Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Stephen Meyer on Engineers and ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this, Part 2 in a series of posts based on the Q&A section in the recently released DVD, Case for a Creator, I offer the text of Meyer’s response to the question, Why are many engineers intrigued by intelligent design theory?

As a software engineer — in both the artificial-intelligence and aerospace research and development fields — I recognized that there were huge problems with the thesis that natural selection and random variation could produce complex information-processing systems, because designing such systems is what I do.

Here are Meyer’s comments in answer to the question posed to him above:

The origin of a new structure, of a miniature machine, or an information-processing system, or a circuit, is an engineering problem. Oftentimes people have criticized the intelligent design movement because there are so many prominent professors of engineering in our number. But we don’t make any apologies for that, because engineers are precisely the scientists that know what it takes to design things, to build things. And the question of origins is essentially a question of engineering. How did these systems get built? And when you have so many top-level professors of engineering — in mechanical, electrical or software engineering — saying, I think we’re looking at systems that clearly show evidence of design, I think the Darwinists have a serious problem. If they can’t persuade those people, that the 19th-century mechanism of selection and variation is up to this task, I think that the theory is in serious trouble.

Comments
[...] Stephen Meyer on Engineers and ID | Uncommon Descent Intelligent Design-adhering engineers. Holy shit what a bunch if unpleasant underinformed bunch of twats. 'Those biologists just have a lot of imagination, they're not proving anything But 'a designer did it' isn't a flight of fancy. And I haven't the faintest clue about the finer workings and mathematical predictions in nature, and I also can't tell apart the cause and effect of 'what good design is', but I'll dismiss an entire field of scientists as stupider about their field than me. Obviously things are designed, cells work just like what we learn in textbooks is ideal! Golly gee, that must be imposed by a designer, because it's not like 'what works best' is defined by physics and not a design choice, and our guidelines are drawn from nature that did it first by sheer probabilistic outcome, as we can even compute in hindsight.' I want to fucking vomit all over them. Arrogant flapjacks. 'Biologists can't see design in nature, they'll never learn, oh biologists'. Fuck you asshole, if you can't see beyond what's there and see the history that lead to it, same as how you can't see that the programs you code with were once coded themselves based on fucking beeps and blips, then who's the idiot. Reply With Quote   [...][INTP] What pisses off INTPs? - Page 370
March 29, 2013
March
03
Mar
29
29
2013
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Dave, You've had a lot of experience in this eh! Mine has been very different. Did you ever open up the MS code libraries? When I did, I couldn't believe the kind of stuff that was in there. Redundancy galore, constants, variables and macros defined, redefined everywhere, sloppy memory checking,... But I do think you're right about drivers and such being the worst culprits. I've just had to deal with user machines that were constantly crashing, MS software bugs, STL leaks galore and so on. If everything is programmed correctly of course that shouldn't happen, but you wouldn't believe some of the horrendous code I've had to debug then scrap and write cause debugging was going to cost more than re-writing! I had to modify some web code written in JavaScript - 6000 lines in one single file! And only 1 comment that read, I kid you not : "// Joe" I even found this code - supposedly OOP in C++ wherein there were over 200 lines of code used to initialize a C structure's elements - 1 by 1 - all to null! I replaced the whole thing with one line of memset(....); ! The same guys also wrote 3 different C functions to initialize 3 different C structures - all the same structure! (3 variables declared)! something like : struct my_struct { string title; int year; }; my_struct a,b,c; then void init_struct_a(); void init_struct_b(); void init_struct_c(); Can you believe it? That was written by guys in a well known IT consulting firm!! AND, for a military application (thankfully just a prototype)! I guess my chief complaint on dev these days is that back in the old days when memory was very costly, programmers learned how to do very efficient code in very little space. I mean look at VAX or any virtual machine type system. The processors weren't all that powerful (compared to today) nor was there endless volumes of memory, yet those systems almost never crashed - 3rd party software or anything else you threw at 'em. Star programmers? The biggest problem I've seen is those who think they are star programmers but aren't. They can really get on yer nerves.... Haven't earned bragging rights but still brag. ;-) Worse still is kids who think they're code whizzes but who actually program like they play Nintendo games - type type type (no forethought), run, ooops game over, type type type, run, oops game over. I've seen that over and over. I've never considered myself a star programmer but I AM a star (caliber) guitar player and that's even better! :-) BTW, love your posts on ID and all. Keep up the good work.Borne
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
By the way, if evolution is “so powerful”, why don’t you guys come up with some useful “blind-watchmaker-kind-of” algorithms that would help us engineers develop better products, better machines, without using so much of our (intelligent) brains ? Sure would save a lot of bucks and since rm-ns is true somebody is going to get real rich when they apply it to engineering. I mean the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because nobody has thought about it until this thread. Right? Right?tribune7
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Tom More & other RMNS fans, Ever heard of DFSS ? Design for Six Sigma ?... It is a theory, an approach, that uses a lot of statistics and maths to improve a design... It is widely used in manufacturing, also, to improve production processes, setups, flows... And it uses HELL A LOT OF DAMN INTELLIGENCE (experiments, designs of experiments, math) to design & produce not only a good product, but at best cost... You said a Boeing 777 is a simple structure... Have you ever thought of how much design time (experiments, calculations, simulations) was needed by the best brains in aeronautical industry to build that "simple structure" ?... Do you know what PURPOSE means ?... Do you know that engineers at Boeing have DESIGNED the 777 for the PURPOSE of safe flight ?... By the way, if evolution is "so powerful", why don't you guys come up with some useful "blind-watchmaker-kind-of" algorithms that would help us engineers develop better products, better machines, without using so much of our (intelligent) brains ?...Sladjo
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
Borne On Win95. I ran a multiplayer online game site on a laptop under Win95. It stayed running for months at a time (the only time I had to reboot it was for software updates). I had to finally throw it over for WinNT because the WinSock implimentation on Win95 only allows 256 simultaneous TCP/IP socket connections to be open at once which limited me to something less than 256 simultaneous players (each player had one socket open with the server plus the server used some housekeeping sockets). WinNT allows 32,000 sockets open at one time. In the hayday (around the year 2000) I had 700 simultaneous players during peak hours every evening and the system was running on a pair of Dell Dimension PCs (WinNT) cohosted at a local ISP who had redundant T3 backbones. I never had to reboot those servers either except for software upgrades. It's urban legend that Windows operating systems are unreliable. It's third party software and device drivers that cause all the problems, usually through resource leaks. I had to be really careful in selecting software allowed to run on my servers. All the game related software (client and server side both) was written by me and you learn to appreciate the care it takes to produce leak-free software. Re; star programmers with huge egos and difficulty working with others. Yup. They're notorious for their huge egos and difficulty being team players. There's an exception though - star programmers work well with other star programmers.DaveScot
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Dave Scot: Interesting stuff. In my experience - probably very different than yours - as I worked in a consulting firm (Fujitsu) in which programmer success depended too largely on the work of software architects and planners - which was often crappy and always underestimated (to make the sale). In that particular firm, programmers are largely viewed as accessories to analysts. A very bad view imo. I was a senior analyst but did a lot of coding. Didn't like the way things were run at all. Very anti-productive. Now I don't like consulting firms at all - all the same from what I can see. The whole software dev world needs a serious re-thinking in my view. Developers burn out, get seriously ill, are treated like crap, forced to work ridiculous hours, under-paid, over-stressed and always required to deliver for yesterday. Projects are poorly planned, poorly managed and poorly coded - just look at MS Win! :-) Win 95 was more a virus than anything else (screwed up your data, crashed if you looked at it the wrong way, wiped out your hard drive, behaved erratically and the 95 seems to have stood for the number of crashes per week. And look at the costs! An estimated 80% of software budgets are used after the coding! To fix bugs - over and over and over again ad infinitum ad nauseum. I got bloody sick of it decided to talk up and try changing things - didn't work - the lights are on the music is blaring but nobody's home. The other versions of MS Win have been excruciatingly slow at getting anything like stable. Just look at the vast number of security bugs! And all that with 10 times the number of SLOC as the Shuttle. I've seen simple projects that could have been well done and finished but were stranded in debug limbo for years because of bad decisions, bad tools (can ya say Power Builder or VB) and bad management. I don't believe in star programmers anymore (too many huge egos and thus problems with others). Except God, programmer of the stars ;-) Now THAT's a lotta well written code!!Borne
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
[...] And why are engineers and doctors more likely to be fans of intelligent design? [...]NixGuy.com » Tuesday Clips
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Reply to Freelurker Thank you for the reply. Your clarification does make your statements more comprehensible. However, I’d have to say that I think my first rejoinder still applies. The question of whether or not a majority of engineers see a relationship between ID and engineering would depend upon 1) whether or not they have even heard of ID, and 2) whether or not they have given ID a careful study. If an engineer’s exposure to ID consists in reading books such as those identified in Bill Dembski’s recent post here at UD, (which I believe would be the most likely scenario), then I doubt that they would find it relevant at all. So, taking a blind sampling of engineers and asking them if they are “intrigued by ID theory,” my guess is that the population of negative responders would include those who either know nothing of it, or who have a distorted perception of it. Bottom line: perhaps majority opinion is not as instructive as you suggest. As for your statement regarding teleology… I stand corrected. Let me then reply this way: It may be true that many or most engineers do not give a thought to teleology in the course of practicing their discipline. I, however, am an example of one who does – and I would venture to say that there are not a few others like me. When I try to solve a problem, I draw strong inspiration from the eloquence of design in nature, and because I believe biology to be teleological, I expect to find solutions there. In fact, I think a perusal of the history of engineering would reveal many designs that took their lead from biology. Bird wings come to mind. Now, you may say that there is no need for recourse to teleology in this or any other example, since Darwinist engineers could – probably do – take similar inspiration from biology without any belief that it is teleological. And in this case, I would say that it seems to me that they are living in denial, plain and simple. It has become a somewhat common observation among ID proponents that Darwinist literature is replete with teleological language, all the while denying it. Dawkins does it all the time, and if you are in doubt on this point, I’ll be happy to supply quotes to that effect. It is also the case that evolutionists often admit that biology seems to be designed. If they acknowledge this conclusion is intuitive to the uninitiated, then isn’t it reasonable to assume that the average engineer with little to no training in biology would occasionally make this same assumption? So perhaps a better statement (if you’re willing to concede the point) is that teleology does not necessarily or always play a role in engineering. That it is not “brought up seriously in a design review” may have more to do with self-censorship resulting from a pervasive atmosphere of suppression of teleological language. There have been occasions where I have mentioned such notions, and you would have thought that I had insulted someone’s mother! Up went the psychiatric eyebrows and out came the smirks. This all seems to me to be a Kuhnian paradigm waiting to shift. Well, I’ve obviously gone on to long. My apologies. Thanks again for the dialog. Regards, ColumboColumbo
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
Borne No size limits. Must have been a high probability spam word in it. The lengthier the comment the more likely it is to have a spam word in it. P.S. If developers do what amateurs always do - just start coding right away - disaster awaits. Costs will sky rocket, overtime will be painful, debugging will never end and you risk losing the client (and then your job). That's what they tell you in school but if you ever get a chance to work with a gifted programmer you'll find out the rule has its exceptions. The exceptions are what are known in the business as "star programmers". They're about as rare are pro ball players and usually end up earning about as much. They're 10+ times more productive than average programmers. Familiar names that come to mind are John Carmack, Steve Wozniak, and Tim Berners-Lee... I've clocked myself writing over 300 lines of assembly or C code per hour that often executes flawlessly on the first pass (including a clean compilation on the first pass). I can code almost without syntactical or logical error as fast as I can type and I can type pretty damn fast. I've written literally millions of lines of code that has gone into billions upon billions of dollars worth of computer systems. Virtually none of it was done according to the structured/team programming rules you were taught. At the top of my game I was making about $1000 per hour and my mistakes, (which I didn't make and had a long track record of not making) had the potential of each costing millions of dollars PER DAY in stalled computer manufacturing lines all over the world. Opportunities for star programmers to perform one-man miracles have declined as software has grown in sophistication over the decades. Even someone who can crank out a thousand lines of debugged code a day can only do a quarter million lines in a year. 25 years ago that was enough for one major application like Lotus 1-2-3 or Wordstar or DOS or a couple of arcade games like Star Wars or Defender. Anymore these kind of projects require a million lines or more and while you might have a star programmer on the project he won't be a lone wolf and so has to be a team player working with version control systems, group coding standards, et cetera. My last hurrah was designing laptops at Dell 10 years ago when there would be two principle engineers on the project - one hardware engineer and one bios engineer. But even PC BIOSes have grown into million+ line behemoths with some of the code 20 years or more old and is beyond the scope of any lone wolf these days.DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
Probably was caught in moderation which has to be cleared out manually. We mods aren't camping out at our computers, you know.Patrick
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
oops, there it is! Well whaddya know?Borne
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
Is there some sort of size limit for these posts? I just spent over an hour writing up a response and after clicking Submit it all just disappeared and was not posted. No warning, just wiped out! Any explanations? ThanxBorne
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
If RM is "trial and error", then NDT is definitely false. The one thing they always taught us in university informatics was that trial and error techniques would get you no where fast. You have to think, analyze, then set your data domain ranges and values, set up your business and presentation rules etc, create your object model diagrams, insure everything is coherent, choose the appropriate coding language, set up test data beds, etc etc., THEN you can start the code. If developers do what amateurs always do - just start coding right away - disaster awaits. Costs will sky rocket, overtime will be painful, debugging will never end and you risk losing the client (and then your job). Trial and error methods don't work for even simple information systems, how much less for the complex coded information systems of DNA! DNA is a far more complex coded information system than anything man has ever even dreamed of creating. The Space Shuttle's flight control computers carry something like 1,400,000 lines of code. It is, at 99,9% correct, the most perfect software in the world (MS Windows XP has about 40Mb lines and Mac OS X around 80Mb !). This code, 420,000 lines long, had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors! Shuttle software is the work of about 260 people playing at level 5 coding rate (near perfect). It HAS to be near perfect because the software literally does all the real work - not the astros - is always a life/death situation! Yet DNA is literally orders of magnitude larger and more complex! And it also HAS to be near perfect or disease and deformities are the result. Mutations are majoritarily code errors or bugs! **** And we're supposed to believe this is an accident of nature!!? **** "The central enemy of reliability is complexity" Geer et al. Not in DNA! It's reliability is phenomenal considering deleterious mutation rates. Biologists are not information specialists. (They should be required to learn informatics and I predict will be). And that's the only excuse I can see for the evo-biologists persistent, foolish & naive shrugging off of DNA's amazing code as the results of non-rational RM + equally non-rational NS. DNA comes loaded with exception trapping mechanisms which all by themselves require forethought of possible errors and foreknowledge of what correct data looks like! ---- Correction mechanisms intrinsically imply intelligence. There is no other way! --- If RM is trial & error, then most certainly Darwinism cannot be true - no matter how much magic wand like selection you throw in.Borne
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
Freelurker, what I was referring to was your question "Does anyone here claim that a majority, or even a large percentage, of engineers believes that ID would be useful in the practice of science?" Is the belief that life sprang from a series of random of events -- and Darwinism is predicated on this belief -- useful in the practice of science? IMO, if you don’t have a model, that is, a description of interacting components or of interacting processes, then you don’t have anything. A bad model could be much, much worse than no model. A bad model that becomes dogma is always much much worse than no model. I don’t intend to debate here the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. So why do you feel it provides the the model that best fits the data?tribune7
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
Columbo wrote:
1) What does majority thinking have to do with correctness? Has it been the case in human or even science history that the majority was always right?
I agree that the majority does not have the final word on correctness and I enjoyed Kuhn’s book too. But I think that you are making the point too strongly; an idea that has convinced a lot of people certainly has something going for it. Anyway, this whole discussion started with numbers; “Why are many engineers intrigued by intelligent design theory.” I was providing a counterpoint to that.
(2) Are you serious in saying that teleology plays no role in the practice of engineering? I take invention to be almost pure telic activity.
We are talking about different things. My point is that engineers, when they are doing engineering, don’t entertain the possibility that nature is making choices or that there is a intelligent being controlling nature (or if they do, they don’t bring it up seriously in a design review or in a post-test review.) Understand that I am not talking about personal philosophical beliefs here; I am talking about the types of possibilities have been found to be useful to pursue when practicing engineering.Freelurker
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
tribune7 wrote:
Freelurker, do you believe the principle that life occurred due to a series of random events useful in the practice of science? Do you believe the principle that life developed due to a series of random events useful in the practice of science?
No doubt you are referring to the theory of evolution, but I don’t accept that you have described it well. For me it’s not a matter of believing in a principle; it’s a matter of agreeing that it provides the model that best fits the data. IMO, if you don’t have a model, that is, a description of interacting components or of interacting processes, then you don’t have anything. The ID movement eschews the need to present a model. This is one of the big ways that ID is different from engineering. (Not that anyone has claimed that they are the same.) I don’t intend to debate here the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. That is done on many other threads by people more qualified than me. I am commenting on the relationships between engineering and ID.Freelurker
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
“IOW the bac flag could nave “evolved by design”. Each step was pre-programmed. And if each step matched some desired target it would be selected for. ” DK: I think the point of the bac flag argument is that it is “irreducibly complex” which means there were no steps, it is non functional except in its finished state so there was nothing to “select” from. Nor can NS + RM choose or match a desired target… it has no knowledge of the future. That is incorrect. True it may be non-functional until completely constructed but an intelligent selection process doesn't care. It is planning for the future. The whole point of "designed to evolve" is pre-planning, ie a desired goal. Another term is "front loading". IOW IC means it is unassailable via RM&NS and "designed to evolve" is the antithesis of RM&NS. ------------------------------------------------------------ designed jacob: RM is the research, and NS is the engineering. RM is the trial and error, and NS is what makes it through that process. Then we have to consider the random effects- living long enough to finding a mate; mating successfully; making it through any given day- just think about humans in the MET scenario- we owe our existence to an ELE (extinction level event), ie a global killer, that somehow some populations, regardless of how partial, made it through. But what happens when no amount of trial and error can account for the range of changes required? As Meatloaf once said (sang): "There ain't no Coupe deVille lying on the bottom of a Cracker Jack box."Joseph
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
DaveScott, Take a Dutchman for what he means not what he says. Sorry, I knew my example was a research example not an engineering example(I know the difference between research and engineering, my bad for not being clear about what I was trying to communicate, Atom expressed it better ). But in my VERY limited exposure to software coding it seemed that a similar type of situation may be possible, although probably rare. (your opinion welcome as this seems to be your area of expertise). Engineers of whatever type have an advantage over nature in that testing or modeling allows unintended consequenses or mistakes to be identified without terminating the whole project (it's often not right on the first try) and the knowledge from failures can be used in the future. (ie. that was unexpected- of no use now but maybe I can use it later). Failures in nature seem to just end in a blind alley or extinction. scordova, that is definately not a stupid question, as many at the managerial level seem to believe the creativity and intelligence of engineers can be replaced by written processes making experience and talent superfulous thus engineers can be treated like any other capital expense- just buy the engineer at the lowest possible price as one is as good as the other. With good enough processes things can almost engineer themselves!devilsadvocate
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
#75: Not really, because NS in nature is not analogous to the teleogical musings of engineers. ("What can I use this variation for in the future?") NS is merely the description of replicators out reproducing each other and the help that certain traits give them in this process. If the trait doesn't confer a high enough selection advantage (high enough to overcome genetic and enviornmental "noise"), the trait is never fixed. Engineers, on the other hand, can save "traits" for future use based on what Berlinski calls deferred success. So even though the "trait" may be useless or harmful in the present situation, we artifically save it based on teleogical goals. This wouldn't happen in nature, sans intelligent guidance. And replicators out replicating each other are NOT an intelligence substitute.Atom
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
DaveScot, that last comment sort of feeds your opponent's point though. RM is the research, and NS is the engineering.Designed Jacob
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Engineering life's replacement parts... "Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well," said Anthony Atala, M.D., senior researcher and director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine." Anyone remember Dr. Atala? He's at it again :) Scientists Discover New, Readily Available Source of Stem Cells http://www1.wfubmc.edu/news/NewsArticle.htm?Articleid=2020Michaels7
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Borne quoting Leno: “Scientists are complaining that the new Dinosaur movie shows dinosaurs with lemurs, who didn’t evolve for another million years. They’re afraid the movie will give kids a mistaken impression. What about the fact that the dinosaurs are singing and dancing? ” – Jay Leno Does no university sport a "Department of Evolutionary Choreography"?russ
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
advocate Mistakes in research sometimes lead to something novel & practical but we were talking about engineering, not research. You seem to be conflating the two. For instance, a classic example is teflon. It was discovered by accident when a researcher trying to make a CFC refrigerant found a super slippery polymer in his reaction vessel. When engineers got ahold of the new polymer they found (not by accident) many uses for it.DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Freelurker wrote:
Does anyone here claim that a majority, or even a large percentage, of engineers believes that ID would be useful in the practice of science?
Depends on how one frames the poll question. If you asked, "dear engineer, we are conducting a poll... Do you think the engineering profession can survive without the intelligence of engineers? Can mindless unpaid processes do the job better than intelligent engineers?" I expect you'll probably get mean looks for asking such a stupid question.scordova
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
While we're talking about Darwinian ill-reasonings let's laugh a little: quote: "Scientists are complaining that the new Dinosaur movie shows dinosaurs with lemurs, who didn't evolve for another million years. They're afraid the movie will give kids a mistaken impression. What about the fact that the dinosaurs are singing and dancing? " -- Jay Leno That pretty much sums it up :-)Borne
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
In engineering unitended consequences do occur sometimes for the betterment of the design but most often to the detriment. When an unitended consequence does ultimately improve the design often the new element is not incorporated at the point the effect is discovered or in an unaltered state but rather it is used later and accompanied with added changes to control or utilize the new effect. As an example, in a research project I was involved in a mistake was made in the daily protocol (my fault) which resulted in unitended consequences. These consequenses were not helpful for that particular experiment, in fact set us back for the day. The effect was, however ,immediately recognized as unique (I wrote down exactly what I did wrong so it could be reproduced) and the mistake was 'kept in our back pocket' so to speek and used later in a different research project. RM + NS ,I believe, would have difficulty simulating this type of design because it would not have the ability to store unused information for future use, especially if the information was detrimental under the existing constaints. If organisms exhibited this ability ID would definately seem to be a better explanation.devilsadvocate
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
One last rant... I find it somewhat comical when Darwinian biologists show disdain for engineers, claiming that they, though knowledgable of physics/chemistry/information science/etc, are still "woefully ignorant" about biological systems, and therefore are incapable of taking Darwinists to task. To me, it is like an accountant dismissing a Mathmetician's audit of their records. "While Mr. Mathematics surely is specialized in his own field, dealing with abstract number systems, he is woefully ingnorant of the world of accounting. He has no knowledge of general ledgers, balance sheets or the amazing powers of CF (creative finance)." Engineers recoginze that biological systems are just that: physically instantiated systems. You cannot expect us to believe that your specific systems somehow do not follow the laws of systems in general. This is why IDist engineers tend to view NDE scenarios as perpetual motion machines; they initially sound plausible, but fall apart once details are assessed. Studying systems in general qualifies you to understand and critique specific systems, such as carbon based life systems. Thus, the critiques by engineers are as, if not more, important than those of biologists, IMO.Atom
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
In post 61 Joseph wrote: "IOW the bac flag could nave “evolved by design”. Each step was pre-programmed. And if each step matched some desired target it would be selected for. " I think the point of the bac flag argument is that it is "irreducibly complex" which means there were no steps, it is non functional except in its finished state so there was nothing to "select" from. Nor can NS + RM choose or match a desired target... it has no knowledge of the future.DK
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
It is also well known, but for the sake of completeness, I too am an engineer. I have worked as a consultant in the aerospace and defense industry. My undergrad degrees were in Electrical Engineering, Mathematics, Computer Science, with minors in physics and music. I don't recall where a Darwinian principle was useful to any of those fields, and much of my study contradicts what I learned and also see on-the-job. I make no money for my involvement with ID, and to date I have never been involved in lobbying legislatures or school boards to mandate teaching of ID in public schools. My involvement began with personal interest in the topic and the desire to see justice done in the free market place of ideas and for the reputation of friends and colleagues who unjustly suffer societal rejection and occasional persecution because of their reluctance to embrace Darwinian evolution... Salvador Cordovascordova
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
As an aside, during my reading my past few weeks I've come to a realization. NDEs use "Natural Selection" almost like an embodied force, giving it causal powers and such. It shifts the attention away from what causes that phenomena, namely varied replicators. We forget that the phrase "Natural Selection creating a structure" really means "Some replicators have traits that allow them to have a reproductive excess over their competitors and over generations replace them in the population." These ways of describing the same thing are very different. In the first case, we forget that the hard out-replicating work has to be done by actual units which reproduce in ways that we can model. (See Haldane's Dilemma and Genetic Entropy). The second way doesn't allow us to forget that every "power" we ascribe to NS has to have some basis in demonstratable science. I think that NDEs tend to think of NS as some magical force, and credit it with far more than the replicators themselves are capable of doing. Keeping this in mind, we can see when NDEs are using naive simple slope fitness landscapes to make rhetorical points (think Mt. Improbable) and when they are moving beyond the bounds of what they can demonstrate with actual replicators.Atom
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply