a neo-Darwinist finds a biological subsystem they consider “exquisitely ingenious”, such as error correcting pocesses embedded in gene expression, what are they to think? They must not think “design” for that violates to much deep belief. For those of us who think design is a good explanation we need to appreciate their dilemma. They need to fight off the notion of design to preserve their fundamental beliefs. By whatever means they must fight the notion. Once a snippet of design is allowed their foundational beliefs start shifting. The only alternative seems to be the Darwinian accidental generator and filter process. That process must be given credibility. So alluring slogans such as “evolution is smarter than you are” are used. Say it often, play with it, wrap it in humour. Promote it with a smile. Its comforting. Then stress again the coupled accidental generator and ruthless filter mechanism.

    Dennett has appealed to our imagination of what might have occurred to produce engineered subsystems. The accidental generation of changes and natural filtering do occur. There is something there in his case. There is also unwarranted dogma masking fundamental beliefs resistant to design notions. The slogan “evolution is smarter than you are” is an appeal to us to please allow the extrapolation of small scale random changes then filtered to a larger scale to account for all biological features.

    It would be an different matter if there only were a few examples of genuine and substantial biological beneficial changes occurring over time in some system.

    A good question is “What was designed?” Systems capable of adaptation or systems we see now? If a system was designed when was it designed? Can there be an uncaused effect?

    There is, I suspect, a deep fear in neo-Darwinists as to what might happen when design friendly notions are more widely accepted. What happens to my love for discovering things and connections between things. “god did it” talk can be worthless. I ramble.

  4. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

  5. Er… Sloganeering in general bothers me but ‘Evolution is cleverer than you are’ strikes me as a pretty good ID one-liner. I might make a T-Shirt, something like: “Intelligent Design: Evolution really _is_ cleverer than you are.’

  6. What is clever about the slogan “Evolution really is cleverer than you are” is that it gives the impression that evolution has intelligence, that it’s a person or a mind or an intentional force—that it’s “clever”. Perhaps the problem evolutionists have is that there is no vocabulary for a thing that “designs” (i.e. evolution) but that can’t think or will and wasn’t designed itself.

    Popular pieces on evolution are always saying things like “nature intended” or “nature designed”, and this talk seduces the person who’s presented with apparent design to accept that mere evolution did it.

  7. I wonder if Dennett knows about that long list of skeptical scientists?

  8. “These processes are arms races. Not just arms races between armies of intelligent people, but arms races between trees, and between bacteria, and between any form of life you want to name. We can watch an arms race generate more and more design, more exquisite solutions to problems, in ways that are strikingly similar to the more intelligently (but not very intelligently) guided arms races that give us the metaphor in the first place.”

    If “survival of the fittest” gave us social darwinism, eugenics, and what the Holocaust Museum called the “deadly medicine” of the Nazi doctors, I shudder to imagine where the metaphor of all of nature as an arms race will take us.

  9. Notice that Dennett uses the word design or a variant of it a dozen times in that short excerpt. One really has to work at denying the obvious.

  10. Gildodgen,
    I call it a willing resistance to the evidence.
    Theology and sanity are interlinked.

  11. A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms.

    I completely disagree with Dennett on this. A true Darwinian fundamentalist denies mind, meaning and purpose. For the true Darwinian fundamentalist they are neither causes nor effects. Dennett wishes to ride the fence by acknowledging mind, meaning, and purpose while at the same time denying them. This is not fundamentalism, this is self-delusion.

  12. Huxley was Darwin’s bulldog.

    Dennett is Dawkins’s lapdog.

  13. great_ape @1: “I am familiar with a few instances of darwinian-like algorithms being used to solve explicitly defined problems, but none that could not easily be dismissed as either trivial (compared to biocomplexity) or “front-loaded” in some fashion by the programmer. I would be very interested if someone could point to literature where someone has made an honest effort to show evolutionary algorithms can build signficant complexity/information over time… If there really is no such ‘proof of principle’ out there, it is definitely an achilles heel for modern evolutionary theory.”

    I agree wholeheartedly. See, for example, http://www.uncommondescent.com.....chives/662 starting at comment #46.

    To prove whether some proposed mechanism works, models or prototypes are often made which contain the essential features, to see how they function. When a mechanism is truly understood and sound, models/prototypes of it can be made to work. Darwinian evolution is held to be algorithmic (i.e., mechanistic). But, as you note, no one has demonstrated an unalloyed Darwinian algorithm in silico, yielding what its supposed to yield. Why on earth would one make a commitment to it? Attributing creative power to it is unjustifiable.

  14. great_ape[QUOTE]Sure, it’s a tall order to recaptitulate biocomplexity in full, but–at least on the surface–it would seem that a mathematically/computationally-minded evolutionist would be able to establish, in a much simplified system, a fundamental tendency inherrent in evolutionary algorithms as a whole, of information/complexity accumulation from which further projections about feasibility could be made.[/QUOTE]

    Computers can replicate software like crazy. Computers can simulate random mutation with ease.

    If nature did it from the ground up, then a computer program should be able to do it with a very simple seed. It should be able to be done in machine language with a program that could be randomly achieved without crossing the UPB threshold.

    Before you say that the above idea is whacked, let me suggest what has been done with mini-assembly. I have heard of people writing entire interactive computer games with less than 250 bytes of assembly language code.

    [QUOTE]The most difficult part, as far as I can tell, would be in designating an appropriate environment/landscape for the RM+NS algorithm to operate in.[/QUOTE]

    I actually have a proposal for just such an environment.

    I propose a simple software environment, a field of memory where a portion of that memory is mapped to pixels on the display, and another portion is mapped to audio. I propose a simple turing engine, and an initial seed program which does two things: it replicates, and it periodically mutates.

    I then propose that this program be packaged to “run during process idle” on computers everywhere. People who run the program should be able to share their version – in whatever state the memory happens to be in, with anyone they wish. If RM+NS works, the programs that do the most interesting things with the display memory and the audio memory areas should be distributed the most quickly. If RM+NS, then the results shouldn’t take all that long to become highly advanced.

    Though if such a model worked, it would provide support for RM+NS, I guess the real question is, would its failure provide any real evidence opposing NDE.

    Another concern that such an experiment would have is the possibility that someone might hack the memory, injecting intelligently designed code segments into their copy of the experiment. Alas, we would then have to use science to detect whether a particularly talented copy of the thing were the result of random processes or were the result of an intelligent designer.

  15. Though if such a model worked, it would provide support for RM+NS, I guess the real question is, would its failure provide any real evidence opposing NDE.

    Nah, they’d blame it on an inept designer.

  16. “It would help us to understand how this is possible if we could break all this brilliant design work up into processes which we could understand the rationale of, without attributing it to the reason of some intelligent designer. ”

    This could also be stated this way:

    “It would help us to understand how this is possible if we could break all this brilliant design work up into processes which we could understand the rationale of, without attributing it to a rationale [the reason of some intelligent designer].”

  17. “evolution is cleverer than you are”

    here is another brilliant rule:

    “blind people see better than you”

  18. For “j”

    There is a Journal Insilico Biology. If there are true Darwinian simulations, we should expect to find them there. It seems to me from a short look that they model biocomplexity rather than derive it de novo.

    http://www.bioinfo.de/isb/toc_vol_06.html

  19. One potential problem I see in deriving complexity from “simple” computer programs is that the programs themselves are running in a very highly complex background before they even start. This may predispose them to intelligently select invisibly. I presume there are a lot of rules that govern the background engines that run my computer before I run any program. It seems that in “nature” we only can start with an equation that can be written in largish letters on a tee shirt. I don’t think the design specifications for my computer could be written on a tee shirt.

    Even 250 bytes of assembly language code assumes the meaning of the code and the translation and implimentation of the code, which although in the background, are extremely complex and specified to start with.

  20. Idnet: “One potential problem I see in deriving complexity from “simple” computer programs is that the programs themselves are running in a very highly complex background before they even start.”

    1st, your response implies that it is really easy to make a computer simulation that develops complex results. Us software developers haven’t been accidentally bumping into such software at all. Good software has always taken intention, intelligent design, and a whole lot of it!

    2nd, The proposal that I defined above would all but eliminate this effect. By using the incredibly reduced instruction set of the turing machine, I all but eliminate the “the computer underneath provides the intelligence” effect.

    Ain’t that the truth! I wrote millions of lines of code over a span of almost 30 years and never once was a mistake of any benefit. A good number of mistakes went unnoticed and the vast majority were catastrophic. This is what we observe in nature when there are mistakes made in DNA. The notion that mistakes in DNA are sometimes beneficial is theoretically possible, just as it’s theoretically possible in computer programming, but in practice it just doesn’t happen enough to matter. I’m quite comfortable with very large numbers too and claims of billions of years being incomprehensibly long and making up for the rarity of beneficial mistakes is empty handwaving. -ds

  21. Thanks bFast, that helps me understand it better. I have heard people say it is easy to get complexity from simple programming. Dawhins says this with his “Me thinks it is a weasle” quote in ? Bilnd Watchmaker. It doesn’t take a computer genius to decondtruct Dawkins though.

    There are other programes called “evolution” and the like which claim to be using “simple” darwinian ideas to generate specified complexity.

  22. Hmmm…NATURE WORSHIP. That’s what we’re dealng with when we’re dealing with people like this. Even so called theistic evolutionists like George Coyne are essentially promoting nature worship. This isn’t really about a scientific crusade to enlighten people to the wonders of “scientific” truth. Uh uh. What is really at the core of the movement to discredit ID at all costs and simultaneously promote evolution are people who revere nature as an impersonal cosmic deity and who want to have their religious belief dominate over all others. We can trace the history of the mass propagation of evolution and find people who held religious beliefs that are in essence a form of nature worship.

    The Royal Society was and is the British (commonwealth) version of the NAS, they are the “guardians and guiders” of “education” and government sanctioned “educational” information. The Royal Society was the creation of Freemasonry and although the Royal Society claims that in the 19th century Freemasonry and the Royal Society went their separate ways, the reality is that Freemasons continued to dominate that organization. Freemason theology is essentially nature worhip. I don’t mean to suggest that they actually worship tree deities or something along that line. What they do believe is more or less the same as what many people in various offshoots of mainstream religions believe. And it is these groups of various similar belief systems which are the historical and modern opponents of ID and aggressive promoters of evolution.

    Notice how Dennett tries to evoke a sense of the mystical in his misty eyed reveries on the “powers” of evolution. He’s preaching the gospel of pantheistic nature worship. In all of the mainstream religions of the world there are various offshoots which all teach more or less the same ontology i.e The cosmos are sacred and “God” is a pantheistic mysterious *impersonal* force of nature. God is not an individual conscious intellectual intelligent entity, rather God is the universe or the mysterious force which is inherent within nature. Oftentimes these dogmas promote the idea that God is us, we are God or can become Gods in that we are nature’s highest manifestion or evolution of itself. In the Catholic world Teilhard de Chardin and George Coyne espouse this view (and others) and they are ardent foes of ID and rabid promoters of evolution. Many other christians in various denominations also teach a similar philosophy as well as oppose ID and support evolution.

    This philosophy is both ancient and modern. From Plotinus and a misunderstanding of Neoplatonism, to Kabbalah and Christian gnostic thought, as well as a sprinkling from other more obscure religious thought, all of it mixing together and leading to a synthesis which would become popular in the 16th-20th centuries in the Freemason fraternity and elsewhere. It was that religious philosophy which led to a search for an anti-creation theory. The Freemasons created the Royal Society to do just that in accordance with their religious beliefs and their desire to supplant the mainstream religious beliefs which they see as foolhardy. Darwin came from a Freemason family line. In fact he continued the work of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin who was a leader of Freemasonry and a famous naturalist who published “Temple of Nature” and “Zoonomia” which put forth an evolution theory and whose ideas Charles basically cleaned up a bit and presented as his own.

    From that point the Royal Society which was mostly Freemasons and especially Thomas Huxley (also a Freemason) would be the ones to institutionalize Darwin’s theory as the “modern” and only “scientific” theory on the origins of life. It was done purely as a relgious maneuver on their part to discredit other beliefs and promote their own. The Royal Society had a great amount of power and still does. It was essentially *the* think tank for the elites.

    In the years since they and like minded cohorts have created and control the academic world in the U.K and America, and they influence the academic environment all over the world as well. The atheists who like to champion evolution as self evident truth are generally totaly clueless about the historical forces and relgious thought which brought and keeps evolution in the position it enjoys today

  23. There are thousands of computer simulations where complexity and information are build up over time from a uniform initial condition. It’s easy. Here’s a nice recent example:

    Burtsev & Turchin 2006 (Nature 440, pp 1041-1044).

    It’s also not that hard to comprehend how the information content of genomes can increase over time. It can be argued that genomes collect information from the environment. In that sense, there is a certain “conservation of information” which applies to the environment as a whole, including the genome.

    Suppose there are two genes, one determining metabolic rate at low temperatures and one determining metabolic rate at high temperatures. Suppose these two genes derive from a duplication of a single original gene that determined metabolic rate at all temperatures. The two genes will then diverge until each determines the optimal metabolic rate at the temperature at which they are active. These two genes can be said to have collected information about the environment (the environmental temperature variation). Sequencing the two genes might tell us something about the environment the genome lives in. By “tracking” the environment (as a result of RM+NS), genomes buildup more and more information about their (or their ancestors’) environment.

    Computers designed by intelligent agents running programs designed by intelligent agents… :roll: -ds

  24. These two genes can be said to have collected information about the environment (the environmental temperature variation).

    It can be argued that genomes collect information from the environment, but I fail to see how this is the way to frame such an argument.

    The gene products themselves determine their own optimal metabolic rate, and this has nothing to do with the environment. The optimal metabolic rate for each gene product is going to be the optimal metabolic rate for that gene product regardless of environmental tempurature variation. So how is this obtaining and storing information about the environment? It certainly does not provide information regarding the environmental temperature variation.

    Also, don’t most organisms have some range of temperature tolerance?

  25. Mung, I must have explained badly since you have failed to get my point. Let’s try it again, with a real example: the sequence of the gene for DNA polymerase (the enzyme that copies DNA) may tell us something about the temperature in which the organism lives. TAQ polymerase, the enzyme used in labs to copy DNA in PCR machines at high temperatures, is a product of bacteria that live in hot water. It has a different structure than polymerase from bacteria that live under colder conditions and this difference in structure contains information about the difference in temperature.

    More generally: for the sake of argument, let’s say there are N environments, and for each environment there is a single gene that determines some aspect of the organism’s behavior. After a while the genes stop evolving because each gene produces the behavior that best fits the environment in which it operates. The DNA sequences of the genes now contain information about the environment they operate in, the variation in gene sequences tells us something about the environmental variation faced by the organism.

    This explains survival of the fittest but not arrival of the fittest. Using the computer example, it’s trivial to write a program that randomly varies a pattern then tests the variation for fitness for a particular task. This is the essence of random mutation and natural selection. But that’s trivial – a simple widely employed algorithm The salient question isn’t how the program finds optimal solutions, the salient question is how was the computer that runs the program created. Likewise in biology the question isn’t about random mutation and natural selection but rather how the machine that runs the RM+NS algorithm was created. -ds

  26. “Evolution is cleverer than you are.” – This “evolution” is a nature god. The worshipper of nature who believe nature is their creator is old as dirt because human nature hasn’t evolved one bit.

  27. Re: Raevmo @23: “…thousands of computer simulations where complexity and information are build up over time from a uniform initial condition”

    The abstract of “Evolution of cooperative strategies from first principles” by Burtsev & Turchin (Nature 440, pp 1041-1044), that you offer as an example, says:

    One of the greatest challenges in the modern biological and social sciences is to understand the evolution of cooperative behaviour. General outlines of the answer to this puzzle are currently emerging as a result of developments in the theories of kin selection, reciprocity, multilevel selection, and cultural group selection. The main conceptual tool used in probing the logical coherence of proposed explanations has been game theory, including both analytical models and agent-based simulations. The game-theoretic approach yields clear-cut results but assumes, as a rule, a simple structure of payoffs and a small set of possible strategies. Here we propose a more stringent test of the theory by developing a computer model with a considerably extended spectrum of possible strategies. In our model, agents are endowed with a limited set of receptors, a set of elementary actions and a neural net in between. Behavioural strategies are not predetermined; instead, the process of evolution constructs and reconstructs them from elementary actions. Two new strategies of cooperative attack and defence emerge in simulations, as well as the well-known dove, hawk and bourgeois strategies. Our results indicate that cooperative strategies can evolve even under such minimalist assumptions, provided that agents are capable of perceiving heritable external markers of other agents.

    Impressive-sounding. (I do not have immediate access to the Nature article; my analysis is based on the May 4 description of it by Richard B. Hoppe at PT.) Burtsev & Turchin appear to use cellular automata to demonstrate the evolution of several types of cooperation strategies in competitive agents:

    Without being able to identify others:
    A. “hawks” – attack others, stealing their victims’ resources
    B. “doves” – never attack and attempt to escape from others when the “see” them
    C. “bourgeois” – stays put in its home cell, and attacks invaders of that cell while ignoring those in neighboring cells – this behavior depends on plentiful food supply

    With the ability to identify others:
    D. “cooperative doves” – ignore those bearing markers dissimilar to their own, but migrate from cells containing other, similar doves to avoid competing with them for food.
    E. “ravens” – same as “cooperative dove”, but also attack dissimilar agents when they are encountered
    F. “starlings” – stay at home with in-group agents, but as a group attack interlopers

    In their conclusion, Burtsev & Turchin state, “all that we assumed was that agents have a set of elementary sensory inputs and a set of actions.” True? The description of the computer model indicates that the agents were endowed with the ability to:

    1. “move” and otherwise act in accordance with a single-layer neural network receptor-action matrix.
    2. “consume” “food”, thus increasing internal resource value.
    3. “sense” the level of its internal resource: in other words, it can tell when it’s hungry.
    4. “sense” their orientation in a cell — there is a ‘forward’, ‘left’, ‘right’, and ‘back’.
    5. “sense” whether there are others or food in its own cell, and likewise sense the contents of the immediately forward, left, and right cells.
    6. carry an externally “visible” 10-digit (~30-bit?) “marker” that identifies its lineage.
    7. calculate the Euclidean distance between its own marker and that of other critters in its field of view.
    8. “divide”; the “offspring” “inherits” half of the parent’s internal resource and its marker. All other weights in the receptor-action matrix were set to zero initially.

    (Yeah, why not just assume the existence of locomotive, nervous, digestive, metabolic, olfactory (or vision?), and reproductive systems? We know how simple they are at the molecular level.)

    Now, the question is: Is the information necessary to represent items A through F greater than the information necessary to represent items 1 through 8, or are the observed emergent behaviors simply an outworking of the information inherent in the (impressive) “elementary” capabilities of the agents? Hoppe at PT (unwittingly) suggests the answer when he writes:

    Burtsev & Turchin mention that group predation — essentially hunting as packs, the “wolf” strategy — did not arise, most likely because the critters lacked effectors that allowed traveling in groups. They plan further research to explore that issue.

    In other words, add more information to the code, get more information out.

    [And in conclusion, Hoppe slays a strawman:

    There was no front-loading of strategies from which critters could choose. It was not necessary to surreptitiously smuggle complex behaviors into the model’s code. ID creationists (sic) kick and scream about that, but it isn’t necessary. Evolutionary processes can produce complex behaviors, as they produce complex structures, by modifying and elaborating very minimal initial conditions. Complexity ain’t hard at all to evolve, and novelty emerges as a natural consequence of evolution.

    But it's not the "Law of Conservation of Behavior." It's the "Law of of Conservation of Information".]

    Given primeval simplicity, the Darwinian mechanism must yield items 1-8, in addition to A-F. Try again.

  28. Sure j, nobody claims that this paper wants to explain the emergence of life from non-living matter. It is just an example of how complexity and genetic information can built up over time from scratch and random fluctuations.
    Conservation of information may be true for the environment as a whole, but organisms are part of the environment and can build up their internal information over time by incorporating those random mutations that “match” the environment in a sense.

  29. Response to Great Ape:

    “”This really is the heart of the matter. Has any serious effort been made to demonstrate such creativity is, in principle, possible?……If there really is no such “proof of principle” out there, it is definitely an achilles heel for modern evolutionary theory.”"

    I applaud you for your honesty regarding possible weaknesses of the evolutionary theory. Your openess to discuss the topic instead of shooting off rhetoric and using unverified/unapplicable examples as ‘proof’ that it’s all been checked by ‘un-named scientists’ is a breath of fresh air when it comes to opinions of ID-skeptics. Keep it up. To quote Humphrey Bogart “Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”

    Possibly you let show your true colours with your Freudian slip using the word “creativity” on line 2?? ;)

  30. If you don’t have access to any journal paper, then simply try emailing the author and tell them you would really value reading their excellent paper. They will usually send a PDF copy back very smartly.

  31. I recall, some years back, a computer simulation of biological evolution. The story carried in the local paper stated that the simulated biologicals were simplifying rather than complexifying, and the authors of the project had to re-do the simulation to get the results they wanted (more biocomplexity).

Leave a Reply