Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 21, 2010, 18:07 (5198 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
> ... it's based on an unnecessary presupposition: "You have to prove that the underlying system has a distinct goal in mind." Why? ... 
> -While the artistic scenario might be possible--we are limited to non-subjective tools here. Dembski asserts that a goal IS in mind, and most ID advocates also claim a teleology based on the evidence that life seems to "move upwards" in terms of complexity. And some ID advocates claim that God is actively working on his creation as we move forward. This means that to prove their case, they need to prove a goal exists. -The ultimate goal for ID is to demonstrate that intelligence is *necessary* for life to take the forms it has, that without intelligence nothing that we see would be possible. So therefore, assuming that intelligence is necessary, one must then detect intelligence, as at least in my case I cannot accept a mere observation that life is complex and use a lazy induction to generalize the claim. The onus is on the ID position to demonstrate exactly what kind of intelligence is needed, because I will argue that biochemical systems at best use only a perceptual intelligence, and if THAT is the only kind of intelligence needed for basic life processes, then what exactly does it say about the intelligence of God?-An often repeated argument that you use a form of, is that if it takes "Nobel-winning" intellect to deduce the mechanisms of life, then it must have taken a similar intellect to have manufactured the mechanism. There are many reasons I oppose this argument, but for the one related to this discussion--It matters not that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen for it to be useful, and it certainly requires no intelligence to use it. And it requires no intelligence to make it--it's made and destroyed regularly on the moon through what is essentially a mechanical interaction that requires no intelligence. (Going back to an old article I posted here.) -> It seems to me that you're attacking one particular concept of design ... namely, that the designer knew from the start what he was aiming at. Personally, I much prefer the idea that God learns as he goes along. If I were a believer, this would be the sort of design I would envisage, partly because God would be bored stiff knowing the outcome of his experiment, and partly because it would explain the enormous variety of life that preceded our own form. If we were the "goal", why did he bother with all those now extinct species?
> -When I start with an idea to solve a programming problem, I will often (when not formally designing) try several ideas and methods, more or less settling on the one that best achieves my goal. Maybe the creator's goal was to create an intelligent species and continuously ran into roadblocks in those "dead end" creatures. Mammals had a unique brain structure compared to all other animals, perhaps it took that long just to find the "right" branch to start creating his goal of humans. -> ...would materialists have a positive case. Otherwise, it's one faith versus another. 
> -Science is based on a very high degree upon materialism. Materialism is often used synonymously for scientific naturalism, and vice-versa. If you're going to prove a case via science, you have to accept some of the materialist assumptions or you can't really trust science. I used to think that you could draw a line between Materialism and naturalism, but we humans have made these terms so synonymous that I don't know what specifically to use anymore. -My complaint is really (surprise) of a practical nature. ID advocates haven't done much to further any techniques or systems to help tease out intelligence from nature. From a researcher's perspective it has been a dead-end. (Like String Theory.) It's a philosophical interpretation of dubious utility. -> ... "Those who would assert that life was designed with a particular goal right from the outset now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one." ...-I'd accept that rephrasing, but how to phrase David's in a form that is actually useful from a research perspective I shall leave to him!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"