Testing Darwin
-
( In a post completely unrelated to Chris' post: ) This month Discover Magazine has an interesting article called "Testing Darwin" ( http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html[^] ). It's about the "digital life" application (called Avida) being used by Michigan State and Caltech and the research they're doing on evolutionary systems. I looked up information on it, and it's available via open source (http://sourceforge.net/projects/avida[^]). Some quotes from the articles: We [wanted to see how well digital life could evolve a complex trait, so we chose the "EQU" task that required] 19 coordinated instructions... We then performed an experiment that consisted of 100 independent populations of digital organisms being evolved for approximately 17,000 generations... In 23 of the 50 experiments in the complex environment, the EQU task was evolved, whereas none of the 50 control populations evolved EQU... Furthermore, all 23 implementations of the complex trait were unique, with many quite distinct from each other in their approach, indicating that, indeed, this trait had numerous solutions. This is not surprising since even the shortest of the implementations found were extraordinarily unlikely (approximately 1 in 10^27). (http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/projects/complextraits/[^]) When the Avida team published their first results on the evolution of complexity in 2003, they were inundated with e-mails from creationists. Their work hit a nerve in the antievolution movement and hit it hard. A popular claim of creationists is that life shows signs of intelligent design, especially in its complexity. They argue that complex things could never have evolved, because they don't work unless all their parts are in place. But as Adami points out, if creationists were right, then Avida wouldn't be able to produce complex digital organisms. A digital organism may use 19 or more simple routines in order to carry out the
excellent. was right in the middle of a ID v. evolution discussion elsewhere. this will come in handy :) Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
( In a post completely unrelated to Chris' post: ) This month Discover Magazine has an interesting article called "Testing Darwin" ( http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html[^] ). It's about the "digital life" application (called Avida) being used by Michigan State and Caltech and the research they're doing on evolutionary systems. I looked up information on it, and it's available via open source (http://sourceforge.net/projects/avida[^]). Some quotes from the articles: We [wanted to see how well digital life could evolve a complex trait, so we chose the "EQU" task that required] 19 coordinated instructions... We then performed an experiment that consisted of 100 independent populations of digital organisms being evolved for approximately 17,000 generations... In 23 of the 50 experiments in the complex environment, the EQU task was evolved, whereas none of the 50 control populations evolved EQU... Furthermore, all 23 implementations of the complex trait were unique, with many quite distinct from each other in their approach, indicating that, indeed, this trait had numerous solutions. This is not surprising since even the shortest of the implementations found were extraordinarily unlikely (approximately 1 in 10^27). (http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/projects/complextraits/[^]) When the Avida team published their first results on the evolution of complexity in 2003, they were inundated with e-mails from creationists. Their work hit a nerve in the antievolution movement and hit it hard. A popular claim of creationists is that life shows signs of intelligent design, especially in its complexity. They argue that complex things could never have evolved, because they don't work unless all their parts are in place. But as Adami points out, if creationists were right, then Avida wouldn't be able to produce complex digital organisms. A digital organism may use 19 or more simple routines in order to carry out the
I'm constantly arguing for evolution against ID (against hardcore fanatic types) - but yet I consider this 'evidence' to be entirely specious and would never use it for support against an opponent. Merely because I can write a program that carries out my pre-conceived assumptions proves absolutely nothing. (Hell, on a good day, that is what I hope for!). If anything, it proves only that if I create a world, than I can get it to behave according to the rules I impose upon it. That is just as much an argument in favor of Intelligent design as against it - as I am the intelligent designer who wrote the program that validated my assumptions. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
( In a post completely unrelated to Chris' post: ) This month Discover Magazine has an interesting article called "Testing Darwin" ( http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html[^] ). It's about the "digital life" application (called Avida) being used by Michigan State and Caltech and the research they're doing on evolutionary systems. I looked up information on it, and it's available via open source (http://sourceforge.net/projects/avida[^]). Some quotes from the articles: We [wanted to see how well digital life could evolve a complex trait, so we chose the "EQU" task that required] 19 coordinated instructions... We then performed an experiment that consisted of 100 independent populations of digital organisms being evolved for approximately 17,000 generations... In 23 of the 50 experiments in the complex environment, the EQU task was evolved, whereas none of the 50 control populations evolved EQU... Furthermore, all 23 implementations of the complex trait were unique, with many quite distinct from each other in their approach, indicating that, indeed, this trait had numerous solutions. This is not surprising since even the shortest of the implementations found were extraordinarily unlikely (approximately 1 in 10^27). (http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/projects/complextraits/[^]) When the Avida team published their first results on the evolution of complexity in 2003, they were inundated with e-mails from creationists. Their work hit a nerve in the antievolution movement and hit it hard. A popular claim of creationists is that life shows signs of intelligent design, especially in its complexity. They argue that complex things could never have evolved, because they don't work unless all their parts are in place. But as Adami points out, if creationists were right, then Avida wouldn't be able to produce complex digital organisms. A digital organism may use 19 or more simple routines in order to carry out the
Interesting stuff thanks for the link. BW
I want pancakes! God, do you people understand every language except English?
Yo quiero pancakes. Donnez moi pancakes. Click click, bloody click pancakes!
-- Stewie Griffin -
I'm constantly arguing for evolution against ID (against hardcore fanatic types) - but yet I consider this 'evidence' to be entirely specious and would never use it for support against an opponent. Merely because I can write a program that carries out my pre-conceived assumptions proves absolutely nothing. (Hell, on a good day, that is what I hope for!). If anything, it proves only that if I create a world, than I can get it to behave according to the rules I impose upon it. That is just as much an argument in favor of Intelligent design as against it - as I am the intelligent designer who wrote the program that validated my assumptions. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
The key point is that the program works using three forces: - Random Mutations - Selection (also called "fitness function") - Reproduction These are things that are present in the biological world. Creationists and ID believers would like to say that only an intelligent designer can create something with order. They use the analogy that if you find a watch in a field, you conclude that it must've been created by someone, rather than through the forces of nature who seemingly miraculously assembled each of the intricate parts together. In the case of the watch, they're right. Watches are constructed by intelligent designers. However, the "intelligent design" method of construction is not the only method available. These programs show that three unintelligent forces working together can create something complex and organized. Some creationists (e.g. Dembski) argue that the fitness function has to be created by an intelligent designer. Well, that's true of this program and other genetic algorithms. However, nature has it's own ability to create a fitness function - for example, animals which are capable of creating and maintaining their body heat are better able to survive in cold weather. Thus, in cold climates, a fitness function favors species which gain these adaptions. The fitness function is inherently created without an intelligent designer needed to explicitly construct a fitness function. Merely because I can write a program that carries out my pre-conceived assumptions proves absolutely nothing. Well, you have access to the source code. If they're doing anything which is vastly different than what I've just described, you have a case. But, no one has been able to show that this program works on any other method other than the three I've outlined -- and that makes it analogous to the biological world. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
The key point is that the program works using three forces: - Random Mutations - Selection (also called "fitness function") - Reproduction These are things that are present in the biological world. Creationists and ID believers would like to say that only an intelligent designer can create something with order. They use the analogy that if you find a watch in a field, you conclude that it must've been created by someone, rather than through the forces of nature who seemingly miraculously assembled each of the intricate parts together. In the case of the watch, they're right. Watches are constructed by intelligent designers. However, the "intelligent design" method of construction is not the only method available. These programs show that three unintelligent forces working together can create something complex and organized. Some creationists (e.g. Dembski) argue that the fitness function has to be created by an intelligent designer. Well, that's true of this program and other genetic algorithms. However, nature has it's own ability to create a fitness function - for example, animals which are capable of creating and maintaining their body heat are better able to survive in cold weather. Thus, in cold climates, a fitness function favors species which gain these adaptions. The fitness function is inherently created without an intelligent designer needed to explicitly construct a fitness function. Merely because I can write a program that carries out my pre-conceived assumptions proves absolutely nothing. Well, you have access to the source code. If they're doing anything which is vastly different than what I've just described, you have a case. But, no one has been able to show that this program works on any other method other than the three I've outlined -- and that makes it analogous to the biological world. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
I'm well aware of the ID arguments (I have a friend who is always sending me material on it), and you don't have to convince me of ID's fallacious reasoning. Brit wrote: These programs show that three unintelligent forces working together can create something complex and organized. That is the conclusion of this study that I challange. These programs show that I can apply my intelligence to creating a virtual world within which three forces I intentionally made unintelligent can work together to create something complex and organized. Which is exactly what I designed the program to do - with my intelligence. If this is what science has been reduced to to counter creationism, I think we are all in a lot of trouble. Brit wrote: that makes it analogous to the biological world. Analogous to my model of the biological world - the model that I was modeling in my program. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
I'm well aware of the ID arguments (I have a friend who is always sending me material on it), and you don't have to convince me of ID's fallacious reasoning. Brit wrote: These programs show that three unintelligent forces working together can create something complex and organized. That is the conclusion of this study that I challange. These programs show that I can apply my intelligence to creating a virtual world within which three forces I intentionally made unintelligent can work together to create something complex and organized. Which is exactly what I designed the program to do - with my intelligence. If this is what science has been reduced to to counter creationism, I think we are all in a lot of trouble. Brit wrote: that makes it analogous to the biological world. Analogous to my model of the biological world - the model that I was modeling in my program. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: That is the conclusion of this study that I challange. These programs show that I can apply my intelligence to creating a virtual world within which three forces I intentionally made unintelligent can work together to create something complex and organized. Which is exactly what I designed the program to do - with my intelligence. If this is what science has been reduced to to counter creationism, I think we are all in a lot of trouble. Analogous to my model of the biological world - the model that I was modeling in my program. Let's say that I was trying to show someone that the planets revolve around the Sun, rather than the earth. They argue, "No, no. Gravity is not enough to hold and guide the planets in their orbits." I write a program where I input the mass of the Sun and the planets, use the gravitational constant, and show that my program mimics the actual motion of the planets. Then, he comes back and says, "But, you wrote the program to validate your own assumptions. You are the intelligent designer, and therefore, you are showing that an intelligent designer is needed." That's about where this conversation is. I show you that randomness, selection, reproduction (i.e. gravity) is sufficient, and you counter with but the fact that someone created the program. Stan Shannon wrote: These programs show that I can apply my intelligence to creating a virtual world within which three forces I intentionally made unintelligent can work together to create something complex and organized. Your argument is not an argument for ID, but an argument for an intelligent entity creating the universe and having nothing to do with shaping life on earth. That's the parallel, isn't it? If that's the case, creationism and ID has already lost because they've retreated to saying Darwinian evolution works, but you need a God to create the Big Bang. Your argument does nothing more than that. Stan Shannon wrote: Analogous to my model of the biological world - the model that I was modeling in my program. And the geocentrist says, "Analogous to the model of the solar-centrism and gravity - the model that was modeled in the program." ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
I'm constantly arguing for evolution against ID (against hardcore fanatic types) - but yet I consider this 'evidence' to be entirely specious and would never use it for support against an opponent. Merely because I can write a program that carries out my pre-conceived assumptions proves absolutely nothing. (Hell, on a good day, that is what I hope for!). If anything, it proves only that if I create a world, than I can get it to behave according to the rules I impose upon it. That is just as much an argument in favor of Intelligent design as against it - as I am the intelligent designer who wrote the program that validated my assumptions. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: Hell, on a good day, that is what I hope for! :laugh: :laugh:
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrEverybody is entitled to my opinion
-
Stan Shannon wrote: That is the conclusion of this study that I challange. These programs show that I can apply my intelligence to creating a virtual world within which three forces I intentionally made unintelligent can work together to create something complex and organized. Which is exactly what I designed the program to do - with my intelligence. If this is what science has been reduced to to counter creationism, I think we are all in a lot of trouble. Analogous to my model of the biological world - the model that I was modeling in my program. Let's say that I was trying to show someone that the planets revolve around the Sun, rather than the earth. They argue, "No, no. Gravity is not enough to hold and guide the planets in their orbits." I write a program where I input the mass of the Sun and the planets, use the gravitational constant, and show that my program mimics the actual motion of the planets. Then, he comes back and says, "But, you wrote the program to validate your own assumptions. You are the intelligent designer, and therefore, you are showing that an intelligent designer is needed." That's about where this conversation is. I show you that randomness, selection, reproduction (i.e. gravity) is sufficient, and you counter with but the fact that someone created the program. Stan Shannon wrote: These programs show that I can apply my intelligence to creating a virtual world within which three forces I intentionally made unintelligent can work together to create something complex and organized. Your argument is not an argument for ID, but an argument for an intelligent entity creating the universe and having nothing to do with shaping life on earth. That's the parallel, isn't it? If that's the case, creationism and ID has already lost because they've retreated to saying Darwinian evolution works, but you need a God to create the Big Bang. Your argument does nothing more than that. Stan Shannon wrote: Analogous to my model of the biological world - the model that I was modeling in my program. And the geocentrist says, "Analogous to the model of the solar-centrism and gravity - the model that was modeled in the program." ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote: Let's say that I was trying to show someone that the planets revolve around the Sun, rather than the earth. They argue, "No, no. Gravity is not enough to hold and guide the planets in their orbits." I write a program where I input the mass of the Sun and the planets, use the gravitational constant, and show that my program mimics the actual motion of the planets. Then, he comes back and says, "But, you wrote the program to validate your own assumptions. You are the intelligent designer, and therefore, you are showing that an intelligent designer is needed." Precisely, if I am forced to create a virtual world to prove that there is no creator - I've effectively lost the argument. Fortunantly, those who actually had to prove the relationship between gravity and planetary motion did not have computer modeling to compensate for a lack of experimental creativity. Brit wrote: I show you that randomness, selection, reproduction (i.e. gravity) is sufficient, and you counter with but the fact that someone created the program. But you have not shown that. You have merely shown that randomness, selection and reproduction expressed in a computer program did what you wrote it to do. All that shows is that you are a good programmer (creator) Brit wrote: Your argument is not an argument for ID I never intended for it to be since I am an opponent of ID. Apparently a lack of critical reasoning is not limited to the proponents of ID. Brit wrote: If that's the case, creationism and ID has already lost because they've retreated to saying Darwinian evolution works, but you need a God to create the Big Bang. Your argument does nothing more than that. They have already lost - for reasons having absolutlely nothing to do with this silly program. Brit wrote: And the geocentrist says, "Analogous to the model of the solar-centrism and gravity - the model that was modeled in the program." Smart geocentrist... "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
Brit wrote: Let's say that I was trying to show someone that the planets revolve around the Sun, rather than the earth. They argue, "No, no. Gravity is not enough to hold and guide the planets in their orbits." I write a program where I input the mass of the Sun and the planets, use the gravitational constant, and show that my program mimics the actual motion of the planets. Then, he comes back and says, "But, you wrote the program to validate your own assumptions. You are the intelligent designer, and therefore, you are showing that an intelligent designer is needed." Precisely, if I am forced to create a virtual world to prove that there is no creator - I've effectively lost the argument. Fortunantly, those who actually had to prove the relationship between gravity and planetary motion did not have computer modeling to compensate for a lack of experimental creativity. Brit wrote: I show you that randomness, selection, reproduction (i.e. gravity) is sufficient, and you counter with but the fact that someone created the program. But you have not shown that. You have merely shown that randomness, selection and reproduction expressed in a computer program did what you wrote it to do. All that shows is that you are a good programmer (creator) Brit wrote: Your argument is not an argument for ID I never intended for it to be since I am an opponent of ID. Apparently a lack of critical reasoning is not limited to the proponents of ID. Brit wrote: If that's the case, creationism and ID has already lost because they've retreated to saying Darwinian evolution works, but you need a God to create the Big Bang. Your argument does nothing more than that. They have already lost - for reasons having absolutlely nothing to do with this silly program. Brit wrote: And the geocentrist says, "Analogous to the model of the solar-centrism and gravity - the model that was modeled in the program." Smart geocentrist... "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: Precisely, if I am forced to create a virtual world to prove that there is no creator - I've effectively lost the argument. No. Remember: Darwinian Evolution, if true, does not conflict with the existence of a universe creator. Darwinian Evolution conflicts with the existence of a creator who created life through a process of intelligent design or special creation. Since these programs mimic the existence of a universe where an entity is not closely designing life, it mimics the existence of a universe created by an entity who allows life to arise through Darwinian evolution. You seem to be confusing the idea of a universe-creating entity with a life-designing entity. I'm certainly not arguing that this program shows the non-existence of God or a universe-creating entity. I'll let you sort that out because you certainly aren't willing to listen to me. Stan Shannon wrote: But you have not shown that. You have merely shown that randomness, selection and reproduction expressed in a computer program did what you wrote it to do. All that shows is that you are a good programmer (creator) No, randomness, selection and reproduction expressed in a computer program give rise to order and complexity -- something which ID proponents and creationists say can't happen. You are trying to reduce my argument to a vague and intuitively false result. Stan Shannon wrote: Smart geocentrist... ...drags his feet? ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Precisely, if I am forced to create a virtual world to prove that there is no creator - I've effectively lost the argument. No. Remember: Darwinian Evolution, if true, does not conflict with the existence of a universe creator. Darwinian Evolution conflicts with the existence of a creator who created life through a process of intelligent design or special creation. Since these programs mimic the existence of a universe where an entity is not closely designing life, it mimics the existence of a universe created by an entity who allows life to arise through Darwinian evolution. You seem to be confusing the idea of a universe-creating entity with a life-designing entity. I'm certainly not arguing that this program shows the non-existence of God or a universe-creating entity. I'll let you sort that out because you certainly aren't willing to listen to me. Stan Shannon wrote: But you have not shown that. You have merely shown that randomness, selection and reproduction expressed in a computer program did what you wrote it to do. All that shows is that you are a good programmer (creator) No, randomness, selection and reproduction expressed in a computer program give rise to order and complexity -- something which ID proponents and creationists say can't happen. You are trying to reduce my argument to a vague and intuitively false result. Stan Shannon wrote: Smart geocentrist... ...drags his feet? ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote: No. Remember: Darwinian Evolution, if true, does not conflict with the existence of a universe creator. Darwinian Evolution conflicts with the existence of a creator who created life through a process of intelligent design or special creation. Since these programs mimic the existence of a universe where an entity is not closely designing life, it mimics the existence of a universe created by an entity who allows life to arise through Darwinian evolution. No. I'm merely argueing taht a computer program proves absolutly nothing. It does not provide evidence for anything. The theories behind evolutionary biology are not as directly demonstratable as is, for example, planetary motion. Therefore, becasue of a lack of direct, observable data, someone writes a program that demonstrates the concepts in action. That is great, and very interesting, but it remains merely a program running on a computer. The proponents of ID and creationism do, in fact, have valid arguments to the extent that evolution can never really be proven in the same way that planetary motion can. The theory will always be based upon a certain set of assumptions which will always be an aggrevating weakness regardless of the staggering amount of evidence dug up to support it. Those who do not wish to accept that evidence will always be able to dismiss it as some kind of psuedo-scientific illusion. But we need to keep fighting back with real science not virtual science, else we run the risk of weakening our own arguments. Brit wrote: You seem to be confusing the idea of a universe-creating entity with a life-designing entity. I'm certainly not arguing that this program shows the non-existence of God or a universe-creating entity. I'll let you sort that out because you certainly aren't willing to listen to me. And I'm doing that on purpose. The argument against ID cannot be made on the basis on evolutionary theory alone. You have to challange them with the full extent of scientific knowledge that contradicts a literal interpretation of what ever religious text they are trying to defend. Hell, throw the theory evolution out completely, and force them to argue against plate tectonics or the expansion of space - things that can be directly observed. Get them to admit that their real goal is to throw away all of science not just the theory of evolution just as the Church originally stood against the concept of a sun centered planetary system. You can ever def
-
Brit wrote: No. Remember: Darwinian Evolution, if true, does not conflict with the existence of a universe creator. Darwinian Evolution conflicts with the existence of a creator who created life through a process of intelligent design or special creation. Since these programs mimic the existence of a universe where an entity is not closely designing life, it mimics the existence of a universe created by an entity who allows life to arise through Darwinian evolution. No. I'm merely argueing taht a computer program proves absolutly nothing. It does not provide evidence for anything. The theories behind evolutionary biology are not as directly demonstratable as is, for example, planetary motion. Therefore, becasue of a lack of direct, observable data, someone writes a program that demonstrates the concepts in action. That is great, and very interesting, but it remains merely a program running on a computer. The proponents of ID and creationism do, in fact, have valid arguments to the extent that evolution can never really be proven in the same way that planetary motion can. The theory will always be based upon a certain set of assumptions which will always be an aggrevating weakness regardless of the staggering amount of evidence dug up to support it. Those who do not wish to accept that evidence will always be able to dismiss it as some kind of psuedo-scientific illusion. But we need to keep fighting back with real science not virtual science, else we run the risk of weakening our own arguments. Brit wrote: You seem to be confusing the idea of a universe-creating entity with a life-designing entity. I'm certainly not arguing that this program shows the non-existence of God or a universe-creating entity. I'll let you sort that out because you certainly aren't willing to listen to me. And I'm doing that on purpose. The argument against ID cannot be made on the basis on evolutionary theory alone. You have to challange them with the full extent of scientific knowledge that contradicts a literal interpretation of what ever religious text they are trying to defend. Hell, throw the theory evolution out completely, and force them to argue against plate tectonics or the expansion of space - things that can be directly observed. Get them to admit that their real goal is to throw away all of science not just the theory of evolution just as the Church originally stood against the concept of a sun centered planetary system. You can ever def
The real problem involved with trying to "defeat" ID believers is that HUGE unknown of what some higher power would or wouldn't do. Since none of us are omnipotent (regardless how much some would like to think they are) we can't even begin to comprehend the thought process behind a God's actions. So most of the agruing is really just a big intellectual pissing contest, IMO. Though admittedly an interesting one. BW
I want pancakes! God, do you people understand every language except English?
Yo quiero pancakes. Donnez moi pancakes. Click click, bloody click pancakes!
-- Stewie Griffin -
The real problem involved with trying to "defeat" ID believers is that HUGE unknown of what some higher power would or wouldn't do. Since none of us are omnipotent (regardless how much some would like to think they are) we can't even begin to comprehend the thought process behind a God's actions. So most of the agruing is really just a big intellectual pissing contest, IMO. Though admittedly an interesting one. BW
I want pancakes! God, do you people understand every language except English?
Yo quiero pancakes. Donnez moi pancakes. Click click, bloody click pancakes!
-- Stewie Griffinbrianwelsch wrote: The real problem involved with trying to "defeat" ID believers is that HUGE unknown of what some higher power would or wouldn't do. Since none of us are omnipotent (regardless how much some would like to think they are) we can't even begin to comprehend the thought process behind a God's actions. So most of the agruing is really just a big intellectual pissing contest, IMO. Though admittedly an interesting one. Exactly. And because evolutionary theory is dependent upon a wide range of debatedbly accurate techniques (ie. the various dating techniques) it is and always will be open to the kinds of attacks from the ID crowd. We just have to live with that. However, when we argue the rest of science they are quickly reduced to such utterly ludicrous positions as the entire universe being less than 10,000 light years wide, etc. All of science going all the way back to Galileo would have to be thrown out to accomodate their principles. At some point even the most uniformed person will see them for what they are - religious zealots. Hence it is very easy to marginalize them intellectually - though we will never be rid of them in a free society (or should want to be). "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
Brit wrote: No. Remember: Darwinian Evolution, if true, does not conflict with the existence of a universe creator. Darwinian Evolution conflicts with the existence of a creator who created life through a process of intelligent design or special creation. Since these programs mimic the existence of a universe where an entity is not closely designing life, it mimics the existence of a universe created by an entity who allows life to arise through Darwinian evolution. No. I'm merely argueing taht a computer program proves absolutly nothing. It does not provide evidence for anything. The theories behind evolutionary biology are not as directly demonstratable as is, for example, planetary motion. Therefore, becasue of a lack of direct, observable data, someone writes a program that demonstrates the concepts in action. That is great, and very interesting, but it remains merely a program running on a computer. The proponents of ID and creationism do, in fact, have valid arguments to the extent that evolution can never really be proven in the same way that planetary motion can. The theory will always be based upon a certain set of assumptions which will always be an aggrevating weakness regardless of the staggering amount of evidence dug up to support it. Those who do not wish to accept that evidence will always be able to dismiss it as some kind of psuedo-scientific illusion. But we need to keep fighting back with real science not virtual science, else we run the risk of weakening our own arguments. Brit wrote: You seem to be confusing the idea of a universe-creating entity with a life-designing entity. I'm certainly not arguing that this program shows the non-existence of God or a universe-creating entity. I'll let you sort that out because you certainly aren't willing to listen to me. And I'm doing that on purpose. The argument against ID cannot be made on the basis on evolutionary theory alone. You have to challange them with the full extent of scientific knowledge that contradicts a literal interpretation of what ever religious text they are trying to defend. Hell, throw the theory evolution out completely, and force them to argue against plate tectonics or the expansion of space - things that can be directly observed. Get them to admit that their real goal is to throw away all of science not just the theory of evolution just as the Church originally stood against the concept of a sun centered planetary system. You can ever def
Stan Shannon wrote: No. I'm merely argueing taht a computer program proves absolutly nothing. It does not provide evidence for anything. No, you have to remember the context here: ID and creationists say unintelligent forces cannot bring about order and complexity. This shows that it can. As a question of history (it can happen, but did it happen?) is another line of defense, but since ID and creationists have drawn the battle lines at "it can't happen", this application provides evidence that simple forces can make it happen. The ID and creationist's best hope is to do exactly what you're doing: denying the implications of the computer models by arguments from vagueness like "you made a computer program do what you wanted it to do, so what?" Of course, that's just a way of dismissing what's really going on. If ID proponents, creationists, or you want to question the applicability of the model to the real world, then tell me precisely what is wrong with it. Does random mutation not occur in the real world? Does selection not occur in the real world? Does reproduction not occur in the real world? Again, your best defense (and a weak defense) is to simply reduce the program through vagueness: "you made a computer program do what you wanted it to do, so what?" Stan Shannon wrote: Hell, throw the theory evolution out completely, and force them to argue against plate tectonics or the expansion of space First, those arguments don't apply against ID, and second, there are counter-arguments to them. Among them: scientists don't really know that the speed of light is constant, God made the world so it appears old, we are misinterpreting the evidence, the red-shift is caused by something else (and it's only our assumption that says red-shift is evidence for expansion), God made the light in-transit so that we could see the stars (so we could see the vastness of his glory, of course), etc etc. To use your own words against you: all theories "will always be based upon a certain set of assumptions". The argument for ID is that unintelligent forces cannot construct complexity or irreducable complexity -- that unintelligent forces are insufficient. The argument against it, therefore, is that unintelligent forces are sufficient and can bring about these things. How are you going to show that? One way is to construct a virtual world that abides by simple, irrefutable forces that exist in our world. That's what this program is. ID proponets