Darwinian evolution result created by intelligent designer

But either way it is turtles all the way down. Some just want to beg god after god, and some just want to claim no matter what it is natural all the way down.

Either way, 'what came before' is a killer question.
To which the answer, in the absence of evidence, has to be "we don't know". The difference between the two approaches is that one wants to say, in the absence of evidence, that Goddidit, and the other is prepared to admit that at present we don't know, but we're working on it.

One of these approaches is more likely to achieve progress than the other.
 
T'ai said:
But it also can demonstrate that, since the code is designed by an intelligent designer, that the result is due to an intelligent designer.
This statement is fuzzy and inexact. It is possible that the simulation leaked information into the result in a manner that is not synonymous with the way information accumulates in nature. Any such bugs need to be eradicated.

If one is saying the code is a simulation of the real world, what in the real world would be analogus to the intelligence who created the code?
This question doesn't make sense. The simulation is what is analogous to the real world, not the process by which the simulation is created.

~~ Paul
 
T'ai said:
What if the code writer claims his program closely models nature?
That's fine. He's not claiming that the formation of the program closely models the formation of the natural processes it models.

~~ Paul
 
It's only a "killer question" when you have used it as part of your argument to "prove" that "god did it".

It is indeed a killer question to those who claim naturalistic explanations no matter what like a lot of scientistic people do.
 
How can it be truly analogous to the real world if what created it isn't analogus?

Do processes in the real world suddenly spring into existence out of nothing?
 
It is indeed a killer question to those who claim naturalistic explanations no matter what like a lot of scientistic people do.
No it isn't, because in the absence of evidence, "we don't know" is the only honest answer. We can go and look for evidence, and hopefully eventually find enough evidence to be able to form and test a hypothesis.

A current lack of evidence for the origin of life, or of certain features of living organisms, is not evidence for a particular mechanism by which life arose. What IDers are trying to do is to arrive at the conclusion that there must have been a God unnamed designer from the fact that we do not currently know exactly how certain features of life evolved. If they want to establish ID a proper science, they need to find evidence for their own hypothesis rather than merely trying to disprove a competing theory.
 
How can it be truly analogous to the real world if what created it isn't analogus?
Analogy does not require that all aspects be comparable. In this case, how the process itself was created is not relevant, only the result of the process is. You are stretching the analogy out of its bounds.

Do processes in the real world suddenly spring into existence out of nothing?
Nobody claimed that.
 
So if we do anything to discover and learn about nature, it's a proof of ID?
Pardon me if I call that grasping at straws.
 
As unnamed said, you carry your analogy beyond logic. I think its because you see an interesting mystery. A rational model of the behavior of nature can be made. The makers of the model are rational. What's the relationship? How is it possible that rational thinking applies to nature?

It's one of the great questions in the Philosophy of Science.

Your answer is to say rational behavior comes from rational, thinking, conscious beings who design things according to reason. Man, a rational designer makes rational working models of nature, because nature behaves rationally. So nature must be a rationally designed thing, just as the models are, or there could be no working relation between them.

But this isn't the only answer. In fact it's one of those arbitrary and illusory, either-ors. This one is either there's a conscious, intelligent, designer or tinkerer or there is just random stuff with no pattern.

Not necessarily so. Our reason applies to nature because we are of nature. The same simple operations from which emerge predictable behavior patterns in nature, happen in our bodies and are consciously called laws of thought. But there's no law giver, simply the basic constraints upon which reality must relate to itself. From some very elementary ways things can engage each other emerges complex behavior. You know this from mathematics.
There is nature itself, doing it's own thing without need of designer or tinkerer to mold it to his ends. It can stop right there. It's not turtles all the way down. It's turtles in relation and corporation. Reality is self supporting, self-contained, self-causing, self-generating, self-transforming. Nature isn't the product of an intelligent designer but is an intelligent process. I don't mean that nature has a consciouse intelligence apart from beings like us scattered about, but that it is smart.

If you want a religious context in which to put the self-transcendent nature of things, I suggest you study the Tao-Te-Ching. Transcendence, the Tao, is inherent in natural reality rather than the exclusive property of a transcendent being or realm.

In other words, the either-or of ID is false. It's not designer/tinkerer or nothing.

And before someone says that entropy proves there must be an outside Support, think again.
 
Last edited:
T'ai said:
How can it be truly analogous to the real world if what created it isn't analogus?
It isn't completely analagous and no one claimed it was. Schneider's Ev program isn't even analagous to most of the evolutionary landscape.

Do processes in the real world suddenly spring into existence out of nothing?
Now that's a philosophical question if ever I heard one.

~~ Paul
 
Say a person, P_id, favoring the design hypothesis says X existing is an argument against evolution.

Then a person, P_dev favoring Darwinian evolution writes a computer program that shows that under Darwinian evolution X can indeed happen.

Can't P_id just say that the only thing P-dev has shown is that it takes an intelligent designer to make X happen because P_dev wrote the computer program which made X happen?

A real world example of what you are implying might be the Avida software.

This is an example of simple code writing more complex code to simulate natural selection. Evolution can be simulated without saying anything about if the simple code and rules could come about naturally or not. In this case it was designed, but does it need to always be so?

I would have to agree that nothing seems to have been said about ID at all, except that the natural selection process being modeled could extend before the point the 'created' building blocks were introduced.

http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/

Avida

The MSU Digital Evolution Laboratory was founded at Michigan State University in 1999 by Drs. Charles Ofria and Richard Lenski, born out of the Caltech Digital Life Lab (now at the Keck Graduate Institute) and Lenski's own Experimental Evolution Lab. The twin goals of the lab are to experimentally study digital organisms to improve our understanding of how natural evolution works, and then to apply this knowledge to solving computational problems. Over the years since its founding, the Devolab has grown significantly in both number of people and the breadth of their research.
 
So if we do anything to discover and learn about nature, it's a proof of ID?
Pardon me if I call that grasping at straws.

No silly, any model we construct to learn about nature is proof of ID. Because the model was intelligently designed then it's obvious that the thing it models is also intelligently designed. If I use my intelligence to design a model of crystal formation in frozen water then it clearly follows that the actual formation of crystals in snowflakes must be intelligently designed.

I make brain good, eh?
 
I think it would be helpful, here, to offer a basic introduction to the concept of Emergent Behavior. (The reason I think this is useful will be apparent towards the end.)

Emergent Behavior is anything a computer program does, that the programmer did not explicitly program for, but emerges as a consequence of the virtual environment the programmer creates.
This is NOT meant to refer to bugs in the program. But, often times emergent behavior does surprise the programmer. For example, an A.I. application that attempts to solve a problem using a route the programmer never thought of. Or, a web spider that brings back information irrelevant to the subject being scoured for: such as a search for the words "red bats" returning results of red baseball bats and red colored mammalian bats.

Saying that "X can be a product of ID, because a computer programmer is needed to make X happen in a virtual environment" sounds good at first, until you realize something rather odd and strange: Often times, X was NOT explicitly programmed for!!!!. For example, the author of a natural selection simulator might not program his code specifically for parasitism to take place. But, sometimes parasite behavior emerges in the behavior of the virtual entities, anyway.
And, these complex behaviors are often the result of very simplified rules.

Back to the real, natural world: In an environment with as much variety of materials and forces in it, as ours, the chances of natural selection occurring would seem ever more likely. If it can emerge in a simulated world, with only a few simple rules, why can it not happen, without a programmer, in a more complex Universe as ours?
 
I think it would be helpful, here, to offer a basic introduction to the concept of Emergent Behavior. (The reason I think this is useful will be apparent towards the end.)

Emergent Behavior is anything a computer program does, that the programmer did not explicitly program for, but emerges as a consequence of the virtual environment the programmer creates.
This is NOT meant to refer to bugs in the program. But, often times emergent behavior does surprise the programmer. For example, an A.I. application that attempts to solve a problem using a route the programmer never thought of. Or, a web spider that brings back information irrelevant to the subject being scoured for: such as a search for the words "red bats" returning results of red baseball bats and red colored mammalian bats.

Saying that "X can be a product of ID, because a computer programmer is needed to make X happen in a virtual environment" sounds good at first, until you realize something rather odd and strange: Often times, X was NOT explicitly programmed for!!!!. For example, the author of a natural selection simulator might not program his code specifically for parasitism to take place. But, sometimes parasite behavior emerges in the behavior of the virtual entities, anyway.
And, these complex behaviors are often the result of very simplified rules.

Back to the real, natural world: In an environment with as much variety of materials and forces in it, as ours, the chances of natural selection occurring would seem ever more likely. If it can emerge in a simulated world, with only a few simple rules, why can it not happen, without a programmer, in a more complex Universe as ours?


Complex behavior deriving from simple rules? Just like in all the cellular automata simulations. :)

Unfortunately, your well reasoned and clearly stated explanation will go unnoticed and generally ignored by the OP. But I applaud you all the same.
 
It is indeed a killer question to those who claim naturalistic explanations no matter what like a lot of scientistic people do.

It can only be a "killer question" for those so-called explanations that use the argument i.e. the whole swathe of "god did it" explanations.
 
Say...squeak...happen?

Let's...squeak...debated.

I ...squeak......squeak...information?

It...squeak...certain.

But ...squeak...designer.

But ...squeak...what?

What...squeak...nature?

If ...squeak...useful.

It ...squeak...do.

How ...squeak...nothing?

 
No, no. Too complicated. Here's the gist of T'ai Chi's "argumentation":

"God did it."
 
Wowbagger said:
Emergent Behavior is anything a computer program does, that the programmer did not explicitly program for, but emerges as a consequence of the virtual environment the programmer creates.
Funny you should mention this. I'm fairly certain your definition is incorrect for the physical sciences:

http://www.nd.edu/~dhoward1/Reduction and Emergence.pdf

As far as programming is concerned, it is really mathematics. In mathematics, everything is reductive, so there is no emergence.

But, sometimes parasite behavior emerges in the behavior of the virtual entities, anyway.
I think the behavior is reducible to the original programming.

I'm happy to be accused of facile claims here. In fact, I think this is worth its own thread.

~~ Paul
 

Back
Top Bottom