Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Polanyi Quote

William Dembski
March 11, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“Neo-Darwinism is firmly accredited and highly regarded by science, though there is little direct evidence for it, because it beautifully fits into a mechanistic system of the universe and bears on a subject — the origin of man — which is of utmost intrinsic interest.”
(Personal Knowledge, p.136)

Comments
"Well, a good example of an automated defence system can be found in bacteria. It is very successful too." - Renier — March 12, 2006 @ 7:46 am That is why untold trillions of bacteria are destroyed every minute. If defense systems caused the same loss of life, I rather think that "successful" would not be the first word that would leap to mind. Probably our first thought would be "flee". But how far could we run in a microsecond?bigtalktheory
March 13, 2006
March
03
Mar
13
13
2006
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
"...it beautifully fits into a mechanistic system of the universe and bears on a subject — the origin of man — which is of utmost intrinsic interest.” A mechanistic universe is comforting to those who would like to think they are the smartest molecules in the universe and that they can be in full control of all that can happen. "I will arrange the universe to suit me," is a vain delusion. Unfortunately, time and space reality suggests intelligent design by intelligence with purposes of its own. This is extremely frightening to people whose own hearts tell them their behaviour has at times been monstrous.Red Reader
March 12, 2006
March
03
Mar
12
12
2006
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Well, a good example of an automated defence system can be found in bacteria. It is very successful too. As for the proposed NORAD system, would that be considered IC?Renier
March 12, 2006
March
03
Mar
12
12
2006
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT

A fully automated (mechanistic) view of the universe could be termed "seamless". In systems design, a seamless system is one which has no "Man in the Loop".

For example, NORAD has considered going to a fully-automated system, in which the launch capability of the US would be placed under the direct computer control, in order to react quickly enough to an attack.

Obviously a risky proposition. If we as designers consider seamless systems to be dangerous with the potential highly unproductive (even self-destructive) outcomes, how can we entertain the notion that the universe runs exactly along these lines?

Darwinist systems are goal oriented with "survival of the fittest" being the goal. If this is the accepted best strategy, then obviously, any defense system should be designed along these lines.

So let's hear from the Neo-Darwinists: do your beliefs extend to defense policies? What would be the outcome of a world containing Neo-Darwinist defense systems?

I claim there has always been a "Man in the Loop", and always will be. Seamless (fully automated or mechanistic) systems are for amusement parks and astronauts.

bigtalktheory
March 11, 2006
March
03
Mar
11
11
2006
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply