Genetic Programming as evidence against ID

Hi Sonnikke,Sorry, but you are the one who is confused. I was right on the money.And now it's your turn. And, of course, this will get us nowhere.Which is why rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines says Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged. You only addressed my conclusion, not the argumentation that preceded it. Why don't you try again?--Percy

Why is that beside the point? That is entirely the point.This is pure assertion without any evidence, as you would say. There is no confusion other than on the part of the evo who insists on denying the intelligence behind the creation. You cannot separate the two. The more you try to prove that a computer model is evidence of evolution the more you prove the ID standpoint because it(the model or program) could not exist without that intelligent intervention. Why can't you see this? I think it is up to you to prove how a model or program could originate w/o any intelligent agent, but you cannot, it is impossible and you know it.Regards,
S------------------
"We arrive at the truth, not by the reason only, but also by the heart."
Blaise Pascal

quote:

---

Why is that beside the point? That is entirely the point.

---

To duplicate something may take intelligence, but it doesn't follow that the original was designed by an intelligent entity. Take a random string of numbers-- roll some dice, whatever. To duplicate that string consistently will take intelligent action, whether simply the act of writing down the sequence or of building a computer model that can model every bounce of the dice, but was the original designed by an intelligence? No. That doesn't follow.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by NosyNed:
"believing is seeing".

---

Personally, i find this ridiculous.

The Scientific American example of a GP that produces circuit designs was brought up.There is confusion over where the intelligent design was put in. The genetic program was designed the circuits it produced had no intelligent design put into them at all.The GP is equivalent to the Darwinian process of mutation and selection. When we look at the organisms created by the process (the output -- equivalent to the circuits) the ID'ers argue that there must have been intelligence in the design of those organisms simply on the assertion that something that appears designed must have intelligence.
In the case of the GP discussed the circuits appear designed too. But they have no intelligence put into the design of the circuits tehy are a result of the process and not built into the process at all. This demonstrates that when a evolution-like process exists design can appear and look "intelligent" when it wasn't.That's the fundamental flaw of ID.Now we're back to arguing about what got the Darwinian process started.

Well... yeah, but there is lot of truth in it though-- psychologically speaking.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Maybe we should spin a thread off to discuss this. I once stood next to someone while he hopped up and down describing the flying saucer he was pointing at with windows, colored lights and speeding across the sky. It took me several minutes to realize he was pointing at Venus. The radio had reported what he was telling me and since he believed it was there he saw it.It is reasonably easy to get people to see what you want them to see. Or, evern more, to see what they want to see. That is the point of Sagan's comment.

Find any person who was involved in these particular computer models. Ask each person if they made the circuit. Each one will tell you they didn't. That they had no input or intervention whatsoever into the construction of that circuit beyond the specification of the initial parameters. If the circuit was "intelligently designed" there must be a designer, right? But if nobody who was involved can be the designer, if in fact nobody was the designer, how can it be designed? Where is the ID coming from?GP doesn't disprove theistic evolution (if anything it may make a stronger case for it). But it certainly disproves sudden creation because it's a clear example of natural selection + random variation increasing complexity (even making new information). The initial conditions don't really matter. That's why theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists can agree most of the time. But if NS + RM can make complexity (as we see it can), then ID arguments for sudden creation are rendered false. That's the point. Not who made the program.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

But it has no relation to truth whatsoever. It merely sounds good, it would be a very poor basis for any rational argument. I believe in God therefore he exists?

Hi Sonnikke,Others have already replied to most of your message, so I'll just address what's left. Well, I wasn't aware I was saying anything controversial. Your position is unlike that of other IDers. Creationist supporters of ID argue that it is the complexity of the microbiological processes comprising life that require an intelligent designer. You're the first IDer I've encountered to argue that orbital mechanics and the weather also require an intelligent designer. Are you sure you're not confusing YEC and ID positions? Just like Paul, you're confusing creation of the model with the object or system being modelled. Sure, it takes intelligence to create a model and then write a program based on that model. But that has no bearing on whether that being modelled was designed. If I create a traffic analysis program then I'm modelling cars and highways, and these were definitely designed by intelligence (I guess that's arguable in Boston). But I can also create a snowflake modelling program, and snowflakes are not designed. You see, I can create models of things that are designed, and I can create models of things that are not designed. So the fact that I create a model of something is not in any way an indicator of whether that being modelled was designed.--Percy

Percy, I don't "get" your use of model here.The thing being "modeled" is the evolutionary process. We haven't tried to settle whether that was designed or not.The thing that ID'ers say has intelligent design is the output of the process. In this case that is the circuit design. A GP models the process. The output is not a "modeled" thing. The output is analogous to living organisms but not a "model" of them.Are we in agreement or not? Maybe I just misunderstand your wording.

Yeah, I can see I'm not going to win any awards for clarity with that one. Oversimplification goes awry once more. Let me try again.We can create a model of the snowflake creation process and realize that model in a computer program. Then we can run the program to generate snowflakes (probably really just computer drawings of snowflakes). The program isn't *designing* snowflakes, but is simply a model of physical processes such as the crystalization of water under certain atmospheric conditions. If the model is fairly accurate then the snowflakes generated will be indistinguishable from actual snowflakes. But the snowflakes aren't designed, they are only the logical outcome of physical processes as modelled in the computer program.Or we can create a computer model of a river. It can include all the relevant factors, such as original configuration of the river in three dimensions, composition of the ground at all points along and beneath the river, and so forth. When the computer model is run it will show how the river changes over time, becoming wider, narrower, deeper, shallower, and moving around on the terrain. When we're done running the model the river will have a new configuration, but that new configuration was not designed. The changed river is merely the logical outcome of the action of physical processes realized in the computer model.--Percy

OK, that we agree on. And that is clear. The nice difference between your example and the GP one is that the GP one doesn't produce "simulated" output. The outputs are very real designs. Or maybe that is not a distinction worth bothering with. We aren't after all getting "real" circuts out so maybe the snowflake pictures are just the same as the circut designs.Ok, ok, I think that's beat to death enough.There is this extra level in there. The creationists don't seem to be able to deal with that.

Earlier in this thread Ipetrich and Holmes mentioned multi-design questions. Not to be immodest, but I developed a fairly detailed version of Multiple Designers Theory over on ISCID. It wasn't well-received. IF I figure out how to post a URL on this board I'll edit to reference it appropriately. For now I'll just post the URL:http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6...For those who don't want to wade through all of it, here's the conclusion of the posting:V. ConclusionsA. Multiple Designers Theory is a logical and empirical superset of Intelligent Design. Anyone who is an adherent of current mainstream ID is perforce an adherent of MDT, subject only to the former's arbitrary and ad hoc restriction to a single designer.B. MDT provides a coherent theoretical structure for understanding a wide range of phenomena that are not easily or plausibly accounted for by a single-designer ID model.C. MDT insulates ID from the claim of anti-ID critics to the effect that ID pays no attention to the nature of the designers. Empirical research on the nature and features of the designers is a central focus of MDT.D. MDT provides rich research opportunities and offers the prospect of allowing one to make empirically supportable inferences about the designers themselves. MDT does not merely offer a list of general questions that 'might' be addressed by a research program, it offers specific research proposals and provides concrete methodological guidance for attacking the questions it raises.On every criterion one might use to judge a scientific theory of intelligent design, Multiple Designers Theory is superior to current thinking in ID.RBH[This message has been edited by RBH, 04-21-2003][This message has been edited by RBH, 04-21-2003]

And yet, by the same criteria one might use to judge any scientific theory, No Designers Theory (also known as the Theory of Evolution) is superior to Multiple Designers Theory. It explains the variety of life on earth without unnessicary recourse to unspecified, untestable designers.