DLL Hell, Software Interdependencies, and Darwinian Evolution

_{Gil Dodgen

June 6, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

In our home we have six computers (distributed among me, my wife, and two daughters): two Macs, two Windows machines, and two Linux (Unix) machines. I’m the IT (Information Technology) or IS (Information Systems) guy in the household — whatever is is.

A chronic problem rears its ugly head on a regular basis when I attempt to update any of our computer systems: Software programs are often interdependent. DLLs are dynamic link libraries of executable code which are accessed by multiple programs, in order to save memory and disk space. But this interdependence can cause big problems. If the DLL is updated but the accessing program is not, all hell will break loose and the program will either severely malfunction or suffer an ignominious, catastrophic, instantaneous death. On the other hand, if the program is updated and the DLL is not, the same thing can happen.

I’m still trying to figure out how the circulatory avian lung evolved in a step-by-tiny-step fashion from the reptilian bellows lung, without encountering DLL hell, and how the hypothesized intermediates did not die of asphyxia at the moment of birth (or hatching), without the chance to reproduce.

Of course, we all know that this kind of challenge — no matter how obvious or compelling — presents no problem for the D-Fundies (Darwinian Fundamentalists), who are true believers in the clearly impossible, based on materialistic assumptions in which design could not possibly have played a role.

Comments

AH, 105:
there is interesting and excellent positive experimental evidence that supports the hypothesis that the code that underlies translation is in fact not inert. Rather, there is a decided and demonstrable chemical basis for this code (that we all call the genetic code).
Insofar as the DNA/RNA molecule is code-bearing, it is free to vary its monomers in particular positions of the code. For instance, all 64 possible three-letter combinations have a functionally relevant meaning, and occur. That is, the code does not forbid or restrict sequences unduly. And, if it did -- i.e. if the sequences of A, G, C, T/U were determined by chemical forces -- then it could not be information-bearing. What is chemically and physically driven is the complementarity of the two strands in a DNA sequence, and of course the sugar-phosphate links are the snap-together parts that make chaining possible. But, just like snap-together toy letters, this chaining does not specify which letters go in what sequence. DNA is about information storage in a four-state digital code. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

Pubdef, 97:
Suppose the “design filter” (Dembski’s or generic) is inconclusive . . .
PD, the causal factor explanatory filter rests on looking at aspects of an entity or process, and then it identifies low/high contingency relative to similar starting circumstances. On low seeing contingency regularities for an aspect, it looks for a lawlike model, along lines of Newton's mechnics as an exemplar of explantion by natural law. On seeing high contingency for an aspect, the DEFAULT is chance, showing itself in stochastic scatter of outcomes. It is only on strong positive evidence of signs of intelligence -- i.e of directed, purposeful contingency -- that the filter would infer to ART, not nature. So, the suggested inconclusivity is not a relevant issue. In praxis, if we see less than something like 500 - 1,000 bits of functional i9nformation that exhibits a clear border between function and non-function, the inference will be to chance, stochastic, undirected contingency. (The possibility of incorrectly ruling against design in such cases is cheerfully accepted, as the issue is to be clear on unambiguous cases.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Clive @ 112: "djmullen, ——”Changing the hardware in a computer that’s running a computer simulation would be like changing the laws of physics in the universe that’s running the phenomena being simulated.” Why?" Diffaxial has answered that question pretty well in post #5 in the "A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution" thread. An real life evolving population depends on the laws of physics staying the same. If they change, nothing may work. For instance, if you cut the strength of the strong nuclear force in half, every atom in the universe will explode and both the evolving creatures and the rest of the world will cease to exist. If you change the ADD instruction in the computer hardware to act like a SUB, your program will also explode, taking the simulated evolving creatures and their simulated environment with it. If you want to mimic Darwinian evolution, you have to restrict your mutations to the parts of the program that represent the evolving critter's DNA because that's what changes in evolution. In the new thread, Gil also seems to think that DNA mutations that might kill the simulated organism are prohibited, which is definitely not the case!djmullen_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

Arthur Hunt, ------"I’m a tiny bit concerned that, as happened before, when things get dicey for the ID side, I will again be blacklisted." I'll only blacklist you if you're rude.Clive Hayden_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

pubdef --The problem with rejecting anything as an explanation is that we would end up with a false understanding if it turned out to be a factor. Which is why you shouldn't reject anything a priori such as by declaring ID out of bounds solely because it doesn't identify a designer. It's really no different than saying Darwinism may not be considered because it contradicts Genesis. And it has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager.tribune7_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

pubdef--But you are offering a faith-based explanation, not a material-based one. You are claiming that biodiversity can solely be attributed to random genomic changes fixed by natural selection. Correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless, this can't be demonstrated. argued that scientific investigation within a materialist paradigm does not require any more of an assumption than ID, That would depend on what is being investigated and what is being concluded. (2) argued that the plausibilty of an intelligent designer is at least relevant to a calculus of design detection, and Which it looks like you have backwards -- if the calculus indicates design, a designer is not merely plausible but likely (3) asked a couple of questions, which, by and large, seem to have gone unanswered (e.g., in #51, “Have you ever heard a scientist say “it is not within the purview of science to say what this is or how it works?”). Yes And let me ask one more question before I go off to play — what does “nonmaterialist science” look like? It wouldn't look like ID. How does ID involve the nonmaterial? After you “detect design,” what do you do next? (OK, that’s two questions.) Declare design has been detected which is rather similar to what one would do if one determined an event to have occurred by chance.tribune7_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

#103:
The problem with arbitrarily rejecting intelligence (which is not supernatural, btw) as a factor in the development of life is that would end up with a false understanding of nature if it should be that intelligence is a factor in the development of life.
The problem with rejecting anything as an explanation is that we would end up with a false understanding if it turned out to be a factor. Sounds a bit like Pascal's Wager, to me.pubdef_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

#111:
really don’t mean to nitpick, but one of the conditions of the scenario is that a degree of intelligence would have been required to design the object in question. (This condition is added by asking whether anyone was intelligent enough to have designed it.) If the scenario specifies that intelligence was required, then it was required.
I think we can agree that a degree of intelligence is required to design anything; this is not really germane to the scenario, where the problem can equivalently be stated as "is the object designed?" or "did the object require intelligence to come into being?" If there is nothing inherent about the object to tilt the answer one way or another, you could reasonably decide that it more likely was not designed if you have no designer candidates, or more likely was designed if the time period and location of the object was just swarming with eligible designers.
But if the evidence points to design, and yet we don’t know of any intelligence great enough to design it, what of it? So there’s something we don’t know yet. Would that be the first time, or the last?
OK as far as it goes, but two points: (1) the degree of evidence that we would accept as "pointing to design" varies with our knowledge, or lack thereof, of a capable intelligence; (2) a good faith, scientific, response to "something we don't know yet" is to investigate further, which would be incompatible with any disavowal of inquiry into the nature and methods of the designer/intelligence.
I think we can all agree that if something contains a certain degree of complex, specified information (Alice In Wonderland, for example) that intelligence is the best explanation.
I'm tempted to agree, solely on the ground that "a certain degree" is no specific quantity, and CSI has no established definition, but on reflection, I'll have to say -- no, I don't agree. I don't think that any degree of CSI would convince me to simply ignore the other side of the question -- is there any evidence at all of a plausible designer/intelligence? (I know I'm leaving myself open to a charge of dogmatism, but so be it.)
How does increasing the complexity and function shift us toward blind natural forces as the best explanation, when such forces have no track record for producing anything much simpler?
Well, I'm sure you realize that evolutionary biologists do not concede the point of your last clause. Short of devoting years of study to the subject, I can't evaluate their claims independently, but my minimal toe-dipping into arguments on both sides leads me to give them some credence. Having said that, my answer to the meat of your question ("How does increasing the complexity and function shift us toward blind natural forces as the best explanation") is: if increasing complexity and function moves out of the range of plausible designers/intelligence, then it seems reasonable to consider the alternatives.pubdef_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright Biped, You said:
"I am aware of the research posted. I am also aware of other studies that fundamentally dispute the claim."
I don't suppose you'd care to share?
"This stands against the backdrop of a slew of OOL researchers that are not looking to solve the issue (of the informational organization of organic matter) through chemical affinities. They’ve already been there."
Actually, everyone who works on RNA aptamers - many more people than work on other aspects of the OOL - are exploring exactly this issue, in one way or another. Every new aptamer sheds light into the ways by which the chemical properties of RNA shaped the evolution of the genetic code.
"The speculative counter claim you’ve suggested is a piddle of an idea at the foot of a mountain of contrary evidence."
With all due respect, I'm willing to hazard the guess that you cannot provide any positive experimental evidence that argues against the hypothesis that the chemical properties of RNAs played a direct role in the evolution of the genetic code.
"The nature of the patterns within nucleic sequencing did not come about because it physically had to."
Nothing has to occur. But it is hard to make an evidence-based argument that the genetic code is entirely arbitrary and disconnected fom the chemical properties of RNA. Because there isn't any evidence that supports this position.
"I will be happy to debate you on this point if you like. (pack your lunch)"
If yer really interested, drop a note to one of the recent entries on my blog and I'd be glad to set up a discussion there. I'm not very comfortable with the delay that moderation here causes, and I'm a tiny bit concerned that, as happened before, when things get dicey for the ID side, I will again be blacklisted. That would put a crimp in any discussion.Arthur Hunt_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

djmullen, ------"Changing the hardware in a computer that’s running a computer simulation would be like changing the laws of physics in the universe that’s running the phenomena being simulated." Why?Clive Hayden_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

We have an object, and it’s a tossup whether it is designed or not, but it clearly could not have been constructed by people who lived at any time close to the age of the object. Given that you have no clear indication that it is or is not designed, would you consider it relevant that the only “designers” we know anything about (humans) could not have done it? My point is very simple: to reliably detect intelligent design, you have to consider whether there are any plausible candidates for the intelligent designer (i.e., is there anything or anyone intelligent enough to have designed it?).
I really don't mean to nitpick, but one of the conditions of the scenario is that a degree of intelligence would have been required to design the object in question. (This condition is added by asking whether anyone was intelligent enough to have designed it.) If the scenario specifies that intelligence was required, then it was required. I understand what you mean, and what you're asking. But if the evidence points to design, and yet we don't know of any intelligence great enough to design it, what of it? So there's something we don't know yet. Would that be the first time, or the last? I think we can all agree that if something contains a certain degree of complex, specified information (Alice In Wonderland, for example) that intelligence is the best explanation. How does increasing the complexity and function shift us toward blind natural forces as the best explanation, when such forces have no track record for producing anything much simpler? We must accept the evidence, even if it leaves us with unanswered questions.ScottAndrews_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

I realize it might be a waste of time after 110 posts to go back to the OP, but I just saw this news item disputing the bird-dinosaur link. Ruben has been a big holdout against the "birds are theropod dinosaurs" classifiers. Still publishes in peer reviewed journals, though.Nakashima_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Arthur, I am aware of the research posted. I am also aware of other studies that fundamentally dispute the claim. This stands against the backdrop of a slew of OOL researchers that are not looking to solve the issue (of the informational organization of organic matter) through chemical affinities. They've already been there. The speculative counter claim you've suggested is a piddle of an idea at the foot of a mountain of contrary evidence. The nature of the patterns within nucleic sequencing did not come about because it physically had to. I will be happy to debate you on this point if you like. (pack your lunch)Upright BiPed_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

#104:
But you are offering a faith-based explanation, not a material-based one.
I've quickly gone over my posts and I really can't see that anything I've said can be interpreted as "offering a faith-based explanation." In fact, I don't think I've offered an "explanation" at all, but rather (1) argued that scientific investigation within a materialist paradigm does not require any more of an assumption than ID, (2) argued that the plausibilty of an intelligent designer is at least relevant to a calculus of design detection, and (3) asked a couple of questions, which, by and large, seem to have gone unanswered (e.g., in #51, "Have you ever heard a scientist say “it is not within the purview of science to say what this is or how it works?"). And let me ask one more question before I go off to play -- what does "nonmaterialist science" look like? After you "detect design," what do you do next? (OK, that's two questions.)pubdef_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Gil @68
I never said that “engineers are in a better position to judge biology than biologists.” I’ve claimed that when evolutionary biologists make claims about the creative power of their proposed mechanism of random variation and natural selection to produce systems that give every indication of being highly engineered technology, they should be required to produce at least some empirical evidence — not declarations of consensus within their incestuous group — that the proposed mechanism is actually capable of producing the technology we observe. In no other area of real, hard science would the extravagant, untested, and unverified claims of Darwinists be accepted without challenge.
Meanwhile, the National Academy of Engineering is Celebrating the Achievements of Charles Darwin Gil, since you feel so strongly about this, you really should contact the NAE and straighten them out. Please let us know what they say.Freelurker__{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

#103:
You’ve answered your own question by indicating that it would require technology to ‘construct.’ Can there be technology without intelligence? We might figure out who made it, we might not. But I wouldn’t waste time wondering if natural forces accidentally simulated intelligence and wielded technology in order to produce a seemingly manufactured result.
OK, I guess I made it too complicated. Let me go back to my original hypo, and sharpen it a little. We have an object, and it's a tossup whether it is designed or not, but it clearly could not have been constructed by people who lived at any time close to the age of the object. Given that you have no clear indication that it is or is not designed, would you consider it relevant that the only "designers" we know anything about (humans) could not have done it? My point is very simple: to reliably detect intelligent design, you have to consider whether there are any plausible candidates for the intelligent designer (i.e., is there anything or anyone intelligent enough to have designed it?). If there is not, you can either imagine a greater intelligence (or more experience, knowledge, resources, what have you), or you can consider whether there is something that you can learn something about that could produce complexity.pubdef_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped said recently:
"Genetic transcription and translation is not like a physically-inert language - it is a physically-inert language."
Um, actually, there is interesting and excellent positive experimental evidence that supports the hypothesis that the code that underlies translation is in fact not inert. Rather, there is a decided and demonstrable chemical basis for this code (that we all call the genetic code). Dave Wisker already pointed this discussion to a good review that discusses this evidence.Arthur Hunt_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

pubdef (#98) Congratulations. You got to the crux of the problem. To quote your last paragraph,
Here’s an analogy I’m working on. Imagine an object that we can tell is thousands of years old. Suppose the “design filter” (Dembski’s or generic) is inconclusive; it’s a genuine close case. Now suppose that we are convinced that construction of the object is way outside the technological resources of the people of that time. Is that relevant at all to your conclusion about whether the object is designed? Suppose it is not such a close case; it really seems a lot more specified and complex, but you still have absolutely no plausible explanation for how Fred Flintstone and his crew could have constructed it. Are you going to conclude that some other kind of intelligent being put it there?
Let's supply a real-world example for your analogy. Take Stonehenge. It is complex and specified. I think we all agree that it looks designed. Supposing that we were to determine that early humans in Britain were simply not up to the job of creating the structure with the technology they had. We then have a choice. We can hypothesize that nature made it unassisted, or that this is evidence for non-human intelligence. If the human hypothesis failed, would your fallback hypothesis really be icebergs and floods, or tornadoes? Or would you give a second thought to the alien hypothesis? That is precisely the question that is being asked with regard to the intricate organization of life. If it is beyond our present technology, and we were not there at its inception, is that evidence that nature must have done it somehow, or evidence that some non-human (and superhuman up to now) intelligence designed it and implemented the design? Do you see that as a stupid question, or one on which reasonable people can differ?Paul Giem_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

pubdef--I’m raising a basic concept of ID, the bedrock principle that “intelligence” can provide an explanation that is superior to material-based explanations. But you are offering a faith-based explanation, not a material-based one. OTOH, we do know "intelligence" (design, planned action etc) exists as an influence on the material -- namely creative force can take unrelated objects that would never have otherwise been joined and use them for an effective purpose. And since intelligence exists we know it can be objectified so a methodology can be developed to confidently ascertain design. The problem with arbitrarily rejecting intelligence (which is not supernatural, btw) as a factor in the development of life is that would end up with a false understanding of nature if it should be that intelligence is a factor in the development of life.tribune7_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

pubdef:
There’s an implied “surely you don’t mean that” tone in your questions, but yes, that’s pretty much exactly what I mean. I’m questioning the apparent ID assumption that if something seems way too complex for any intelligence we know of to have made it, all that is needed is more and more intelligence.
Ok, surely you do mean it. If something is so complex that no intelligence known to us could have designed it, then how is less intelligence a better explanation? No one is saying all that is needed is more intelligence. Perhaps more intelligence, more experience, more knowledge, more resources, more time, even more designers.
Now suppose that we are convinced that construction of the object is way outside the technological resources of the people of that time. Is that relevant at all to your conclusion about whether the object is designed? Suppose it is not such a close case; it really seems a lot more specified and complex, but you still have absolutely no plausible explanation for how Fred Flintstone and his crew could have constructed it. Are you going to conclude that some other kind of intelligent being put it there?
You've answered your own question by indicating that it would require technology to 'construct.' Can there be technology without intelligence? We might figure out who made it, we might not. But I wouldn't waste time wondering if natural forces accidentally simulated intelligence and wielded technology in order to produce a seemingly manufactured result.ScottAndrews_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

LegendaryNone, I have put you in moderation, but I have not blacklisted you. Partly to give you an opportunity to straighten up, and partly because I want the satisfaction of deleting your nonsense if you don't.Clive Hayden_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Mr Lengendary1, Your last post was pointless and completely ad hominem. Believe it or not, not all Internet discussion is a race to the bottom. Please don't start down that road.Nakashima_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

PaulN, ------"Not only that Clive, but it’s completely inaccurate. The persons whom he deems to dwell at the bottom of his pretend intellectual hierarchy could run circles around him, and one of them has already proven it with arguments that are actually useful and documentation to back it up." Of course. I took that to be a given.Clive Hayden_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Clive,
——”Kairosfocus: I have to give it to you, you are an intellectual heavyweight on this site. In terms of intelligence, I would say you outrank Dembski by some degrees, Gil by more, Clive by even more than that, and O’Leary and bornagain by leagues and leagues.”
"This is insulting and inappropriate." Not only that Clive, but it's completely inaccurate. The persons whom he deems to dwell at the bottom of his pretend intellectual hierarchy could run circles around him, and one of them has already proven it with arguments that are actually useful and documentation to back it up.PaulN_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

#93:
Given an object of unknown origin, how does increased complexity (we have never observed anything capable of design it) reduce the likelihood of design? From where do you draw such an inference, that vast complexity is evidence against design?
There's an implied "surely you don't mean that" tone in your questions, but yes, that's pretty much exactly what I mean. I'm questioning the apparent ID assumption that if something seems way too complex for any intelligence we know of to have made it, all that is needed is more and more intelligence. I'm saying, instead, that if something is outside of the abilities of any intelligence we know of, it may well be wise to see whether something else may be capable of producing it. Here's an analogy I'm working on. Imagine an object that we can tell is thousands of years old. Suppose the "design filter" (Dembski's or generic) is inconclusive; it's a genuine close case. Now suppose that we are convinced that construction of the object is way outside the technological resources of the people of that time. Is that relevant at all to your conclusion about whether the object is designed? Suppose it is not such a close case; it really seems a lot more specified and complex, but you still have absolutely no plausible explanation for how Fred Flintstone and his crew could have constructed it. Are you going to conclude that some other kind of intelligent being put it there?pubdef_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Legendary1, Of all the philosophical naturalists that have participated on this blog, you are among the easiest to write off. So far your overly generous contributions of broad, general, and judgemental claims that are backed up with no evidence whatsoever is astounding. You, like many other Darwinists only prove our points by brightly radiating typical attacks on credibility, fabricating weak conceptual arguments, making unbased blanket statements about the validity of perfectly rational ID proposals in regard to religious motives, dismissing said proposals off-handedly and pointing fingers at said motives for justification, dismissing said proposals after a rigorous amount of research and evidence have been presented, and also dismissing the negative arguments against your position. Notice how almost every response to your original post by ID proponents here have included citations, links, documents, and evidential claims. You're the one here making some pretty outrageous positive arguments, so guess where the burden of proof lies? If you think you're above the bar of accounting for such a burden, or if you feel your "legendary" status reduces such scientific requirements into a mere triviality, then either you're begging to be dismissed, here to be a troll, you're simply here to prove the points that I made above, or you're here to prove what the new philosophically restricted inquiry known as "science" has become. Personally I'd choose almost all of the above, but then again the burden lies upon you to prove me wrong.PaulN_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Legendary4, ------"Kairosfocus: I have to give it to you, you are an intellectual heavyweight on this site. In terms of intelligence, I would say you outrank Dembski by some degrees, Gil by more, Clive by even more than that, and O’Leary and bornagain by leagues and leagues." This is insulting and inappropriate. If you want to play this game, I think you're a total moron.Clive Hayden_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Legend, 1) Evolution has nothing to do with it. (strawman) 2) I don't deny evolution per se. (another strawman) 3) You have yet to back up any material explantion whatsoever with evidence of any naturally occuring (non-agency) digitally encoded algorythm being communicated between physical objects anywhere in the universe. (empirical evidence needed)Upright BiPed_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

pubdef:
Now, if you have two things that might be designed, and you know exactly what kind of being designed one of them and you have no idea whatsoever who or what designed the other (in fact, have never observed anything remotely capable of such design), are they equally likely to have been designed?
Given an object of unknown origin, how does increased complexity (we have never observed anything capable of design it) reduce the likelihood of design? From where do you draw such an inference, that vast complexity is evidence against design?ScottAndrews_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

#80:
DNA, computer programming and language are similar phenomena, though not exactly identical. There is nothing else like them except intelligently designed.
"Not exactly identical" -- one point of divergence is that we know how computer code is designed and who (what kind of being) designs it. Now, if you have two things that might be designed, and you know exactly what kind of being designed one of them and you have no idea whatsoever who or what designed the other (in fact, have never observed anything remotely capable of such design), are they equally likely to have been designed? Is the first only a little more likely?pubdef_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply