Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Stephen Meyer on Engineers and ID

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this, Part 2 in a series of posts based on the Q&A section in the recently released DVD, Case for a Creator, I offer the text of Meyer’s response to the question, Why are many engineers intrigued by intelligent design theory?

As a software engineer — in both the artificial-intelligence and aerospace research and development fields — I recognized that there were huge problems with the thesis that natural selection and random variation could produce complex information-processing systems, because designing such systems is what I do.

Here are Meyer’s comments in answer to the question posed to him above:

The origin of a new structure, of a miniature machine, or an information-processing system, or a circuit, is an engineering problem. Oftentimes people have criticized the intelligent design movement because there are so many prominent professors of engineering in our number. But we don’t make any apologies for that, because engineers are precisely the scientists that know what it takes to design things, to build things. And the question of origins is essentially a question of engineering. How did these systems get built? And when you have so many top-level professors of engineering — in mechanical, electrical or software engineering — saying, I think we’re looking at systems that clearly show evidence of design, I think the Darwinists have a serious problem. If they can’t persuade those people, that the 19th-century mechanism of selection and variation is up to this task, I think that the theory is in serious trouble.

Comments
I've made more that 1,500 hang glider flights, and have logged nearly a thousand hours of airtime in hang gliders since 1973. I've spent many hours soaring in thermals with birds of prey, and they are fascinating to watch in their native environment -- the sky. Since hang gliders and a soaring birds fly at approximately the same speeds and with the same sink rate, one can observe these incredible creatures in a way no one else can. And they like to show off. They will pull up close, fly wingtip-to-wingtip with a hang glider pilot, give furtive glances, fold their wings and go into a high-speed dive, deploy their wings and do an aerobatic maneuver, then pull up close again and look back, as if to say, "Can you do that?" This kind of flight-control system is not even on the imaginary horizon of the best aeronautical engineers. Did it come about through random errors and natural selection? Please, give me a break.GilDodgen
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Russ wrote: "Not to digress too much, but could someone please explain to me the reason that the term “natural selection” is always used when referring to NDE, but “random mutation” is generally dropped. Are Darwinists uncomfortable with how layperson will interpret the word “random” or is there some other reason the RM of “RM + NS” is so often dropped? " Columbo responds: Prior to the time that Bill Dembski 1) made explicit the Explanatory Filter as that means by which scientists detect intelligent causes, and 2) applied the No Free Lunch theorems to biology, Darwinists placed great emphasis on the notion that random processes plus long periods of time not just COULD, but WOULD necessarily produce all the variations needed for NS to select even the most exquisit designs. Since Dembski's work however, Darwin's apologists (e.g. Dawkins) insist that evolution is anything BUT random. One gets the imression that NS can work on any variation at all, even that which is only available from Mendelian genetics, to produce virtually any organism in biology. I think Russ has made an astute observation here. It is not unlike Darwinists' responses to origin of life issues. Prior to Charles Bradley's (et al) critique of abiogenesis, there was plenty to read from Darwinists on the subject. Since that time however, and apparently due to the numerous dead-ends in the field, not much now seems to be asserted by Darwinists except that it is not a problem of biology. Good point Russ!Columbo
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
Collin, “intelligent selection.” Is this a part of ID theory? Has anyone written much about it (in terms of a designer, not in terms of human breeders or whatever)? Maybe this is what “theistic evolution” is about? I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect you are right and it's a very interesting question. It would be great to pursue this kind of thing if the moderator here were not so busy interfering with the discussion and seeking to discipline me by changing my private user profile: I’m going to go ahead and replace it with a link to your NASA page in the hope that will encourage you to cease the logical fallacies, appeals to crank authorities I appreciated the comments from you, benkeshet, malnutritious, russ, Borne, Joseph, and all, but I feel that I am being harassed by the moderator, especially in view of the above quote from him. So y'all enjoy, and I'll see ya around. Bottom line: the quote I cited above from Saint Exupéry, regarding design. But keep in mind that guy is a real crank... ;=)Tom Moore
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Tom Moore: "Just as artificial selection can guide evolution and produce all manner of derivative life forms, ..." What do you mean exactly about "all manner of derivative life forms"? I wonder if you're a bit uninformed here. BTW, since this is 'Engineer's Day', I have a degree in engineering; but I also have a degree in Biology--both from a long time ago. As to biology, the field is so vast that one takes general type classes in which evolution is presupposed but NEVER justified. It seems that it's left to the evolutionary biologists to do so. Mayr is considered one of the best, and when one looks at his explanation for speciation one finds there nothing that is intellectually compelling. It reads, more or less, like simply hand-waving.PaV
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
I guess it was a non-random catstrophe that ended the (alleged) reign of the dinosaurs. The Earth/ Moon system formation? Non-random giant impact hypothesis. The (formation of the) laws that govern nature? The non-random "they 'just are'" hypothesis. Why does DNA replicate and code for amino acid sequences? The non-random "it 'just does'" hypothesis. All imperfect surviving replications? The non-random "they 'just did'" hypothesis. Those that didn't survive? The non-random "they'just didn't' make it" hypothesis...Joseph
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
DaveScot, I appreciate your having moderated through my posts today. It's been a good discussion. IMHO, you seem to jump all over dissenting views and are too proactive for a moderator. It's your site, but don't you think some dissent makes for better discussions? I'll excuse you for making such a fuss about outing me as a NASA employee since you evidently suspected me of circumventing your moderation power. I confess I expected worse than I got and was prepared to complain about it on my personal site, but that won't be necessary. Hope you'll be more trusting next time...Tom Moore
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Tom Moore mentioned "intelligent selection." Is this a part of ID theory? Has anyone written much about it (in terms of a designer, not in terms of human breeders or whatever)? Maybe this is what "theistic evolution" is about?Collin
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Columbo quoting text: "The designing is performed, of course, by natural selection. Natural selection takes account not only of how the structure performs a particular function, but also how this interacts with all the other processes the organism must carry out." Not to digress too much, but could someone please explain to me the reason that the term "natural selection" is always used when referring to NDE, but "random mutation" is generally dropped. Are Darwinists uncomfortable with how layperson will interpret the word "random" or is there some other reason the RM of "RM + NS" is so often dropped?russ
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
malnutritious Design in essence leads to rigid purposeful results. This is patently untrue as a generalization and in particular to information systems. Design in information systems has led to modular components in both hardware and software that can be combined in different ways to achieve different results. Your computer hardware can be quickly reprogrammed to do many unique tasks. There is little that is rigid about it like a bridge or a dam that serves an explicit purpose and can't be quickly reemployed for another purpose. That said, I can assure you that random mutations to the software in your computer will not result in any noticeable improvements. At best they will go unnoticed and at worst they will transform it from a functional information processing tool into a poorly designed boat anchor. This mirrors the way random mutations in the code of life effect living things. At best they go unnoticed and at worst they turn a functional organic machine into worm food. DaveScot
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Tom Moore I'm quite certain I spent all the time or more on Wolfram that he deserves. Your switch of URL was intended to air your discontent at my not approving an unconstructive comment you made. I'm going to go ahead and replace it with a link to your NASA page in the hope that will encourage you to cease the logical fallacies, appeals to crank authorities, and thus make my job easier. If if weren't for your position at NASA, an organization I have the utmost respect for, I would've banned you for making me waste my time googling up the skinny on Wolfram. Don't refer me to any crank science again.DaveScot
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Me three! Yeah, yet another software engineer. I find Steve's statement totally true. How can it be other? Biological systems exhibit genius beyond genius, clear purpose, careful forethought and intimate knowledge of external environmental factors. Far beyond anything humans have ever accomplished or even thought of. quote Tom Moore : "...an evolutionary process sets in, involving many generations of iterated designs. Sometimes, as in “genetic algorithms”, systems are even “designed” to evolve and to seek their own solutions. But this is controversial departure from normal mainstream engineering, where the requirements must be clearly stated before the design work can begin. And the design is carefully crafted to be as simple as possible. Truly complex systems cannot be designed. They must evolve. " I find this statement completely ludicrous, not to mention way out of reality. No software system evolves without intelligent designers planning the "evolution". And even then it never "evolves" (and never will) anywhere near the sophistication of DNA w/o intelligence driving it. In fact AI systems tend to evoke entropy the more they are left alone, building their own knowledge bases, making their own knowledge base, algorithm based decisions . They don't get "smarter". Rather like Ernest P. Worrell, they tend to get "stupider and stupider" - left to temselves. Randomness never produces order and even the most advanced AI systems today come no where near what one sees in the movies. So, I find these comments fantastical and totally out in the boonies. Neither information systems, nor mechanical systems evolve by themselves without intelligent planning - and even then they are very limited. Period.Borne
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Designed systems are intended to function as per specifications. Unintended beneficial side effects can be observed and maintained in future designs, but this is not by design. It is akin to natural selection it is entirely accidental and wholly selected for. Design in essence leads to rigid purposeful results. In contrast a biological system is unbeleiveable flexible. Every protein in an organism is built the same way, by linking together amino acids. Every structural protein, signaling moloecule, enzymes, etc are all a result of the same process. And the resulting behaviour is unpredictable depending on the very complex interactions between the various molecules all based on natural physical laws. This type of system is highly adaptable. A small change can lead to disaster but can also lead to an improved design. A small change in an engineered product will 9 times out of 10 lead to a failure of some sort. Now a days we use computers to test out our designs first in simulated environments, before spending the money on expensive prototyopes. In any case it is iterative, even if many of the iterations came before we even became engineers.malnutritious
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
DaveScot, It doesn't take an appeal to authority to define complexity, but I thought Wolfram's use of "computational irreducibility" might appeal to folks here. As for his work and reputation, IMHO you have not looked at this carefully enough yet, and his work, while arguably overblown, is significant and deserves to be taken seriously, particularly on the current topic. I'm not trying to be anonymous. But my interest in this is personal, not family or professional in nature. My personal, family, and professional sites are linked for convenience to those who want to check me out. The switch of URL was intended to get you quickly to the most relevant of them.Tom Moore
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Tom Moore On Wolfram. I've certainly seen adverts for Mathematica over the years but never had occasion to use it. I wasn't aware of anything else about him but at your prodding it looks as though he was something of child prodigy that quickly petered out and became a crank with little significant to his name except Mathematica. Here's a list of reviews of his "work". http://www.math.usf.edu/~eclark/ANKOS_reviews.html This one is pretty funny: A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram A Rare Blend of Monster Raving Egomania and Utter Batshit Insanity I've found that people who point to cranks as authorities are usually cranks themselves. I note by the URL you linked with your name you work at the Goddard Spaceflight Center http://temoore.gsfc.nasa.gov/ I note you also changed your link to something else after I slapped your wrist for using the true scotsman fallacy and then using the crank scientist Stephen Wolfram in an appeal to authority. Smart decision to hide your link to NASA but I'm afraid it's too late. Do your colleagues know you're a fan of Wolfram's cellular automata crank science? P.S. Don't bother linking to your personal blog in an attempt to get around the moderation filter here. DaveScot
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
benkeset, When humans intervene in evolution via animal husbandry and domestication, they do get some credit for what comes out of that, I agree. But in essence, they/we are acting as part of the "random forces of nature" on the species we domesticate. I'm open to argument, or at least I aspire to be open. But my sense is that the forces of nature are anything but random. The requirement that an organism must survive in a specific environmental niche very powerfully constrains the realm of strategies that will work. Intelligent selection (distinguished from design) is doubtless more efficient than natural selection, using models to avoid blind alleys and speeding the process. But what is there in natural history that is suggestive of efficiency or expedited outcomes? Re: your analogy: first, an airplane is a relatively simple system because its essential behaviors are predictable using much less computation than nature uses to govern that behavior (involving every molecule of air with which it interacts). It is therefore "computationally reducible" to mathematical models. Second, to the degree that airplanes have become truly (sorry, that DaveScot fallacy again) complex with development, e.g. the space shuttle, it is clear that we are still busy escaping from the blind alleys caused by unintended consequences. Our designs are in the process of being influenced by the "random forces of nature" and we are again part of those forces, and a part that is distinctly non-random.Tom Moore
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
I too am an engineer (Mechanical) and I too am persuaded that biology exhibits engineering marvels throughout. And although many of my colleagues agree with me that biology cannot have arisen by rm + ns, amazingly there remain nevertheless many talented engineers that reject this conclusion. It has been my experience that they hold this view essentially for one of two reasons. Either they casually accept the teaching they received in high school, and that is reinforced in popular literature and media, or 2) they are already committed materialists/atheists/anti-religionists, etc, and so deny design for ideological reasons. I have yet to meet an engineer that looks at biology and concludes that it couldn’t have come about by design because if so, it is just too poorly-conceived and ad-hoc. I have in my library a book entitled “Mechanical Design in Organisms,” (Wainwright, Biggs, Currey and Gosline; Princeton U Press, 1976), wherein the authors explore in depth the engineering principles apparent in many biological structures. Now, we are all familiar with the many assertions made by the champions of evolution to the effect that “evolution is the fundamental principle of biology without which biology cannot be understood.” Yet, in this book, with the exception of a brief nod to evolution in the introduction, the subject just does not come up. On the other hand, it is replete with reference to design. At the cost of making this post too long, I cannot resist quoting a couple of passages for your entertainment. The first is from the introduction, to show you the reference to evolution: ---- The idea that biological materials and structures have functions implies that they are ‘designed’; hence the book’s title. We run into deep philosophical waters here, and we can do little but give a commonsense idea of what we mean. In or view structures can be said to be designed because they are adapted for particular functions. They are not merely appropriate for these functions, because that could happen by chance…. The designing is performed, of course, by natural selection. Natural selection takes account not only of how the structure performs a particular function, but also how this interacts with all the other processes the organism must carry out. Readers who are unhappy about using the word ‘design’ in such a context as that of this book may like to read WILLIAMS (1966), SOMMERHOFF (1950) AND RUDWICK (1964). A goal in making this book has been to state ‘Principles of Design’ for materials, skeletal elements and entire systems… and present them with great enthusiasm and some anxiety to biologists. ----- I offer the next quote as one of the ubiquitous references to exquisite, optimized design: ---- Maxwell’s lemma … predicts that a least volume system occurs when 1) all members are either in tension or in compression and 2) all members are equally stressed near their breaking stresses. Since an orb web satisfies these criteria, it may be regarded as a minimum volume (therefore also minimum weight) structure for resisting forces in the plane of the web. ---- Generating imaginative “just so” stories all along the way, while studying such beautifully elegant designs - so as to maintain a materialistic, God-denying view of nature - seems as unnecessary and inefficient to me as does a spider spinning excessively heavy, or unnecessarily complex webs. ColumboColumbo
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Tom Moore "It is spurious indeed to award design credit for features with unintended consequences." Credit for creation of the feature perhaps, but not for observation, analysis, and incorporation of those unintended consequences into the subsequent design. You cannot say an engineering R&D team that observes, analyzes and plans is equal to random forces of nature. Or are you saying that 777s evolved from the Wright Flyer in a directly analogous way to what evolutionary biologists claim about Homo sapiens evolving from some ancient hominid. Regardsbenkeshet
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
@DaveScot, @Russ Perhaps it does take someone with familiarity of factory automation/supply chain management/design principles to get ID off the ground. And, I am aware that science is as much about propping up existing theories as finding new ones. (I don't think it's an either/or - I think it's a both ... some scientists occasionally define new ways of thinking, most don't and just "confirm" what is already believed. Science is certainly not alone its confirmation bias, as that is a trait that all of us have to work constantly to overcome.) Perhaps my interest in ID is materializing when it is still in such an early stage of development that it has not presented a body of evidence that will convince biologists and physicists and others to join in. Perhaps, as you say russ, there is no convincing, now or ever, despite what the ID movement comes up with. And perhaps X does equal zero, and, if not, perhaps it doesn't equal ID. I don't know. I would just be more likely to be convinced if there were more non-engineers/lawyers/philosophers on board with it. Sometimes timing is everything. I sometimes feel that I was born at the wrong time, so to speak, in that ID will not develop to the point of convincing non-engineers until after I croak, just as string theory may still be "hoping for confirmation" when my last breath is drawn.undecided
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
undecided Some people are better equipped to grasp the complexity and know what it takes to make such complexity materialize. I say to you that people who understand modern factory automation and supply chain management are the best equipped to grapple with the complexity of the simplest free living cell. How much do biologists know of factory automation and supply chain management?DaveScot
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
@DaveScot, You have a good point. It’s just that it seems to me that biologists would be as interested as engineers in determining whether ID is the “X” in RM+NS+X. Comment by undecided — January 7, 2007 @ 1:15 pm What about biologists who've spent 20-30 years writing papers and books and teaching students that there is no "X"? How eager will they be to acknowledge that RM + NS can't do what they've been saying it can, and possibly have to admit that they've wasted their professional lives on the modern equivalent of alchemy? Will they take kindly to colleagues who attempt to do so? As Jonathan Wells has indicated, science is not primarily about discovering new theories, but about propping up and modifying current ones.russ
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Tom Moore You obviously don't understand the "true Scotsman" fallacy because you went right ahead and used it again. True complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Claiming Wolfram knows better is just an appeal to authority. You're boring me, Tom.DaveScot
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
DaveScot, Not so fast. There is a clear definition of "true complexity" given by Wolfram (A New Kind of Science) as "not obviously simple" or "computationally irreducible." My point is that engineers do not intentionally design systems that are not simple and predictable enough that their behavior can be predicted easily with modest computational resources. When they do, it is because they do not comprehend the consequences of their own design in advance. Artificial evolution occurs when the unintended advantages of a design are exploited in future designs, just as in artificial selection for genetic traits. It is spurious indeed to award design credit for features with unintended consequences. Engineers (and purveyors of false Gods) may like to get credit for that, but they deserve none. Just as artificial selection can guide evolution and produce all manner of derivative life forms, artificial design ultimately benefits from trial and error and exploitation of unintended features, but leads to complex systems that are "computationally irreducible", whose behavior is no longer practically predictable. Wolfram understands this better than most of us. I recommend his book.Tom Moore
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
“ID field” is dominated by engineers and philosophers and lawyers. Undecided, that's an interesting observation. Philosophers and lawyers (and journalists, let us not leave out Denyse) often find themselves evo-skeptics because the behavior of evo-supporters drastically clashes what they claim to believe i.e. rather than addressing empirical claims via the scientific method they resort to politics, boycotts, back-fence gossip, lies and distortions, and name-calling. And that makes a good philosopher/lawyer/journalist go hmmmm. Further, when one learns that things claimed to be well-established (i.e. put in textbooks without qualifications) are shown to be false, one wonders why they were published as well-established in the first place and that leads one to think there is something going on besides science. IOW, go hmmmm. But there are those with strong creditionals in biological fields such as Behe, obviously, John C. Sanford, and Raymond Vahan Damadian who are are IDers. Actually, Sanford and Damadian might object to that term since they are YEC creationists.tribune7
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
@DaveScot, You have a good point. It's just that it seems to me that biologists would be as interested as engineers in determining whether ID is the "X" in RM+NS+X. But, you are right that some folks are more interested in analyzing the cause of perceived patterns than are others.undecided
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
undecided Evolutionary biologists are not experts in design. There's little traditional biology involved in the reverse engineering of the basic molecular machinery in living cells. People that are intimate with modern, state-of-the-art factory automation and supply chain management are quite at home in studying these processes. Your basic free living bacteria is no more or no less than a tiny automated factory complex.DaveScot
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Tom Moore Truly complex systems cannot be designed. They must evolve. As long as we're using the true scotsman fallacy then I'll simply rejoin by saying that no truly complex system can evolve without intelligent guidance. So there.DaveScot
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
I disagree. Engineers design systems to be as simple and predictable as possible based on the requirements with which they are faced. As the requirements force them to design more complex systems, for example computers and networks expected to exhibit some "artificial intelligence", an evolutionary process sets in, involving many generations of iterated designs. Sometimes, as in "genetic algorithms", systems are even "designed" to evolve and to seek their own solutions. But this is controversial departure from normal mainstream engineering, where the requirements must be clearly stated before the design work can begin. And the design is carefully crafted to be as simple as possible. Truly complex systems cannot be designed. They must evolve. "You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away." --Antoine de Saint-ExupéryTom Moore
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
I am an engineer (although my degrees are more than 30 years old at this point) and I suppose that is a key reason I am intrigued by ID. I must say, though, I would be more intrigued and impressed by ID if there were a larger segment of Biologists who expressed interest in it. I only visit this blog and TT for ID info, along with evolvingthoughts and PZ's for opposing views, but my impression is that the "ID field" is dominated by engineers and philosophers and lawyers. Clearly many of these have done an indepth study of some aspects of biology, but I would feel ID more "credentialed" if there were more biologists involved in it. If I am reading "the ID crowd" wrong, then I'd love to be corrected. For five years following my wife's passing, I have tried hard to figure out what to truly believe in. ID would give me some hope that there is an intelligence "behind all of this," and therefore some hope for survival of consciousness, but I don't want that hope if it is false. [I am not much of a fan of Dawkins (I think he is wasting his talents), but his synopsis that the universe is indifferent to us is seems to reflect reality pretty well.] The more I can become convinced that ID is supported by people who wouldn't normally be thought of as supporters, and who are highly regarded in their field of biology, the more I will be inclined to dig into it.undecided
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
I agree as well. People who actually have to design Irreducible Complex systems are very sensitive to the design found in biological structures, whereas as un-tenured (and tenured) evolutionary biologists can just wave their hands and say "Mutations did it!". I agree with Steve also when he says that, if Darwinists have problems in convincing smart engineers that unguided forces could generate such bio-systems, then their 19th century Victorian myth is in trouble.Mats
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
I always get told that seeing that I am an engineer (electronics) that I don't have the relevany education to make a determination pertaining to biology. However I have always thought as Dr Meyers answered above. And in my defense I present the following: Approaching Biology From a Different Angle
Systems biology is a loosely defined term, but the main idea is that biology is an information science, with genes a sort of digital code. Moreover, while much of molecular biology has involved studying a single gene or protein in depth, systems biology looks at the bigger picture, how all the genes and proteins interact. Ultimately the goal is to develop computer models that can predict the behavior of cells or organisms, much as Boeing can simulate how a plane will fly before it is built. But such a task requires biologists to team up with computer scientists, engineers, physicists and mathematicians. The structure of universities makes that difficult, Dr. Hood said.
Joseph
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply