A “cost” is a “goal”

_{niwrad
February 1, 2013

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the phys.org news “Researchers solve biological mystery and boost artificial intelligence” is cited a research about “The Evolutionary Origins of Modularity” (in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Jan. 30, 2013).

The researchers have simulated “25,000 generations of evolution within computers” and believe to have discovered why biological systems show modularity.

They say:

“Researchers have discovered why biological networks tend to be organized as modules – a finding that will lead to a deeper understanding of the evolution of complexity. […] As it turned out, it was enough to include a “cost of wiring” to make evolution favor modular architectures. […] Once you add a cost for network connections, modules immediately appear. Without a cost, modules never form.”

What means to program a “cost” in a computer simulation of evolution? In two words, it is to write a set of instructions that says: “if the digital organism behaves or develops X then reward it with a bonus; differently if it fails X then punish it”. In one word, a “cost” is a “goal”.

Darwinists always said that evolution works because of a “cost of unfit” only. Today they add a “cost of wiring” to get modules. I suspect tomorrow they will add a “cost of blindness” to get eyes, the day after tomorrow they will add a “cost of immobility” to get legs … and so on.

Also, Darwinists always said that evolution is blind and has no goal. But each “cost” is a “goal”. So, what they call “deeper understanding of the evolution of complexity” seems to me simply additional contradictions of their theory.

Comments

Bornagain, I appreciate your comment and vast documentation. If, as you say, there is free will, the question regarding Christ and Judas still stands. If Judas had free will and if Christ knew about it beforehand, why didn't He stop it, or talk to Judas about it, or something? By the way, just because quantum mechanics says that you can have free will and alter past reality, it doesn't mean that every time we make a decision we do it in the full light of conscious rationality. We know the power of the subconscious. We know that every day we make subconscious decisions without even knowing we do. So you have to give a place for psychology in the whole issue of decision making.billmaz_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PST}

Well billmaz, contrary to your reservations that 'free will' can ever be brought to a satisfactory resolution, I beg to differ. In fact recent breakthroughs in quantum mechanics have addressed this very question, and have brought very unambiguous resolution to it (but of course empirical evidence means little to a determined atheist doesn't it bill?): I would like to point out that ‘free will’, as far as empirical science is concerned, has been defended by ‘uncertainty’ in quantum mechanics for several decades now: Why Quantum Physics (Uncertainty) Ends the Free Will Debate – Michio Kaku – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw In that the uncertainty of quantum mechanics demonstrates that no one could precisely determine your future events from your past history. Yet, our free will in quantum mechanics is now shown by recent developments in quantum mechanics to go much deeper than us simply being unable to determine what our future actions may be. Much deeper! In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that our present conscious choices, in fact, effect past material states: Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,,, This is simply completely contrary to atheistic/materialistic precepts: Moreover, the foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were recently able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments; Can quantum theory be improved? – July 23, 2012 Excerpt: However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (i.e. conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice, free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html Of note: What does the term “measurement” mean in quantum mechanics? “Measurement” or “observation” in a quantum mechanics context are really just other ways of saying that the observer is interacting with the quantum system and measuring the result in toto. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=597846 Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply completely unprecedented in science and, in my unsolicited opinion, is perhaps the most important milestone to ever be reached in the history of science thus far! As well, finding ‘free will conscious observation’ to be ‘built into’ our best description of foundational reality, i.e. quantum mechanics, as a starting assumption(s), ‘free will, conscious observation’ which is shown to be the driving aspect of randomness in quantum mechanics in the paper I referenced, is VERY antithetical to the entire materialistic philosophy which demands that ‘pure randomness’ be the driving force of all creativity in Darwinian evolution (and indeed in the creation of the universe itself)!,,, Of related note: Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter – Random Number Generators – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007 I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiments, “Since you ultimately believe that the ‘god of random chance’ produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?” Of somewhat related note, Einstein was asked (by a philosopher): “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?” Einstein’s answer was categorical, he said: “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” Einstein’s quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video: Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now” https://vimeo.com/10588094 The preceding statement was an interesting statement for Einstein to make since ‘the now of the mind’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, been shown to take precedence of Einstein’s preferred General Relativity, (4-D space-time), frame of reference for reality. Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm i.e. ‘the now of the mind’, contrary to what Einstein thought possible for experimental physics, according to advances in quantum mechanics, takes precedence over past events in time! Moreover, due to how solid quantum mechanics is demonstrated to be as a accurate description of reality, it would now be much more appropriate to phrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher in this way: “It is impossible for the experience of ‘the now’ to be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.” Of note: since our free will choices figure so prominently in how reality is actually found to be constructed in our understanding of quantum mechanics, I think a Christian perspective on just how important our free will choices are in this temporal life, in regards to our eternal destiny, is very fitting: Is God Good? (Free will and the problem of evil) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_1UAjeIA i.e. God gives us a ‘free will’ because without true free will it is impossible to have true love. i.e. How much love would you feel if you made a robot to tell you how much it loves you? As a consequence of true free will, and true love, hell is necessary: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.” - C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce Music and verse: Third Day – Trust In Jesus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o-ipsw161E Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, of related note: Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.bornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PST}

Kairofocus, please speak in English. I don't know what C2 means, or your allusion to Irenaeus. Please explain.billmaz_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PST}

Now, Bornagain77, a discussion on free will is vast, and will never bring us to a conclusion. Some psychologists believe there is no such thing as free will, that we are all subject to our "character" and to our previous choices, and that our decisions can be predetermined if one studies our personality and our history. Others believe that there is pure free will. The Kabbalists believe that our history brings us to the ultimate point of making a decision, but that point, the moment of pulling the trigger or not, or of stealing that object or not, it constitutes a moment of free will. I don't know. In the case of Jesus, he foretold that he will be sacrificed for the good of mankind. Judas was an instrument in that plan. So did Jesus plan it all, or did he foresee it? Either way he did nothing to stop Judas. So you tell me what that means.billmaz_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PST}

billmaz: C2 document of dubious historical credentials, set up to foster a particular gnostic scheme of thought rather than to convey accurate history. Irenaeus said much the same c 180 AD, and the text as discovered supports his dismissal. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PST}

I love the way your mind works, Axel.billmaz_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PST}

Bill as to: "Therefore, Jesus must have been in on it." Knowing that someone will freely choose to do evil beforehand in no way implies 'being in on it', nor does taking advantage of that foreknowledge of someone freely choosing evil to bring about a ultimate 'good choice', that people may freely choose, (Christ's atoning sacrifice), constitute a compromise of free will.bornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST}

Well, bill, this is precisely what I was adverting to, in my earlier post about the mystery of Divine Providence and free will. Th same enigma is raised by the Gospel passage relating Jesus' Lament over Jerusalem. Christianity, itself. But, as I said, our analytical intelligence is unable to understand the paradoxes which, inevitably, actually, render the deepest truths unintelligible in terms of our analytical reason. Remember the anecdote about the answer given by the little boy digging a hole in the sand on the beach, to St Augustine's question as to his reason for doing so? How Augustine scoffed that it could never contain the sea. And the little boy replied that neither could his head contain the Holy Trinity.Axel_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PST}

That, esteemed Mung, I now see, is a wrily humble way of looking at it.Axel_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PST}

Axel, what about the Gospel According to Judas? In it he says basically that he was Jesus' favorite and that his treachery was planned along with Jesus in order to fulfill Jesus' own plan of being crucified. After all, wasn't that Jesus' plan to bring redemption to humanity through his own death? I never understood why Judas was so reviled. He fulfilled Jesus' plan. Therefore, Jesus must have been in on it. Without him Jesus would not have been crucified and no world religion would have resulted. What say you?billmaz_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PST}

Timothya (16):
Individual systems certainly have a short-term goal: to survive.
Why would any part of the ‘individual system’ be interested in ‘surviving’? Why would any atom, electron or whatever be interested in the continuation of the (non-existent) whole? In the naturalistic view on organisms I see nothing that is interested in the continuation of life. Tell me, in naturalistic terms, what you mean by an ‘individual system’. Isn’t it the whole point of naturalism that there is no ‘individual system’ - that there is actually nobody home?Box_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PST}

I would like to see Dr. Mengele in heaven but I don't expect to. One or both of us may not make it. ;)Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PST}

Solzhenitsyn also remarked on the subject of torturers that there was a level of wickedness below which conversion and redemption would be effectively impossible. I also remember seeing a programme about the terrorists in Northern Ireland. In the Maze prison, I believe it was, was one individual who seemed to spend all his time rocking back and for in utter misery. He was later reported to have committed suicide. On the pretext of giving him a lift home in his vehicle, he had murdered a Catholic work-mate. Other terrorists took a some degree of risk, I would imagine of a rather more significant order than he had; and, moreover, it was a friend. We can only speculate about his supernatural destiny, but if you saw him, and the depth of his regret, no doubt similar to that of Judas, you could not help but wish that there was something about his character and life that would invite God's mercy. Mengele, Brady and Hindley? I don't think so.Axel_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PST}

Thank you William J Murray for your kind and reflective comment. Your statement that ID "has no inherent position on evolution of any sort" comes as a surprise to me. I have taken your advice and educated myself. From Wikipedia (yes, I know, it's not a definitive source, but it's a beginning) "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." The definition of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC): "Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Leskin writes in an argument against evolution: "If you look at these [evolutionary] schemes, they often very abruptly add a lens or a cornea. You need to evolve things in a step-by-step fashion." Then there is this: "Irreducibly complex systems such as mousetraps and flagella serve both as negative arguments against gradualistic explanations like Darwin's and as positive arguments for design. The negative argument is that such interactive systems resist explanation by the tiny steps that a Darwinian path would be expected to take. The positive argument is that their parts appear arranged to serve a purpose, which is exactly how we detect design. (Darwin's Black Box, pp. 263-264 (2006).)" Since natural selection is an integral part of evolution, your definition of ID as having no position on evolution seems to differ with those of Discovery Institute and of Behe and Leskin. So who is this Designer? William Dembski writes that "design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy," (The Design Revolution, p. 42 (2004)) Furthermore, Dembski concludes: "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." So the Designer is beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy? Okay, then. But you must acknowledge that scinece, with its limitations, cannot investigate anything that is not physical. So what's the point? As to why a Designer would create such a blatantly imperfect organism as ourselves, "Behe suggests that, like a parent not wanting to spoil a child with extravagant toys, the designer can have multiple motives for not giving priority to excellence in engineering. He says that "the argument for imperfection critically depends on a psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are." "Previously, in Darwin's Black Box, Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "have been placed there by the designer ... for artistic reasons, to show off, for some as-yet undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason". Very well. This is turning into comedy. Yes, I know, you have argued these ideas for a long time, and you are tired of them. So am I. But give a new addition to your blog a little leeway, will you? After all, I assume you want new people to join your discussion and not just your old comrades to simply sing to the choir. I believe it is disingenuous of you to say that ID has nothing to do with evolution, the same way that it is disingenuous to say that the Designer is not God, as Dembski readily admits. Who else can it be? Finally, I resent the lack of a cordial attitude. We are here to discuss, in a civilized fashion. I am not here to start planting red herrings and straw men. If I am wrong in your position, I expect a correction, or no comment at all. But I also expect honesty. Yes, ID is an attempt to detect design in living creatures, but by so doing it effectively contradicts the theory of evolution. You can't have both. By the way, I am not an atheist and I do believe that this complex universe could not have come from nothing, as quantum physicists claim, since they, too, admit that the rules of quantum mechanics had to have existed before the universe came into existence. So the question of the final cause is still there.billmaz_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PST}

Well. All of a sudden, you seem like a relativist, Mung. It seems to me from scripture, including Christ's own words, that there is a level of human malice from which there can be no redemption. I think they call the notion that eventually everyone will be saved, 'universalism', don't they? Origen speculated about it, but no more than that; and he was said to be the 'go to' man of his day, for doctrinal orthodoxy, notwithstanding his protocol breech in being ordained by a bishop of another see. Judas springs to mind in this context. To say of Jesus that he was the soul of compassion is not even a metaphor, yet when speaking of Judas' demise, he spoke only with bitterness. Brady, one of the Moors murderers, still refuses to reveal to the parents of the children they tortured and murdered the places where their bodies are buried. 'Bien pensant' souls suggested to him that there may have been factors in his personal background that prompted him to carry out such devilish actions. Yet, apparently, his reaction was to sneer at the thought! He's a devil incarnate, and at least he knows it.Axel_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PST}

Who would want to meet Dr Mengele in heaven?
Me.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PST}

Sorry, Bill. I meant to say, 'blessed mishap', in the sense of it's changing our nature from that of a simple creature, to adoptive members of the only monotheistic, divine family: the Most Holy Trinity, sharing in the divine life of God, himself.Axel_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PST}

Yes. What Eric said, Bill(!). We can point you in the direction of the Fall, Divine Providence and so on, but it's not suitable fare for the analytical intelligence, so it seems to me that you will be disappointed, insofar as most atheists discount entirely any superior kind of knowledge and understanding. The Fall, itself, has been called a blessed mishap (not verbatim), I believe by a Church Father, a more or less immediate successor of the Apostles - some eminent spiritual writer, anyway; so, to say that Providence and free will is a relationship steeped in mystery, would be something of an understatement. In fact, because our assumptions are inevitably profoundly abstruse, when we consider these matters, we all engage in some manner in wishful thinking. We believe what we prefer to believe. It just happens that the divine Creator fashioned the world to fit the wishful thinking of 'his own'. And why wouldn't he? Indeed, why wouldn't he then provide 'for those with eyes to see and ears to hear', substantiating evidence in their personal lives? Just not necessarily verifiable under laboratory conditions, although empirical science itself has been built up on just such divine munificence, if sometimes a little indirectly. Why must the truth be ugly, not to be wished for, not to be hoped for, undesirable? We shall be judged on the disposition of our heart, not our head. Who would want to meet Dr Mengele in heaven?Axel_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PST}

Timothya #16: “[Evolution has] no long-term goal. Individual systems certainly have a short-term goal: to survive.”
Survival (no death = no destruction) is not a goal sufficiently *specified* and focused for creating new complex *specified* functions in the systems. As an analogy, in car industry, if engineers would adopt uniquely “no destruction” as their goal no car would arise.niwrad_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PST}

billmaz asks:
No? Well then does ID propose that we will evolve?
You are apparently operating under a mistaken idea of what ID is. In and of itself, ID is a theory about design detection, nothing more. It has no inherent position on evolution of any sort. What many ID proponents assert here is that there is evidence that shows that essential aspects of living creatures (and other things, of course) bear the hallmarks of design. A battleship, for example, has obvious differences from a pile of rock and metal that only intelligent design can adequately explain. ID doesn't claim the designer of any particular thing was a perfect, or even good, designer. Please try to educate yourself about ID from ID sources before you start planting red herrings and straw men that have long ago been addressed multiple times. I suggest you begin by looking under the "resources" tab at the top of this blog just under the header image.William J Murray_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PST}

OT: Whole Cell Imaging at High Resolution using Electron Tomography - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OI6QILPDlobornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PST}

@Mung:
The software I write is full of bad design. I am a bad designer.
No, you're not. The stack overflows and null pointer exceptions are exactly what we specified. Thanks!JWTruthInLove_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PST}

I didn't ever change the oil in my car and it ruined the engine, therefore the designer of my car is stupid.M. Holcumbrink_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PST}

diesel ended up in my gas tank and ruined the engine, therefore the designer of my car is stupid.M. Holcumbrink_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST}

The software I write is full of bad design. I am a bad designer. Therefore, intelligent design is false.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PST}

Thank you.billmaz_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PST}

billmaz @24:
Why did He create a system in which we are susceptible to so many organisms (viruses, bacteria, etc.) and internal genetic errors which cause us disease? Either the Grand Designer is incompetent or He is conducting experiments with us. Don’t get me started.
We definitely would not want you to get started on that line of argument, as it is full of fallacies. This is the old "bad design" line of argumentation, which has been adequately answered and refuted on many occasions. Search around a bit on UD and look at some of the past threads on the topic. If you can't find any of the past threads after spending some time looking, let us know and maybe we can point you in the right direction.Eric Anderson_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PST}

Thank you, Axel, I do appreciate some of the implications of quantum physics Bill Maz: Quantum Evolution? but I was using intelligence as a measure of how well the Grand Designer designed our bodies. I also used the examples of our susceptibility to internal (genetic) and external (viruses, bacteria, etc.) sources of disease as examples of our poorly designed bodies. Other examples of how poorly designed our bodies are abound, from anatomical to physiological to genetic. I also appreciate that the theory of evolution is incomplete in that other forces may also be involved (information theory, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, and others) Bill Maz Blog. All of these theories are part of science, and they don't rely on deus ex machina to solve their problems. Our discussion is about ID's ideas on a body that is so far from perfect. I don't understand how these theories bolster the idea of a designer, especially one who didn't do the job properly to begin with.billmaz_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PST}

b) With quantum physics and astrophysics, the comfortable world of our worldly reason, the Rationalist’s pride and joy, is largely being left behind in a cloud of dust.
Would that be a cloud of cosmic dust?Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PST}

I missed #16 from you somehow, sorry. But thanks for the quick response!M. Holcumbrink_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply