Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

Hi Iano,I'm guessing that the reason Omni offered only a brief quip was because of the way your own reply appeared to dismiss genetic algorithms, but I think it was only the way your reply appeared and not the way it was intended. The misleanding appearance was caused by your mention of such things as dials and pulling in actual radio stations, and this is because they are irrelevant to the point of the article.The goal of the genetic algorithm wasn't a radio but an oscillator, and what was novel about the solution was that the genetic algorithm took advantage of the presence of radio emissions from the oscillator of a nearby computer, a solution no human would have considered. Genetic approaches to problem solving have the potential for far more creativity than any human effort. Of course, in this particular case it's a solution that's also not of much use, since it isn't practical to ship a computer with every oscillator, but this is research and not product development so its okay. Does this help at all?--Percy

I assume you accept flying pigs with equal unflappability?You seem to be forgetting your position. You believe it's impossible for information to be created without intelligence. Not only was this oscillator designed by a non-intelligent process, but it took advantage of the environment in ways unanticipated by the experimenters. This experiment falsifies your position, and the unexpected introduction of novelty is an additional bonus showing that unintelligent processes are capable of innovation. No evidence for or against the theory is being dismissed. What is being "dismissed" is those changes which are disadvantageous because they are selected against by the environment. Your "infinite accidents" isn't too far off the mark since the earth is a very big place, and those few "accidents" that provide a survival advantage will be preserved. This is the way evolutionary change works, and it is how the oscillator experiment worked.--Percy