Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Mathematician’s View of Evolution

Gil Dodgen
September 19, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

If you haven’t run into this essay from The Mathematical Intelligencer by mathematician Granville Sewell, I recommend it. In a concise and easily accessible fashion he summarizes why a mathematician might be driven to skepticism about orthodox Darwinian theory.

I continue to find it entertaining that many Darwinists are convinced that only religious fanatics, the uneducated, and/or not-very-brights don’t buy their arguments.

Comments
pwe
If the message was important, certainly the designer would have made sure the message would be seen and not misunderstood.
My dear man, not only did the designer send a clear message, he sent his son as the messanger. Many of us have chosen to listen to and heed the message. The result is a relationship with the creator of the universe, along with amazing phenomenon such as answered prayer.bFast
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
>There is only one known, demonstrable source of machinery: design. If you define all living things as machines, you have effectively removed the knowledge that they are designed from the definition of machinery. You cannot just conflate two different things - machines that humans create and biological 'machines' of unknown design - and say that what applies to one applies to the other...Ellis
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
j wrote:
I see no good reason to think that (human) intelligent agency can violate the entropy accountancy required by the Second Law. However, what it certainly can do is repeatably and unpredictably create regions of indefinitely large amounts of low entropy, of arbitrary character. Chance and necessity alone can’t.
j, Why do you believe that chance and necessity cannot do this?Karl Pfluger
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
todd asks:
Forgive me for finding your paraphrase a bit disingenuous. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “When I consider known physical forces and properties of matter, I can’t believe these impersonal, undirected forces could have produced the highly ordered information we see in the living world around us over billions of years. The statistical probablity such an event occurred is too improbable to be possible, therefore it isn’t possible”?
todd, You'd be right, if Sewell had actually presented an argument or done a probability calculation to support his assertion. Unfortunately, he didn't. If you reread the paragraph in question, you'll see that it contains only assertions, with absolutely no supporting arguments or calculations. todd:
If an explanation is wildly improbable, why not express incredulity?
Nothing wrong with expressing incredulity, but you want your arguments to be based on something more substantial. Incredulity by itself is a notoriously unreliable indicator of truth and falsehood.
Moreover, aren’t NDE types arguing the same way about a designer? “I cannot directly observe a designer, therefore one cannot exist?”
Not at all. Most of us admit that a designer is a logical possibility. We just don't see the need to invoke a designer to explain life, any more than we do to explain weather or volcanic eruptions.Karl Pfluger
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
bFast wrote (in comment #20):
Poul Willy Eriksen: “A peculiarity of design is that the purpose of a designed object is external to the designed object.” This is an intriguing statement. There is something inherently true in the view that when humans design an object, the purpose of that design is somehow external to the object. This argument seems worthy of consideration.
It would seem to be. As I have understood, the expression intelligent design really means purposeful design; but of course, I might have misunderstood something :-)
sidebar: This argument sounds somewhat similar to Dembski’s definition of CSI. The “specified” part refers to the fact that the purpose of the information is external to the information.
Interesting, so maybe we are on to something here?
I think, however, of the water pump in my car. The waterpump’s sole purpose is found within the organism of the car, rather than having some greater purpose. Ie, if a car were made that didn’t use a waterpump, I wouldn’t care in the least. Therefore it seems unnecessary to conclude that the flagellum must find purpose beyond what it does for its bacterium without destroying the sense that the flagellum is designed.
True, but the water punp serves a purpose for your car, which serves a purpose for you, namely as a means of transportation. The car was designed for that purpose, which was decisive for the minimum size of the car, which was decisive for the motor of the car, and so on. By analogy, bacteria with flagella must have been designed - if they were - with respect to the size of some passenger(s), right?
Now comes the question, does the bacterium have a greater purpose? You somehow happily conclude that it does not.
Indeed I do :-)
I beg to differ.
You are welcome.
Philosophers everywhere have looked at the question of purpose, and suggested many possible purposes for the biosphere of which each bacterium is a part. If, for instance, a designer created all that is as a grand experiment, and if the fact that the experiment is ticking along, then the “the purpose of a designed object is external” requirement is fully met. If, as some suggest, the purpose of nature is man, and the purpose of man is to know the designer, then again the “the purpose of a designed object is external” requirement is met.
True; but why a bacterium? We haven't been able to see them until fairly recently (some time in the 19th century, I would think) So bacteria don't really work well, unless the designer wanted to make it a surprise to be discovered at some (appropriate?) time.
If you say, “we cannot confirm that the biosphere has some external purpose, therefore the biosphere has no external purpose, therefore the ‘the purpose of a designed object is external’ requirement is not met” I say that you have a weak case at best.
If a designer wanted to communicate with us, couldn't that designer have designed a sign (no pun intended) that wouldn't leave any doubt? It's true that nature actually has been interpreted that way, until David Hume claimed that argument to be a weak analogy (there were some precursors; even Plato is into this in Timaeus), and that's the background for Dawkins claim that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. However, all of this doesn't explain, why bacteria, even DNA, have to count as messages. If the message was important, certainly the designer would have made sure the message would be seen and not misunderstood. The very fact that we can doubt needs to be calculated in - and not simply in the way that it's by design: only the true believers will be able to detect the design. That is attributing properties to the designer, and as I have understood, ID is about proving design without any particular knowledge about the designer. have a nice day! - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Re the 2nd law of thermodynamics (SLOT). It is often said something along the lines of: The evolution of life of Earth does not disobey SLOT because Earth gets a constant energy input from the Sun (which is true). Even if Earth was to never have received any energy input from the Sun, it would still be possible for life to (have) evolve(d). I would like to paraphrase what BC said in post#25: The second law of thermodynamics does not prevent an increase in physical order (or information, as some like to claim), it says that the system *as a whole* - measured as energy and physical order - is winding down. You can get increases in physical order because the Earth's internal heat energy is being spent (and some portion of that energy ends up being spent on establishing physical order on Earth through mechanisms such as chemical reduction (yeah, I know, all reduction does not involve a decrease in entropy) and evolution).Hawks
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
I see no good reason to think that (human) intelligent agency can violate the entropy accountancy required by the Second Law. However, what it certainly can do is repeatably and unpredictably create regions of indefinitely large amounts of low entropy, of arbitrary character. Chance and necessity alone can’t. (There's more discussion of the Second Law of Thermo at www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/886#comments See especially my comment #41.)j
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Karl, You wrote,
Paraphrase: “I can’t believe that impersonal, undirected forces, acting over billions of years, could have produced what we see in the world around us. Therefore it didn’t happen.”
Forgive me for finding your paraphrase a bit disingenuous. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "When I consider known physical forces and properties of matter, I can't believe these impersonal, undirected forces could have produced the highly ordered information we see in the living world around us over billions of years. The statistical probablity such an event occurred is too improbable to be possible, therefore it isn't possible"? If an explanation is wildly improbable, why not express incredulity? Moreover, aren't NDE types arguing the same way about a designer? "I cannot directly observe a designer, therefore one cannot exist?" Also, can you directly observe physical forces acting over billions of years?todd
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
BC: "In any case, I thought the lead article was rather disappointing. The mathematician used the programming analogy (which I said in an earlier thread was a poor model of evolution which was bound to lead people to erroneous conclusions). He talks about his program “PDE2D” and says that to some future people it might look like it evolved because it is changing and improving over time. Of course, the reason his program “evolves” over time is because he wasn’t capable of creating it perfectly the first time. This stands in contrast to the capabilities we typically attribute to God (i.e. capable of doing it perfectly right and fully functional the first time). Humans, however, have limited time and limited abilities, which is why our designs change and improve with time and feedback." Can we agree at least on one thing? The argument of imperfect design, so often cited by darwinians, may be good or bad (obviously, my personal opinion is that it is very bad), but it is, beyond any doubt, a philosophical argument. Therefore, it should be kept out of the debate about ID and evolution. I could give may answers to the argument, but they would all be philosophical, and would obviously rely on my personal view of the world, of God, etc. There would be nothing of strictly scientific in that. So, I beg all evolutionists to keep their argument pertinent, and to restist the temptation to debate God, its nature, its interactions with the world, etc. Or, if you want, we can start a theological blog to discuss these aspects.gpuccio
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
Sewell writes:
to attribute the development of life on Earth to natural selection is to assign to it--and to it alone, of all known natural "forces"--the ability to violate the second law of thermodynamics and to cause order to arise from disorder.
But later he says:
But the second law of thermodynamics--at least the underlying principle behind this law--simply says that natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen, and it is absurd to argue that because the Earth receives energy from the Sun, this principle was not violated here when the original rearrangement of atoms into encyclopedias and computers occurred.
It's interesting that Sewell, like so many other antievolutionists, thinks that humans violate the second law when they create something like a computer or an encyclopedia. (Our own DaveScot is on record saying that he violates the second law every time he types a sentence). Folks, there's a reason the second law is called a law. We do not know of any violations of the second law (except in certain microscopic systems, and even then only for the briefest of times). Life doesn't violate it, evolution doesn't violate it, photosynthesis doesn't violate it, human creative activity doesn't violate it. Anyone who can demonstrate a macroscopic violation of the second law is assured a Nobel prize. Another point: the second law is the reason that perpetual motion machines do not work. If humans can routinely violate the second law, why are there no PMM's? Why do we depend on oil supplies? Sewell:
It is often argued that since the Earth is not a closed system--it receives energy from the Sun, for example-- the second law is not applicable in this case.
It depends on how the second law is stated. If you say "The entropy of a system either stays constant or increases", then this is true only for closed systems. If you say "The entropy of a system either stays constant or increases, unless the system exports more entropy than it imports", then it is true for all systems. The Earth exports a huge amount of entropy into space in the form of low-temperature radiation, but receives its energy in the form of low-entropy solar radiation. This disparity allows processes on earth to decrease entropy locally without violating the second law. This next quote from Sewell is especially telling. It has nothing to do with the second law, but is merely a long-winded expression of the argument from personal incredulity:
I imagine visiting the Earth when it was young and returning now to find highways with automobiles on them, airports with jet airplanes, and tall buildings full of complicated equipment, such as televisions, telephones and computers. Then I imagine the construction of a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet (perhaps using random number generators to model quantum uncertainties!). If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards? If we graphically displayed the positions of the atoms at the end of the simulation, would we find that cars and trucks had formed, or that supercomputers had arisen? Certainly we would not, and I do not believe that adding sunlight to the model would help much. Clearly something extremely improbable has happened here on our planet, with the origin and development of life, and especially with the development of human consciousness and creativity.
Paraphrase: "I can't believe that impersonal, undirected forces, acting over billions of years, could have produced what we see in the world around us. Therefore it didn't happen."Karl Pfluger
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
And then he harps on the second law of thermodynamics, which has been discussed at length and the argument discredited a long time ago. I was really hoping for something more substantial.
The thrust of Sewell's argument has been completely missed. Just because a system is open thermodynamically doesn't mean that any neg-entropic phenomenon is possible. The fact that the earth gets energy from the sun doesn't mean that inanimate matter can reorganize itself into a Cray supercomputer.GilDodgen
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Ops, blockquote error above, 'Cmon through the end of the paragraph is mine. Too bad I can't edit my post.bFast
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
BC, The bottom line re the argument from incredulity is that all we IDers are asking for is reasonable proof. This really isn't too much to ask for. BC:
Of course, the reason his program “evolves” over time is because he wasn’t capable of creating it perfectly the first time. This stands in contrast to the capabilities we typically attribute to God C'mon the argument for "a perfect God wouldn't do it that way" is weak. Further, the "law" model of ID evolution very much holds to a perfect God model. If the universe, the biosphere, and man is the direct result of a series of finely tuned laws -- if contingency is not a primary player -- then the designer who made it all is advanced beyond your wildest dreams.
humans, however, have limited time and limited abilities, which is why our designs change and improve with time and feedback.
However, God seems to have a love for growing things. We grow, the universe grows, all of life grows, and the biosphere grew from a single organism to what it is today. If the "law" model is correct, it followed the pattern that was already laid out for it when the big bang happened.bFast
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
BC You're conflating order with information. They are related but not the same and cannot be interchanged willy-nilly. Information obeys the same laws as other types of entropy like diffusion of heat and gases but you can't just go mixing them up together in the same situtation like saying that removing energy from the sun and adding it to the earth causes the earth's information content to increase. All that does is causes the earth's energy content to increase. Energy and information cannot be equated in that manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theoryDaveScot
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Discredited? Hardly. Unilateral declarations of victory notwithstanding.
Well, since people are so fond of saying that the second law of thermodynamics means everything is running down, then I have a question that's perplexed me. The process of photosynthesis involves the production of sugar from carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water. How is it possible that organisms are constucting ordered molecules (sugar) from raw materials? Doesn't the very process of photosynthesis contradict the second law of thermodynamics as IDists and creationists interprete it? It should be impossible for organisms, in general, to increase in useful biomass (i.e. weight of ordered molecules per organism times the number of organisms in existence). It seems to me that if you have a correct interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics, the number of organisms that can exist in each generation should decrease - i.e. the total number of ordered molecules in existence should be in perpetual decline. Since we know that microorganisms can establish order on primitive atoms, turning them into complex molecules, and then reproduce themselves, they are contradicting the second law of thermodynamics itself. And don't say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to "information". It doesn't. Also, don't say that information (or intelligence) somehow allows organisms to sidestep the second law of thermodynamics, because a law is a law, right? As an evolutionist, I can see why the evolutionary mechanism allows for a temporary increase in physical order. The second law of thermodynamics does not prevent an increase in physical order (or information, as you like to claim), it says that the system *as a whole* (sun and earth) - measured as energy and physical order - is winding down. You can get increases in physical order because the nuclear fuel of the sun is being spent (and some portion of that energy ends up being spent on establishing physical order on earth through mechanisms such as photosynthesis and evolution). If the sun disappeared tomorrow, the earth's "deposit" of energy would drop to nearly zero and all life would cease to exist. When the sun eventually burns out, that's exactly what will happen. It's a misunderstanding to say that the second law of thermodynamics says that physical order is perpetually decreasing at all times and places, and that kind of idea contradicts the empirical evidence around us. In the end, that argument is discredited.BC
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
BC And then he harps on the second law of thermodynamics, which has been discussed at length and the argument discredited a long time ago. I was really hoping for something more substantial. Discredited? Hardly. Unilateral declarations of victory notwithstanding.DaveScot
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
You still have to come up with the rule-based system’s underlying software and hardware, which, in biology, are enormously complex and sophisticated.
In the universe where we live, there are basic physical rules involving things like: "two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time", "negative charges attract positive charges", "sound moves through air and water", "light travels through some forms of matter (air, water) but not through others", "carbon can form four bonds", etc. When we create a computational system meant to mimic evolution, we have to create some rules - just like biological evolution has some physics-based rules to work with. Complaining that the production of software and hardware to undergird an evolutionary framework is unfair since biological evolution had the laws of the universe to work with.BC
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
I find it comical that someone should use the expresion “argument from personal incredulity” in reference to ID. What is the alternative but a belief in magic. I have often said that Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice is the model spokesperson for Darwinism. ID offers a rational approach to the history of life while other theories emplore these magical occurences and not just once but thousands of times without ever demonstrating that one of these magical occurences ever happened.
Funny, when I first started reading your paragraph, I thought you were going to say that ID amounts to magic - and that evolution's inability to explain something in nature allows us to infer that it was done by magic. In any case, I thought the lead article was rather disappointing. The mathematician used the programming analogy (which I said in an earlier thread was a poor model of evolution which was bound to lead people to erroneous conclusions). He talks about his program "PDE2D" and says that to some future people it might look like it evolved because it is changing and improving over time. Of course, the reason his program "evolves" over time is because he wasn't capable of creating it perfectly the first time. This stands in contrast to the capabilities we typically attribute to God (i.e. capable of doing it perfectly right and fully functional the first time). Humans, however, have limited time and limited abilities, which is why our designs change and improve with time and feedback. And then he harps on the second law of thermodynamics, which has been discussed at length and the argument discredited a long time ago. I was really hoping for something more substantial.BC
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Tom:
...the rule-based, not imperative, programming model is most reasonable. And rule-based systems are much more evolvable than imperative programs.
You still have to come up with the rule-based system’s underlying software and hardware, which, in biology, are enormously complex and sophisticated. A rule-based system doesn’t make the basic problem go away. The problems presented by the origin of novel biological information and large probabilistic hurdles remain, as do the problems of building the computational machinery and its functionality in the first place. The origin of such a system by RM+NS is still nothing more than speculation that requires a very large leap of faith, and is thoroughly undemonstrated to be possible even in principle, much less in fact. Why can’t this be admitted? One of the biggest science stoppers (or even worse, “misdirectors”) is thinking that a problem has been solved when it hasn’t.GilDodgen
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Poul Willy Eriksen: "A peculiarity of design is that the purpose of a designed object is external to the designed object." This is an intriguing statement. There is something inherently true in the view that when humans design an object, the purpose of that design is somehow external to the object. This argument seems worthy of consideration. sidebar: This argument sounds somewhat similar to Dembski's definition of CSI. The "specified" part refers to the fact that the purpose of the information is external to the information. I think, however, of the water pump in my car. The waterpump's sole purpose is found within the organism of the car, rather than having some greater purpose. Ie, if a car were made that didn't use a waterpump, I wouldn't care in the least. Therefore it seems unnecessary to conclude that the flagellum must find purpose beyond what it does for its bacterium without destroying the sense that the flagellum is designed. Now comes the question, does the bacterium have a greater purpose? You somehow happily conclude that it does not. I beg to differ. Philosophers everywhere have looked at the question of purpose, and suggested many possible purposes for the biosphere of which each bacterium is a part. If, for instance, a designer created all that is as a grand experiment, and if the fact that the experiment is ticking along, then the "the purpose of a designed object is external" requirement is fully met. If, as some suggest, the purpose of nature is man, and the purpose of man is to know the designer, then again the "the purpose of a designed object is external" requirement is met. If you say, "we cannot confirm that the biosphere has some external purpose, therefore the biosphere has no external purpose, therefore the 'the purpose of a designed object is external' requirement is not met" I say that you have a weak case at best.bFast
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Gil, Does Sewell ever DO mathematical analysis of evolution (not PDEs), or does he always wave his hands and pontificate? Salvador gives far better arguments than Sewell does. Interestingly, Sewell makes exactly the mistake of assuming an imperative programming model that you did in a recent thread. I pointed out the error to you earlier, but you never responded. Now you reintroduce it here by way of an "authority" shooting from the hip at both evolution and physics. I will say again that IF we buy into the genetic programming metaphor -- the dominance of gene regulatory network models in science indicates that we should not -- then the rule-based, not imperative, programming model is most reasonable. And rule-based systems are much more evolvable than imperative programs.Tom English
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Karl:
“Exploding”? One of the commenters at Pharyngula took a look at Google search trends for the phrase “intelligent design”:
You forgot to mention what I said was exploding: “That’s why this debate is exploding...” The cited Google data say nothing about the size or nature of the debate. I base my claim on the observation that this is a frequent topic on talk radio, TV, the Internet, and in other communications media, that a steady stream of books, pro and con, continues to be published, that IDEA clubs are sprouting up at universities, etc. You saw very little or virtually none of this 10 or 15 years ago. *** My argument is not one from incredulity; it is an argument of inference to the best explanation based on the known causative powers of competing phenomena. And what’s wrong with incredulity anyway? Darwinists are making a fantastic claim: that random mutations and natural selection created nano-scale supercomputers and their programs and data. Why wouldn’t someone be incredulous regarding such a claim, especially when the best evidence presented is antibiotic resistance and lots of made-up stories about how things must have happened?GilDodgen
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
GilDogden wrote (in the OP):
I continue to find it entertaining that many Darwinists are convinced that only religious fanatics, the uneducated, and/or not-very-brights don’t buy their arguments.
It is well known that mathematicians, electrical engineers, and similar people are quite attracted to Intelligent Design. GilDogden wrote (in post #5):
There is only one known, demonstrable source of machinery: design. Living systems are not only full of machines, they are full of hideously complex, indescribably sophisticated information-processing machines.
A peculiarity of design is that the purpose of a designed object is external to the designed object. For intstance a watch has its purpose in the need of us humans to know, what time it is. If the bacterial flagellum is designed, it must similarly have an outside purpose. Did the bacteria design the flagellum for use as a motility system? If not, maybe the flagellum was designed as part of the design of bacteria, that in turn are used by little fairies to move themselves around. The problem with assuming design in nature is that we then need to figure out the purpose of that design. Until that purpose is clearly demonstrated - e.g. by little fairies admitting that they designed bacteria including the flagellum - the Intelligent Design argumentation is still pushed away by Hume's critique. Humans are in general pretty self-centered (which does not necessarily imply egoistic), and if you woek with design - rather than with biology - you may fool yourself into seeing design everywhere. Some ancient Greek philosopher claimed that if cows had gods, they would look like cows. So. let mathematicians say whatever they like - they still have more than two millenia of philosophy to disprove.Poul Willy Eriksen
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
I find it comical that someone should use the expresion "argument from personal incredulity" in reference to ID. What is the alternative but a belief in magic. I have often said that Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice is the model spokesperson for Darwinism. ID offers a rational approach to the history of life while other theories emplore these magical occurences and not just once but thousands of times without ever demonstrating that one of these magical occurences ever happened. It the Darwinists with their weak minds that accept this mythology the most. You would think that after years of trying for whichh they have not shown how this magic happened even once, they would be humble. So even with the magic we often see on a stage there is an intelligence behind it just so as much of the life we see around us. I am sorry but till you get rid of your hocus pocus and demonstrate another mechanism, I will stick with the most obvious explanation, intelligence input.jerry
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Since most IDers accept the generic 'evolution', that comparison means little. Try "Darwinism" and "Intelligent Design": http://www.google.com/trends?q=darwinism%2C+intelligent+design&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all Or the reverse: http://www.google.com/trends?q=intelligent+design%2Cdarwinism&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all Or, "Natural Selection" and "Intelligent Design": http://www.google.com/trends?q=Natural+Selection%2Cintelligent+design&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all Opposite: http://www.google.com/trends?q=intelligent+design%2CNatural+Selection&ctab=0&geo=all&date=alltodd
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Even better, reverse the order of the terms (evolution first, then intelligent design): http://www.google.com/trends?q=evolution%2C+intelligent+design&ctab=1&geo=all&date=all If you squint, you can see the bars representing intelligent design.Karl Pfluger
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
For even more fun, compare them side-by-side: http://www.google.com/trends?q=intelligent+design%2C+evolution&ctab=1&geo=all&date=allKarl Pfluger
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
re Google Thanks for the head's up. It looks like someone on the inside at Google hacked google's database so it never returns anything from uncommondescent.com. I notified google security.DaveScot
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
This is funny. Karl's link to google trends on ID show the greatest interest in 1. United States 2. Austrailia 3. Denmark 4. Netherlands 5. Canada 6. Sweden 7. UK 8. India 9. Germany 10. France Now do the same trend search only for evolution 1. Philippines 2. Portugal 3. Italy 4. Spain 5. France 6. United Kingdom 7. Australia 8. India 9. Poland 10. Chile Interesting differences.DaveScot
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
It doesn\'t follow that arguments from personal incredulity are wrong. Sometimes the incredulity is well deserved. Take the statement there is so much that has been discovered by science no one could ever learn it all. Pure personal incredulity and almost certainly true.DaveScot
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply