|November 1, 2007||Posted by Patrick under Intelligent Design|
The concept of IC is that an IC system has no *functioning* precursors with the same function. Zachriel’s program (and other similar programs randomly generating phrases) don’t challenge IC because the target phrases do not have functioning precursors. As in, they do have precursors but they do not provide the same meaning. Thus, if IC was taken into account normally these words would not promote survivability. If Darwinists would deal with programs instead of phrases they would understand quickly what a functioning precursor is.
Here is a modification of the Phrasenation program that I’d find interesting and possibly even relevant to discussions of ID. I’d like suggestions on how to more accurately reflect the problem Darwinists face.
1. Start with one phrase line:
2. Here is the target goal:
We can promise you,
Cause we’ve got evidence, people.
You say our textbooks lie,
But only in your eyes,
Cause you’re creationists,
While we are scientists.
At the end of the day,
The truth is what we say
Cause we’ve got
To prove that our theory’s true.
Oh, the peppered moths
Aren’t where we thought
It’s a big mistake
And the photos are fake.
We know it’s unreal,
But it’s no big deal
3. There are 20 additional lines or “components” on top of the starting point. Each line is treated as a whole. So the song in its entirety is considered IC as well as being CSI.
4. No front-loading of a correct line or “component”; the fitness function only checks for for one block (see point 6) and the entire song. Allow for single words. Partial words don’t count.
5. The randomize function not only randomly generates lines but the order they’re in. Fitness function eliminates if generated lines are out of order. Original phrase line “Overwhelming Evidence” always survives.
6. We’ll be “nice” and say that the 3rd of the 4 “blocks” in the song is like the TTSS and can serve an alternative standalone function made up of 5 components/lines. The fitness function WILL check to see if a series of lines match this block. BUT no survival benefit AT ALL (no free bonus points nudging it toward the front-loaded goal) is conferred unless the block is generated in its entirety. Only if all 4 blocks are generated at once will the song have any survival benefit. Anything outside of the original line, the 3rd block, and the entire song is eliminated since it doesn’t confer any survival benefit in the partial form.
7. Although I pasted the song as blocks for readability that isn’t considered by the program. Only the individual lines.
In short, the program must make the leap of first generating the 3rd block AND then all 4 blocks to form the song with its 21 components. I imagine that the program might be able to hit
every so often via duplication but I’d be slightly surprised to see it hit the entire block.
Of course, Darwinists will whine that we need to break the entire song into smaller pools of stepwise survivable blocks to allow for a reasonable indirect Darwinian pathway. Well, biological reality is not that nice so all I have to say is tough noogies.
What is the take home lesson from all this? RM+NS works with certain types of problems when it is DESIGNED and implemented properly. Do we have any indication that nature is designed as such? I would not say nature is designed improperly. Instead, I would say that such natural mechanisms were designed to complement other methods of design to allow the wonderful diversity of life we see.