paper against evolution, for intelligent design

<< Actually, that might be a good idea for a thesis:Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible.
In a way, you could simultaneously support the notion that God created life and the universe, and also that the evidence indicates that evolution was his tool. >>I would agree that evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, however, Darwinian evolution and Christianity are incompatible. The distinction between evolution per se and Darwinian evolution is very important to this debate. A good definition of Darwinian evolution is provided by the National Association of Biology Teachers. In it's first draft it said:"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments."The NABT doctrine has successfully drawn the line between a non-teleological and a teleological interpretation of natural history. Note that evolution is defined as "unsupervised, impersonal ... natural process." There is obviously no role for any intelligence to guide an evolutionary process.Intelligent design is an alternative theory of evolution, one that doesn't reject teleological processes.So far, NoseyNed seems to be the only one on this thread that understands that ID is an alternative theory of evolution and not creationism. Just to make this perfectly clear I submit this statement from Bill Dembski:"ID is not an interventionist theory. It's only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation."[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-13-2003]

NoseyNed<< This is a place where I have a problem. In the grand scheme of things I'd have to say ID is closer to a "speculation" than a "theory". It is, if you want to push it a long way, a "hypothosis". >>I agree. Intelligent Design is not truly a theory, however, there are testable ID hypotheses. The term ID when used by itself refers to a distinct epistemology. ID is a framework for theories and hypotheses, an epistemological underpinning for those theories and hypotheses. ID is an alternative perspective which omits mainstream science’s non-teleological assumption.Obviously, science is not officially neutral on the issue of metaphysical implications because it accepts an arbitrarily attached and highly corrosive metaphysical assertion right out of the definitional starting gate - the assertion that methodological naturalism proceeds upon an a priori assumption of ateleology.There is no reason why a methodology that doesn't a priori reject teleology cannot employ an experimental, inductive approach to the world. It is merely an alternative view {viewing things from a different angle}. It is capable of exploring and interpreting scientific data {thus it can use science) and can also generate subsidiary hypotheses and predictions {thus it can guide science}.A design inference is (or should be) perfectly acceptable for generating hypotheses in science. Deal is, the (neo)Darwinian framework doesn’t allow for design inferences, but imposes an ateleological a priori assumption which is ideological and not scientific. Therefore it is necessary to propose, refine and emplace a teleological framework to cover design inferences. Science can function perfectly well with more than one theoretical framework generating testable hypotheses.[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-13-2003]

NoseyNed<< I think it has all been covered.And now your job is to "generate the testable hypothosis" that ID "theory" is supposed to be able to. It needs to be, as any new hypothosis must supply, something which will distinguish between this new theory and the old one. That is the test needs to be something which will give different answers under the two theories.I'm afraid this has been asked for again and again and nothing has yet been produced.>>I totally disagree with what you say. First of all, I thought we agreed that ID isn't a theory. ID is a teleological perspective for generating testable hypotheses. So your suggestion that "ID theory" is out to replace the old theory is wrong. Why can't science function perfectly well with more than one theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses? I tend to favor the view that for ID to be useful it need only help us understand the natural world. If it does a good job at this, often asking and answering questions that follow from the logic of the teleological approach the rest will take care of itself.I previously referenced, (in another thread} a web site that presents a bunch of testable ID hypotheses but you evidently think that none of this counts toward the usefulness of ID unless one can demonstrate that these hypotheses couldn't possibly have been produced via the non-teleological approach. This is nonsense. ID theorists don't need to prove it's impossible for any other perspective to generate the same hypotheses. If the ID perspective produces testable hypotheses that no one else has proposed and they have the potential to help us understand biotic reality then ID is useful. Who cares that some non-teleologist could come in after the fact and declare, I could have thought of that too.Now that testable ID hypotheses have been presented {something the ID crtics on this forum said it couldn't do} the goal posts have been moved and now the critics are saying that ID hypotheses need to be hypotheses that non-teleologists couldn't even imagine. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-13-2003]

NosyNed<< I've lost that, and can't find it. Could you link to it please?>>Here's the link.
Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.comNosyNed<< As for the request for a difference, how useful is an additional approach that does nothing but give the same results as an existing one? I don't get that. >>I think the ID approach does generate different hypotheses from the non-teleological approach. The web site I just linked you to presents several unique hypotheses. What I'm saying is that it's always possible for someone to come along after the fact and claim that they could have produced the same hypotheses using a different approach. So what? Who really knows if they would have? This just seems to me to be a worthless line of speculation. I think the person who first comes up with a hypothesis should get credit for it. And the approach they used to generate the hypothesis should also get credit.Besides, ID is just getting started. Who knows what insights into biotic reality this perspective might generate in the future. This is important to keep in mind because many expect ID to adhere to a much higher standard than origin of life research, whereby an initial ID hypothesis is supposed to have the properties of a scientific theory that has matured at the hands of thousands of scientists working over decades. The web site I referred you to is produced by a college professor that works with ID in his spare time {which isn't much}. I might be more skeptical of ID if there had been hundreds of ID scientists working for decades without results. But that's not the case. If one professor working a few hours a month on ID for two years can produce several testable ID hypotheses I think the future for ID looks promising. Especially if I compare it with the results of origin of life research and all the money, personnel and time devoted to it.[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-13-2003]

NosyNed<< ID will carry on much as it does now. It will not, even after decades, produce any insights, it will not offer anything to test and it will continue to be more of a political movement than anything else.>>Well, I would expect that assessment coming from someone that has no experience with ID and probably equates it with creationism. On top of that you are probably laboring under metaphysical presuppositions that prevent you from examing the evidence objectively. I suspect you are more optimistic about origin of life research. I wonder why.I would like to make a point concerning testable ID hypotheses. I'm not aware of what you expect a testable ID hypothesis to be but every ID critic I've talked to has an expectation that a testable ID hypothesis would be a hypothesis that shows something couldn't have originated by any other means than intelligent intervention. This is certainly one form that an ID hypothesis could take but not the one most ID theorists would propose. This is how an ID theorist works. They see certain things in nature that cause them to suspect intelligent design. Is this suspicion unreasonable? No, because even an atheist like Richard Dawkins states:"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."Now, the non-teleologist follows this advice from Francis Crick:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.On the other hand, the ID theorist is open to the possibility that something might look designed because it is designed. They therefore take the next step and ask themselves this question: if this thing was intelligently designed what should I expect to find? If a hypothesis is generated from this line of reasoning it is an ID hypothesis. Here is a two year old post from Mike Gene that explains this in more detail:"Earlier I posted an article about proofreading. The information flow that occurs within a cell happens at several points. DNA is used to make DNA; DNA is used to make RNA; and RNA is used to make proteins. So goes the classic formulation of the Central Dogma of molecular biology. With information flow comes the issue of fidelity - how faithful is the information transferred? Scientists have long known that proofreading mechanisms exist during DNA replication where nucleotides that are misincorporated during replication are typically removed and replaced with the correct one. Similar proofreading also occurs at the two crucial points of information flow during protein synthesis: the charging of tRNAs and the anticodon-codon interactions of mRNA and tRNA. My recent posting discusses these two forms of proofreading.After writing up that article for another board, I was thinking about proofreading and it occurred to me that an important step of information flow appeared to lack proofreading, that of transcription (where DNA is used to synthesize RNA). Now, I know a few things about transcription, but I could not recall ever hearing about proofreading being associated with RNA polymerase activity (the protein complexes that synthesize RNA). It struck me that this was a great opportunity to use ID. Here was my logic.Imagine you need to translate a book from English into German and then German into Chinese. If it was important that this translation was as accurate as possible, you would employ proofreaders at both stages. For example, it would not make much rational sense to employ proofreaders to ensure the German text was accurately translated into Chinese without also using proofreaders during the first step (the English to German translation). It defeats the purpose of carefully scrutinizing the second translation if your first is sloppy.Thus, using this logic, I predicted that proofreading should exist during transcription (since I strongly suspect cells, much as they are today, were originally designed by a rational agent(s)). Also, given that the degree of proofreading at the level of protein synthesis was so sophisticated, it would not make sense for a rational agent to not also ensure high fidelity at the level of RNA synthesis.With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have been born out. As it happens, I did a literature search after coming up with this hypothesis and indeed discovered there is some good evidence of proofreading during transcription."Now even though Mike Gene wasn't the first to discover proofreading during transcription it is clear that ID logic could have been used to predict this. That's the point. I'm not aware of anyone that used Darwinian logic to predict proofreading during transcription nor can I imagine how they could. In fact, the Darwinian view of the cell was an impediment to such a discovery. Consider:"At this time, the late 1970s, biologists generally viewed the cell as a viscous fluid or gel surrounded by a membrane, much like a balloon filled with molasses." [Sci Amer, Jan 1998].Why would anyone suspect something as sophisticated as proofreading was going on in a balloon filled with molasses? True, scientists did figure this out but it was in spite of Darwinism not because of it. Recognizing the inner workings of the cell as supremely integrated technology is better than viewing it as random goo. ID is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is a Designer.[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-13-2003]

NosyNed<< It's always tougher to over turn a paradigm that has done well for decades. That's just the conservative nature of the scientific process.>>Why do you keep talking about theories being replaced and paradigms being over turned? I'm not advocating that. For the third time, why can't science function perfectly well with more than one theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses? Can you answer that question?[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-13-2003]

Asgara << I know that I haven't been involved in this thread, and I KNOW that others will have much better replies to your post. I do want to ask one thing of you though; if an intelligent designer designed "proofreading" mechanisms within cellular bodies, wouldn't better proofreaders have been designed?>>Warren<< Well, I think the proofreading is done quite accurately. Especially considering these systems originated billions of years ago. Perhaps the orignal proofreading systems were even better than they are now. It shouldn't be surprising that there has been some deterioration over this amount of time.>>Asgara<< We know there are copy errors and transcription errors. There are so many episodes of copying going on that many errors get evened out in the mix. This sounds more like an evolutionary adaptation than a "supremely integrated technology". >>Warren<< I look at it differently. The Darwinian perspective led scientists to view the inner workings of the cell as a random goo up until the 1970's. It is now described as a factory full of nano-machines. Notice what Paul Davies says:"Each cell is packed with tiny structures that might have come from an engineer's manual. Miniscule tweezers, scissors, pumps, motors, levers, valves, pipes, chains, and even vehicles abound. But of course the cell is more than just a bag of gadgets. The various components fit together to form a smoothly functioning whole, like an elaborate factory production line."To me it's very straightforward - the cell as "goo" = non-design; the cell as "factory" = design.Things in nature don't always work perfectly but viewing life at its core as technology makes more sense than viewing it as random goo. On what basis could one predict even crude proofreading mechanisms existing within random goo? The point my previous post was making was that proofreading makes perfect sense from a design perspective and one ID theorist was able to use ID reasoning to predict proofreading during transciption. I fail to see how this prediction could be made using non-teleological reasoning. In any event, no Darwinist to my knowledge ever made this prediction. >>[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-14-2003]

Warren<< "At this time, the late 1970s, biologists generally viewed the cell as a viscous fluid or gel surrounded by a membrane, much like a balloon filled with molasses." [Sci Amer, Jan 1998].>>NosyNed<< Exactly how is this a "darwinian" view of the cell? What exactly does this mean? Isn't it simply saying that the details of cell structure were not known at the time...Cell biology, on the other hand, strives to understand the functioning of the cell in greater and greater detail. The advances in understanding from the "bag of goo" was made without any help from ID.>>Warren<< It was also made without any help from Darwinism. The prevailing view of the cell as a bag of soup was perfectly in line with Darwinian expectations. Afterall, it's a seemingly reachable step to go from a prebiotic soup to a soup sequestered in a membrane. But cells are far more like a mini-factory full of a myriad of nanomachines than a soup. Did Darwinian logic predict this discovery? No, it comfortably adapted itself to the old 'soup-view' of the cell. Did Darwinian logic play an important role in this discovery? Nope. The raw data of nuts-n-bolts molecular biology led us to this conclusion.If the cell turned out to be a bag of soup, I would most likely not be seriously contemplating design. One of the main reasons I suspect design is because the cell has turned out to be far more sophisticated than a bag of soup. Yes, there are people who see no difference between a bag of soup and a factory. Non-teleologists think a factory is no more cause for an ID suspicion than a bag of soup. Me? I respond to the data.In fact, I will now make an ID prediction. I like to use the metaphors of the soup and the machine. Making a soup requires minimal specifications - add X, Y, and Z and cook over a fire. Making a machine depends on extensive specifications, where specific parts are specifically connected. I therefore predict that when life is eventually created in the lab, the protocol will look more like the assembly instructions for putting together a machine than a recipe for making a soup. >>

NosyNed<< In any case it was an analogy to describe a situation. Not a real description of the view of the cell at the time.>>Really? Looking back on his career as a cell biologist, Bruce Alberts, now president of the National Academy of Sciences, remarked in an article for the scientific journal, Cell:"We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do."Why? Could it be that scientists have been misled by Darwinian expectations? As one scientist once noted: "biological reality is never as simple as we think it is."All I'm saying is that looking at the cell as something that fell together via a blind watchmaking process isn't a fruitful guide for research and I don't really think this is the perspective scientists are using today to make discoveries about the cell. The terminology used to describe how the cell works comes from engineering and communications theory. We even hear the term "reverse engineering " being use by scientists that are working in cell biology. Reverse engineering is fundamentally a teleologic perspective. Reverse engineering implies engineering.It is often argued that ID is an argument from ignorance, and that to throw up hands and declare "an intelligent designer did it" does not provide a perspective with potential for discovery. I think that the useful perspective that ID naturally leads to is one of reverse engineering. How was evolution accomplished? This is the perspective that Mike Gene assumes, for instance.Let's not lose track of what we are discussing here. I'm responding to the ID critics that misrepresent ID as creationism and claim that there is no such thing as testable ID hypotheses. Mike Gene has produced several ID hypotheses and he says it's easy to do. From looking at his web site I would have to agree. All that's necessary to produce an ID hypothesis is the suspicion that something in nature may have been the product of bioengineering rather than blind watchmaking and then following up on this suspicion by employing an "if, then" forensic approach to guide an experimental inquiry that can generate results that either support or weaken the initial design inference. Now if this method helps us understand something about how the cell works then it has proved to be useful. That's all ID has to do.ID doesn't have to show the designer in action and it doesn't have to prove blind watchmaking impossible. It doesn't have to demonstrate that it's the only way to knowledge. It only has to be a useful research guide. Viewing biological objects as random purposeless objects hinders scientific progress. Viewing them as designed is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is a Designer. Afterall, that's how the non-teleological approach has worked for the past century, right? The non-teleological approach has no test to distinguish design from non-design. Instead, there has been a focus on the utility of the approach, where at some point, a successful track record becomes an argument for validity. Teleologists need do no more.

Loudmouth<< First, you have to claim knowledge of the thought processes of the designer.>>Nonsense.Loudmouth<< Second, bad design argues against an intelligent designer. >>Are you prepared to accept good design as evidence FOR an intelligent designer? Let me guess. Blind watchmaking accounts for both bad and good design.Loudmouth<< Third, no mechanism is given by which things were designed.>>The dictionary defines "mechanism" as a "process or technique for achieving a result." Seen in this light, ID is a mechanism. Through intelligent design, one can achieve a result whereby a free and rational mind directs and imposes boundary conditions on the natural world. This form of causation is known to exist for human artifacts, and with the development of biotechnology, the biotic world too is being progressively shaped by rational minds. ID simply extrapolates such causation given there is no reason to think only human beings possess and have ever possessed rational minds.Loudmouth<< That, any predictions that ID makes are worthless in that there is no mechanism for design and design is attributed arbitrarily. >>By your reasoning your post is worthless as it has no mechanism. One could argue that both design and non-design can be attributed arbitrarily. But all this is beside the point anyway. If the assumption of design (whether correct or not) leads to a better understanding of some aspect of biotic reality then it can hardly be worthless.[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-15-2003]

Loudmouth,Not sure I understand what you're saying. Mike Gene clearly used teleological reasoning to predict proofreading during transcription. He didn't use ateleological reasoning and I'm not sure how ateleological reasoning would lead anyone to predict proofreading of any kind.

Loudmouth<< Hypothesis: If a system is intelligently designed, it should not need proofreading.Data: There exists proofreading mechanisms in DNA translation that seem to indicate lack of intelligent design.It is that easy, you arbitrarily attribute characteristics to expected design and see if it is there. My hypothesis does not meet up with what is present in the cell therefore ID fails. >>I don't see any prediction here. Mike Gene didn't make any design claim. He merely used teleological reasoning to predict proofreading during transcription. This refutes the assertion that ID can't make predictions. That's the only point being made here. How about providing an example of how ateleological reasoning could have predicted proofreading during transcription?[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-15-2003]

Loudmouth<< That, any predictions that ID makes are worthless in that there is no mechanism for design and design is attributed arbitrarily. For example, I could say that if DNA was created by a unicorn.>>By all means - make predictions about cell biology using the concept of the designer as a unicorn. Just make sure the predictions stem from the unicorness of the designer, as I hope it is clear that ID prediction stems from the consideration that the designer is an intelligent agent.

FliesOnly<< You're kidding right? If not, then I'm not sure the point you are trying to make here. All along, we have been telling you that ID is not a science, and you have (to your credit I guess) stuck to the notion that ID is a valid scientific field of study. However, this last statement by you only helps us prove our point. Loudmouth used his example to show the arbitrary nature of your ID arguments. If I correctly understand what you wrote, you basically support his idea then, by saying that his example is valid as long as his predictions are consistently based on the physiology and morphology of the unicorn. Really?>>Let me take another stab at this. Here is a comment from another thread similar to Loudmouth's:"The problem with ID is that it is unconstrained and thus useless as a scientific explanation. What about pink fairies, the unicorn, Zeus and company, little green men from Mars... All valid ID 'explanations' but what do they explain? Until ID can constrain its explanations, no explanations really exist."The reply was:"While there is an obvious connection between intelligent engineers and things like machines, I don’t see the connection between pink fairies, unicorns, Zeus, or little green men from Mars and machines. Unless of course, you want to envision such entities as intelligent engineers, in which case, their pinkishness, fairyishness, unicornishness, Zeusishness, littleishness, and greenishness are all irrelevant."Now if you can't understand this simple logic that's your problem not mine. As for ID not being science I never said it was. I said ID is a theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses. The theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses in science is based on the metaphysical assertion that methodological naturalism proceeds upon an a priori assumption of ateleology. ID removes the assumption of ateleology from the epistemology of origins research and the evolutionary sciences, putting them on epistemological par with archaeology and SETI. It adds potential alternatives to the spectrum of possibilities to be considered. It allows a broader range of hypotheses.If a teleological perspective can lead to predictions/testable hypotheses then it is useful. I've shown this can be done. I could care less if in your opinion it isn't science. Are you seriously suggesting that the only suspicions worth following up on are ateleological suspicions? If so, you must be laboring under the philosophical presuppositions of an atheist.[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-17-2003]

Warren<< If a teleological perspective can lead to predictions and testable hypotheses then it is useful. I've shown this can be done.>>Loudmouth<< Just so we are on the same page (which I think we are) this is from Ask Jeeves: "Teleological notions were commonly associated with the pre-Darwinian view that the biological realm provides evidence of conscious design by a supernatural creator." Or, in other words, Intelligent Design. So, teleological perspecitives start with an a priori assumption of a designer, possibly a supernatural designer. So, through this perspective, you give characteristics to the designer (such as the need for RNA proofreading via human logic) and then look for that design in organisms. It is the process of assigning characteristics and a set of logic to an a priori assumed designer that weakens the ID argument. This process is done arbitrarily, ie pick your favorite diety and assume it thinks like you do.>>Two points. First, my ID hypotheses only require an assumption of a designing agent with human-like intelligence. Why? Because the things in nature that cause me to suspect ID happen to be things that look like products of advanced bioengineering. I'm not sure what a supernaturally designed thing would look like. So to infer ID I don't require evidence of perfect design.Secondly, it doesn't even matter if an intelligent designer exists. It's my contention, for example, that viewing bacteria as integrated technology is a better perspective for understanding how bacteria function than viewing them as random goo. Viewing biological things as random and purposeless hinders scientific progress. Viewing them as designed machines is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is an intelligent designer.Loudmouth<< The real problem occurs when humans would have designed something in an entirely different way than what is seen in nature, eg human retina, appendix, lower back, etc., not to mention other organisms who are far from effeciently designed even by human standards. This is why I have a problem with the predictions and testable hypotheses that a teleological framework creates. The causation of design is arbitrary, the reasoning behind design is arbitrary, and the designer is arbitrary.>>I suspect you are assuming that my ID perspective is that everything in nature is the direct result of ID. Not so. Currently my ID inference is constrained to the origin of life: the original life forms were designed and followed by evolution. This perspective certainly allows for imperfection in nature.Loudmouth<< Ateleological framework starts with a mechanism as a framework, random mutation plus natural selection. The mechanism supplies its own logic, not something that is personally contrived. There is no diety involved, it can be seen more as diety neutral, where as teleologically you have to pick a diety.>>There is no diety in my teleological approach.Science is built on the belief in repeatability. Repeatability is not a property of purely random processes. There are too many correspondences and linguistic relationships in the laws of physics that do not correspond to purely random processes. There is too much repeatability!!! We take repeatability for granted, but as math and information theory advance we realize this is a 'miracle'.The reason for this is that modern quantum theory is becoming better described by information theory, and we are noticing repeatable phenomeon, and even if there are non-repeatable phenomenon, they may be at least describable algorithmically. Further, what is preplexing is the form of these laws is comprehensible like : F=ma. F=ma is an approximation, but such universal approximations do no easily emerge out of chaos.We have laws of physics because the universe, although there are many chaotic phenomenon, there exist decodable sequences where we can make sweeping generalities on scant evidence. We can repeat things, and by faith accept they are repeated elsewhere.For example we can test gravitational acceleration in the lab, and make rather sweeping generalizations. If not an ID hypothesis, science succeeds at least on an operationally pragmatic Design hypothesis that believes in repeatability to some degree.For Evolution to proceed, even the "randomness" must be algorithmically constrained like a search heuristic. With unbridled randomness, you get chaos. The ability to replicate must be guaranteed at some point for evolution to succeed. Replication and repeatability are vital components, and it is these qualities (replication and repeatability) that are the antithesis for purely random processes.Air is molecularly chaotic, but we are able to build airplanes because molecularly chaotic phenomenon are algorithmically constrained. We can model these constraints generally in ways like Bernoulli's equations (sweeping generalized approximations accepted on faith, amazing).Science succeeds because we can make sweeping generalizations on faith without testing every special case. Theories succeed if we can at least constrain randomness or get randomness to drop out of both sides of the equation so to speak (as in the case of Bernoulli's equations).For evolution to succeed it must be isomorphic (analogous) to an alogorithmically constrained process. We can let randomness into the mix, but it must be tightly constrained. We actually do see this in antibiotic resistance and B-Cell hypermutation. The mutation can be modelled as random phenomenon being algoritmically constrained. The randomness in B-Cell hypermutation is localized to only a part of the B-Cell. It's not the whole thing that mutates.For evolution to succeed, the randomness is constrained and localized. So for at least a pragmatic description with thoughts of an Ultimate Intelligence aside, the fundamental design spec is constraining the extent randomness can propagate through the system. It cannot allow pure chaos. That's why I believe, "Random Variation" is a misnomer. We credit success of evolution too much to Randomness rather than the 'design' constraints on the randomness. Unconstrained randomness leads to randomness. Darwinism attributes the constraint on randomness to Natural Selection, but information theory is challenging that view severely as well as experimental evidence. Chaporale actually shows how the randomness is constrained at the cellular level.The best example I think is Dawkins Weasal, and Avida programs. Evolution succeeds because the random elements were algorithmically constrained. The programs were not pure chaos.In sum, the fundamental design spec: randomness must be constrained.James Shapiro from the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago says:"We can now postulate a role for some kind of purposeful, informed cellular action in evolution."[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-17-2003]