Intelligent Evolution?

[Southwind17]

Intelligent Evolution is just a very thin veil over Intelligent Design.

Paul

Is this the kind of 'enlightenment' you're referring to mijo?!

 

[articulett]

I have never heard an intelligent design proponent use this analogy. I have never even heard them use the term "intelligent evolution". It's "darwinism" versus "intelligent design". Or the THEORY of evilution. Mijo seems very confused about what creationists actually argue though he pretends to be certain. I hear the tornado in the junkyard forming a 747 analogy all the time. It's a bad analogy, because 747's didn't suddenly spring into being anymore than people did. Asking how the 747 came to be can clue people in to how complexity can come about from information culled via a selection process and time. Once we had the first airplane--we had the prototype and progenitor of the eventual 747.
That's a simple beginning explanation and works to start a discussion on what evolution is. I use it often.

Intelligent design proponents will say, "we look at a watch and know it was designed"-- but we also look at a watch and know it didn't spring into being at the notion of a single intelligent designer. We understand that timepieces have evolved based on what worked best over time--that people past would find todays time pieces "miraculous". That is how genomes evolved too. Neither makes "perfection"--but both bring seeming miracles to those who don't understand the process--

But not even our most amazing and complex inventions poofed into existence even though all the matter they are composed of existed for eons. Seeming miracles and design require the accumulation of information, a selection process, and TIME--not any gods. A watch doesn't require a single designer that comes up with a timepiece from scratch--it just takes a lot of people tweaking info. over time and selecting their favorites from the results. Watches evolved in an environment of humans acting as the selectors. The same for viruses, parasites, fungi, and humans--only they evolved with other environmental inputs acting as selectors--and there have been some very cruel inputs at that--childhood diseases for one (which also evolved and culled unintelligently making our immune system stronger). The environment is the testing ground; the environment selects.

Notice the less complex stuff came first in both cases--

I wonder why? Could it be because the analogies are fabulously fitting to those who tend to be good at analogies?! Yep. Could it be that the pedants don't recognize how poor their own analogies are or how hard it is to make sense of what they say? You bet! It's the same basic process. Inputs come from the environment and the supposed intelligence or goals of the inputs is not particularly relevant as to whether complexity or "recognizable design" emerges.

Of course the clueless cannot hear what they cannot hear.

A virus can "design" complexity as well as human "intentions". It's microbes that are responsible for our complex immune systems--not intelligent design of any kind. Cruel design, weeding out the "less fit" over time.

Just as airplane crashes help us build better airplanes. (And the desire and necessity of being of being informed about time helped us make more mobile timepieces.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

Is this the kind of 'enlightenment' you're referring to mijo?!

You don't seem to understand that your OP asked people to critique your analogy, yet when people criticized your analogy because ignore the obvious differences between technological development and biological evolution, you chose not to listen to them, opting for the people who agreed with you.

If you don't want to be criticized, don't ask for criticism.

By the way could you possibly explain how one process being capable of an action and another process being incapable of that same action makes the two processes alike?

You are basically saying with your "can, but doesn't have to" refrain that technological development is like biological evolution when technological development is like biological evolution, which is useless and tautological.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I have never heard an intelligent design proponent use this analogy. I hear the tornado in the junkyard forming a 747 analogy all the time. It's a bad analogy, because 747's didn't suddenly spring into being anymore than people did. Asking how the 747 came to be can clue people in to how complexity can come about information culled via a selection process and time.

The you are obviously ignoring the Dembski quotation with which jimbob has provided you at least twice:

"Intelligent Evolution": If the Courts Rule Against ID

I therefore offer the following proposal if ID gets outlawed from our public schools: retitle it Intelligent Evolution (IE). The evolution here would be reconceived not as blind evolution but as technological evolution. Nor would it be committed to Darwin’s idea of descent with modification. But, hey, it would still be evolution, and evolution can be taught in schools. In fact, I think I’ll title my next book Intelligent Evolution: The Mindful Deviation of Evolutionary Pathways. Perhaps this book has already been written.

Could you please explain what exactly Dembski is misunderstanding about the process of technological development that make his conclusion false?

 

[mijopaalmc]

For those who support the analogy:

Would you try to explain the occurrence of pre-ignition in a gasoline engine and lack thereof in a diesel engine by saying "both engines are the same because the run on petrochemicals"?

Why try to refute ID by analogizing biological evolution with technological development under the premise "both processes are examples of change over time with retention of 'what works'"?

 

[articulett]

The you are obviously ignoring the Dembski quotation with which jimbob has provided you at least twice:

"Intelligent Evolution": If the Courts Rule Against ID



Could you please explain what exactly Dembski is misunderstanding about the process of technological development that make his conclusion false?

Clearly, Dembski thinks that "evolution" is the magic word... he, like you, seems pretty clueless as to what evolution is. I can't decipher what Dembski is saying anymore than I can decipher you or Behe--but his statement is pretty much "hey, if we use the word evolution, then we could teach it in school..." I think now they are going to try "intelligent emergence", because, in truth, they think evolution is a dirty word. They don't understand it and they don't want to. But nothing they say crisp or meaningful just like nothing you say is. You guys don't even care that nobody understands what the hell you are saying, because your goal is just to confuse the issue. You just go out of your way so that people don't understand evolution just like you don't understand it.

I've had experience with many teens indoctrinated with some vague form of intelligent design--and Southwinds analogy works--it allows them to see evolution as something comprehensible--and not this arrogant mish mashy of random scientific blather that folks like you, Demski, and Behe would have them believe it is. Sure, the analogy won't work for everyone. But it will explain evolution a lot better than you do or Dembski does or Behe does or those who don't "get" the analogy could.

You imagine differences in your head just as you imagine how this argument would come across to creationists just as you imagine your explanations make sense to those other than you...just as you imagine that what Dembski is blathering is supporting your contention. I'm sorry. It's not. And nothing in the world seems to shake your faith in yourself. That is why I have to put you back on ignore. You are impenetrable. No amount of evidence is enough. Like all woo, you twist anything you can into seeming to support the nothingness of what you are saying. You just never say anything. You are never clear and you make very poor analogies while imagining yourself an analogy expert.

You critique Southwinds analogy, and yet nobody thinks you are saying anything important or useful or valuable. Who has learned anything from you? Who understand evolution better because of you. And the same goes for Jim Bob-- though he's not as arrogant and wrong-- and Imaginal Disc though he's clearer but still thinks his inability to "get it" means that others won't. He's wrong. I have experience. So do the experts I've quoted. Your expert is Dembski? Go ahead and tell me how what he's saying will magically be supported by what Southwind is saying? Go ahead, analogy man. Show me how he's going to take Southwinds conclusion and use it to support his young earth creationist views of "intelligent design" (yes, he's even more whacked than Behe.) OR better yet--read or listen to those who have done battle in court with the ID movement and really learn their strategies instead of imagining your expertise.

 

[articulett]

Oh, and btw--the courts DID rule against intelligent design. That's why their new strategy is just to try and poke holes in evolution so that people don't understand it or accept it.

This quote is old and Dembski never even testified at the trial. The judge (a conservative theist) called Behe a liar... which he is-- and Dembski is worse. Try to stay up to date on what the latest arguments are and you'll sound a little more like you have a clue.

 

[articulett]

For those who support the analogy:

Would you try to explain the occurrence of pre-ignition in a gasoline engine and lack thereof in a diesel engine by saying "both engines are the same because the run on petrochemicals"?

Why try to refute ID by analogizing biological evolution with technological development under the premise "both processes are examples of change over time with retention of 'what works'"?

Nobody needs to refute, ID, because there is NO evidence in support of it. They only need to make sure that the ID-ists don't muddle the understanding of natural selection-- of what evolution is.

That's the whole goal of the ID movement at this juncture since they lost so brutally at Dover.

That's WHY Southwinds analogy is so good--it captures the essence of information building complexity over time that clues people into the fact that they can understand the seemingly incomprehensible... and if they can understand how it is that todays airplanes can come from stuff that's been on the planet since before humans... they can understand how humans could come from the same stuff that has been on the planet for eons. If they understand that technology doesn't just "poof" into being-- they can understand how life didn't either. If you don't get it-- it's your problem.

Information with a selection process over time is all that is required for evolution. It is the way this thread evolves...the way the internet evolves, the way technology evolves, and the way genomes evolve... it's the way the obsolete die out as well.

I don't worry about refuting ID... I just want to make sure that people have a bit of an understanding of what evolution actually is before ID memes make them as impenetrable as they've made you. I want them to understand exactly why we don't call selection processes "random"-- how it yields design though there may be no real "designer" or many supposed "designers"-- I want them to know that it's the information that evolves-- not the animal... or the airplane-- just the information that produced it... and THAT is what replicates and mutates too-- that is the stuff that is tweaked and culled via the environment.

It's the same. If they understand that much, they will never be confused or bambooozled by the likes of you, Behe, Dembski, or anyone else. Only cells "self replicate". You don't-- eyes don't-- viruses don't-- fish don't... these are all things that help genomic information replicate-- and useful or "catchy" ideas are information that tends to get replicated by humans for their own use.

I feel sad that you don't understand the analogy--but I also know that for you it's willful--your aim is to obfuscate, just like Behe--you endlessly use words to pretend to yourself you are saying something of value--while not hearing anyone else or really saying much at all. And you're pissed because Southwind won't fall for it. Boo hoo. I don't think anyone here has for very long. You aren't fooling anyone anymore. Southwind ignores your point because YOU AREN'T MAKING ONE. And the few people that are kind of on your side are almost as vague or missing the boat in the same way, but from a completely different direction!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Oh, and btw--the courts DID rule against intelligent design. That's why their new strategy is just to try and poke holes in evolution so that people don't understand it or accept it.

This quote is old and Dembski never even testified at the trial. The judge (a conservative theist) called Behe a liar... which he is-- and Dembski is worse. Try to stay up to date on what the latest arguments are and you'll sound a little more like you have a clue.

You're still missing the point. Regardless of whether the Court Ruled against ID (which I knew before I made that post), it still stands that Dembski is seeking the same analogy between technological development and biological evolution that you are; yo just seem to be depending on that not having a clear definition of what intelligence is will stop Dembski from implementing such an analogy. The fact is that people implicitly understand that engineers are intelligent in a way that nature is not and that convincing them otherwise is going to be a huge burden on those who think otherwise until intelligence itself can be thoroughly defined. Thus, it is unwise to analogize and process that involves a human (and therefore implicitly intelligent agent) such as technological development with a process that doesn't such as biological evolution, because the people whom you are trying to target will simply interpret the analogy in the way with which they are most familiar and comfortable, which completely contradicts the purpose of such an analogy.

 

[articulett]

You're still missing the point. Regardless of whether the Court Ruled against ID (which I knew before I made that post), it still stands that Dembski is seeking the same analogy between technological development and biological evolution that you are; yo just seem to be depending on that not having a clear definition of what intelligence is will stop Dembski from implementing such an analogy. The fact is that people implicitly understand that engineers are intelligent in a way that nature is not and that convincing them otherwise is going to be a huge burden on those who think otherwise until intelligence itself can be thoroughly defined. Thus, it is unwise to analogize and process that involves a human (and therefore implicitly intelligent agent) such as technological development with a process that doesn't such as biological evolution, because the people whom you are trying to target will simply interpret the analogy in the way with which they are most familiar and comfortable, which completely contradicts the purpose of such an analogy.

You miss the point... That quote is over 2 years old and he's gone nowhere with it... it doesn't say what you think it is saying and your conclusions as to what is a good analogy is not worth anything given that you suck at analogies. Human designed things have multiple input and are built from the bottom up--all of them-- and mistakes and honing are part of the process-- THE SAME IS TRUE OF EVOLUTION.

God "poofs" things into existence with perfection and his supporters try to obfuscate the simple understanding of Darwins theory of natural selection. You haven't a clue about people we are trying to target nor do you have a clue as to why the analogy is simple and elegant and very useful--so your opinion is only important for your own ego.

And it doesn't "stand" that Dembski is saying anything nor that Southwind is playing into his hands nor that you have a clue... and if Southwinds analogy was so useful, you'd think that Dembski wouldhave focused more on it than the oddly worded nothingness from over two years ago.

 

[Southwind17]

You don't seem to understand that your OP asked people to critique your analogy, yet when people criticized your analogy because ignore the obvious differences between technological development and biological evolution, you chose not to listen to them, opting for the people who agreed with you.

No, I did listen to them, but it was obvious right from the out that they were focusing on aspects of evolution and design development that were irrelevant to the efficacy of the analogy. The fact that at least two very knowledgable people agreed with the analogy gave me more confidence that it was valid. If all I had faced were the types of objectionable comments from the likes of you and ID, then I might have thought differently, although I think I would still have strongly resisted the objections for the same reason.

If you don't want to be criticized, don't ask for criticism.

The criticism isn't about me; it's about the analogy, and I don't mind criticism, provided it's valid. Indeed, I'd welcome it. I haven't seen any yet, though.

By the way could you possibly explain how one process being capable of an action and another process being incapable of that same action makes the two processes alike?

I assume you're alluding to natural evolution and design development here. If so, exactly what 'action' are you referring to? We all know that the two processes are very different at the micro level. If they were identical then, as cyborg has pointed out on at least one occassion, there'd be no need for an anology. The key similarities between the two processes are random (or essentially random) incremental change over time, and selection based on the benefits that those changes may or may not derive, leading to incremental complexity that, in the final analysis, appears irreducible. I believe I have made a strong case for design development emulating natural evolution; along the way explaining how intent and forethought are simply tools that designers choose to take advantage of in the interests of short circuiting the otherwise laborious and uncommercial approach that simply would not be viable, and that market selection affords a very close analogy to natural selection, both imposing a test 'environment' on the mutations (design changes) in order to determine which offer advantages and which don't.

You are basically saying with your "can, but doesn't have to" refrain that technological development is like biological evolution when technological development is like biological evolution, which is useless and tautological.

I don't believe it is useless and tautological. As I've said before, if I could show just one example of complex design development that is not subject to the 'flaws' that ID erroneously listed, then that is sufficient to dispel the myth that certain examples of biological evolution are irreducibly complex. It's no different from showing, during the early days of flight, that if just one makeshift 'aircraft' could succeed in defeating gravity, then it doesn't matter one jot if all other attempts fail, for whatever reason. The case is proven.

 

[Southwind17]

For those who support the analogy:

Would you try to explain the occurrence of pre-ignition in a gasoline engine and lack thereof in a diesel engine by saying "both engines are the same because the run on petrochemicals"?

Why try to refute ID by analogizing biological evolution with technological development under the premise "both processes are examples of change over time with retention of 'what works'"?

I think you might be getting confused over the concept of 'speciation' mijo!

 

[mijopaalmc]

So is anyone going to address the fact that Dembski, a prominent ID proponent, seems to like that analogy between technological development and biological evolution because, as he suggests, it put a purpose back into evolution?

 

[Paulhoff]

So is anyone going to address the fact that Dembski, a prominent ID proponent, seems to like that analogy between technological development and biological evolution because, as he suggests, it put a purpose back into evolution?

As you know there is no purpose behind evolution like there is no purpose behind gravity.

Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think you might be getting confused over the concept of 'speciation' mijo!

Actually, no, I'm not. I'm just demonstrating that having something in common such as "running on petrochemicals" or "change over time with retention of 'what works'" does not mean diesel engines and gasoline engines or technological development and biological evolution don't differ in ways that make them non-analogous in ways that are important to explaining why pre-ignition occurs or why ID is intellectually barren.

 

[Southwind17]

So is anyone going to address the fact that Dembski, a prominent ID proponent, seems to like that analogy between technological development and biological evolution because, as he suggests, it put a purpose back into evolution?

I suspect Dembski places a very strong emphasis on the notion of design with intent and forethought, and possibly artificial selection based on prior knowledge or perception on the part of the designer of what is likely to 'succeed'.

I, however, believe, supported by articulett and possibly cyborg, that I have shown that human design could derive complex machines not dissimilar to those we see around us without intent and forethought, and that the 'market environment' into which human designs are placed are no different in principle from the forces of natural selection as regards survival or extinction.

This is a subtle but key difference that has eluded both you and ID, at least, and would probably elude Dembski, were he to be presented with it, but that would act completely against his beliefs, were he to recognize and accept it, as he rightly should.

Does that address it?

 

[Southwind17]

As you know there is no purpose behind evolution like there is no purpose behind gravity.

Paul

And you think such a superficial view, whilst correct, is likely to convince the likes of Dembski? You really must try harder Paul if you're going to roll with the punches here!

 

[mijopaalmc]

As you know there is no purpose behind evolution like there is no purpose behind gravity.

Paul

There is, however, a purpose behind the multitude of changes made to technologies during their development, contrasting starkly with the distinct lack of purpose behind the the changes that occur during biological evolution. The point that I was trying to with the question about Dembski is that Dembski is supporting the analogy between technological development and biological evolution because he sees purpose behind both. The best way to combat such an interpretation is to emphasize the lack of purpose in biological evolution by avoiding analogies of biological evolution to processes with purpose. This can to a certain extent be done, as it was done by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker, by blinding or somehow handicapping the agent of technological development. However, there is no longer a perfect analogy to technological development because agents of technological development do make purposeful decisions based on a logical framework both of which are utterly absent in biological evolution.

 

[Paulhoff]

There is a thing called a conversation, you say a little, I think on it, I say a little, you think on it and see if I understand you, then you say a little if I understand that point or not and say some more, then I come back on that.

Paul



Then there is the soapbox where one goes on and on and on and on and on and.............

 

[Southwind17]

Actually, no, I'm not. I'm just demonstrating that having something in common such as "running on petrochemicals" or "change over time with retention of 'what works'" does not mean diesel engines and gasoline engines or technological development and biological evolution don't differ in ways that make them non-analogous in ways that are important to explaining why pre-ignition occurs or why ID is intellectually barren.

OK, so it might be useful then if you were to summarize what you see as the key in-principle difference(s) between EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE (which rules out ID's erroneous list) of complex human design and biological evolution, without resorting to the detailed machinations of each of the underlying processes, which we all know and accept are inevitably different, hence the introduction of the analogy.