At Mind Matters News: The Software of the Gaps: An excerpt from Non-Computable You

Marks: "Those who believe in the coming of Strong AI argue that non-algorithmic consciousness will be an emergent property as AI complexity ever increases. In other words, consciousness will just happen, as a sort of natural outgrowth of the code’s increasing complexity. Such unfounded optimism is akin to that of a naive young boy standing in front of a large pile of horse manure. He becomes excited and begins digging into the pile, flinging handfuls of manure over his shoulders. “With all this horse poop,” he says, “there must be a pony in here somewhere!”" Seversky, "It seems to me that this is evidence that ID is a science-killer not a science." So, according to Seversky, digging thru a pile of horse poop, looking for a pony, is to be considered 'science'? And to point out the obvious fact that horse poop comes from ponies, and ponies don't come from horse poop is to be considered a 'science killer'. Well, contrary to whatever fevered dreams Seversky is willing to entertain because of his a-priori commitment to Atheistic Materialism, to believe that ponies can come from horse poop, and to refuse to ever accept that horse poop always comes from ponies, (and via his refusal to accept the principle of sufficient reason), is to, basically, turn science on its head.

The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause.,,, For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists. For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason#Formulation

Of related note from Marks on the failure of Darwinists to establish their theory as a 'hard science'.

Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia

bornagain77

If you get frustrated because you can't refute ID then you'll claim that ID has stopped your science. But no IDist is going to stop your attempts to falsify design. Go ahead, keep trying. Just don't turn around and blame ID when your attempts prove to be failures and you give up the pointless game. Silver Asiatic

Paxx Spot on. On a serious note, negative scientific results are the strongest ones. If somebody comes up saying, hey, you can't do X because Y, then this is scientific if the statement can be falsified. If the statement turns out to be true, then this is a game changer, not a science stopper. Nobody (earth to Seversky) is saying that for example Goedel's incompleteness is unscientific. EugeneS

Seversky, Nobody is forcing you to stop digging through the poop for the pony. But others have the right to chuckle while watching your attempt. Paxx

As an ID proponent, Marks is committed to the view that human consciousness was created or designed, it could not have evolved. That being the case, AI research that looks at the possible origins of human consciousness is pointless and should be abandoned. End of science.

Pure nonsense. Marks may be right or he may be wrong. No one especially ID is saying that his idea even means to stop the understanding. Question: why are you almost 100% wrong on every comment you make. You have to know it. It's so obvious. jerry

It seems to me that this is evidence that ID is a science-killer not a science. As an ID proponent, Marks is committed to the view that human consciousness was created or designed, it could not have evolved. That being the case, AI research that looks at the possible origins of human consciousness is pointless and should be abandoned. End of science. Seversky