- Share
-
-
arroba
In Response to InVivoVeritas, another commenter writes:
Thanks for an interesting post.
As you’re probably aware, there is a well-known phenomenon in software development called the “requirements explosion”. It’s documented, for example, in Robert Glass’s book, Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering. Even after a specification is complete, and especially as concrete implementation of the specification gets underway (i.e. development of the actual software begins), a plethora of other requirements come out of the woodwork. Several things might account for this, including (1) the requirements were probably incomplete to begin with; (2) not all the implications of the requirements were thought through in advance; (3) the stakeholders don’t like what the “incarnation” of their specifications in functional software actually looks like, or behaves like; etc.
I observe a similar phenomena in the ongoing naturalistic-macroevolution vs. ID debate. The analogy is imperfect, but it seems to me that scientists (ironically, primarily evolutionists) are presiding over an exponential “requirements explosion” of their own creation. The more they drill down into the nitty-gritty details of life, the more strictly bounded and detailed the specifications for viable life become. And, on purely naturalistic grounds, scientists seem less and less able to account for life’s successful implementation(s) of those increasingly complex and demanding specifications.
Kent
Omaha, Nebraska, USA
I find Kent’s post very interesting, because DrRec and Dr. Liddle keep suggesting that it is all really a lot more simple than all that in defense of the un-guided OOL school. Well, DrRec and Dr Liddle, experince suggests that, if anything, we are probably underestimating the problem for un-guided OOL.