Darwinian evolution result created by intelligent designer

[T'ai Chi]

Say a person, P_id, favoring the design hypothesis says X existing is an argument against evolution.

Then a person, P_dev favoring Darwinian evolution writes a computer program that shows that under Darwinian evolution X can indeed happen.

Can't P_id just say that the only thing P-dev has shown is that it takes an intelligent designer to make X happen because P_dev wrote the computer program which made X happen?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

T'ai Chi,

Say a person, P_id, favoring the design hypothesis says X existing is an argument against evolution.

Then a person, P_dev favoring Darwinian evolution writes a computer program that shows that under Darwinian evolution X can indeed happen.

Can't P_id just say that the only thing P-dev has shown is that it takes an intelligent designer to make X happen because P_dev wrote the computer program which made X happen?

Well, sure, he can say that. But he'd obviously be wrong, because in the example you gave P_dev did, in fact, show that X can happen under Darwinian evolution. So P_id's argument that he has not shown this is clearly false.

Either the program shows that X can happen under Darwinian evolution, or it doesn't. The argument that showing it via a computer program somehow means that an "intelligent designer" was required to make X happen because the computer program was intelligently designed, is utterly vacuous. After all, writing the computer program and running it didn't make X happen. The entire argument is a complete non-sequitur.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Unnamed]

Say a person, P_if, favoring the intelligent falling hypothesis says the slow fall of a feather is an argument against Newtonian gravity.

Then a person, P_dev favoring Newtonian gravity writes a computer program that shows that under Newtonian gravity and fluid mechanics a feather can indeed fall slowly.

Can't P_if just say that the only thing P-dev has shown is that it takes an intelligent pusher to make things fall because P_dev wrote the computer program which made the feather fall?

 

[Unnamed]

On a more serious note, you seem to think that computer programs are uncapable of creating information that was not included on the original code.

P_dev would tell you that this is not true, as his code demonstrates.

More fundamentally, it is not his code that is creating information, it is the Darwinian process being simulated. (That is the point of my intelligent falling example, where no information is created).

A well-written Darwinian simulation code (where's Paul A. when we need him?) would have no information leaks from the programmer to the evolved result.

 

[CFLarsen]

Say a person, P_id, favoring the design hypothesis says X existing is an argument against evolution.

Then a person, P_dev favoring Darwinian evolution writes a computer program that shows that under Darwinian evolution X can indeed happen.

Can't P_id just say that the only thing P-dev has shown is that it takes an intelligent designer to make X happen because P_dev wrote the computer program which made X happen?

You really don't get it, do you?

If there is Darwinian evolution happening, then there is no intelligent designer.

Your argument reveals, once again, your Young-Earth Creationist stance.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

P_id can certainly argue that (a) the program doesn't correctly simulate those aspects of evolution that are pertinent to the simulation; or (b) that the program simulates something extra that leaks information into the primary simulation. Dembski claimed that Ev did the latter, which resulted in Schneider adding a feature to show that Dembski was wrong. (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/claimtest.html).

But otherwise, as others have said, it makes no sense to claim that, just in principle, an accurate simulation cannot demonstrate something about the natural process being simulated.

Now, an objection to a simulation could lead to something interesting. For example, I constantly ask IDers to point out the reason that prevents small evolutionary changes from adding up to a speciation event (say). The reason could be lack of time, or it could be some sort of biological anti-speciation mechanism. Kleinman thinks it's lack of time. Well, by all means, do the math or find the mechanism and publish!

~~ Paul

 

[Mojo]

If there is Darwinian evolution happening, then there is no intelligent designer.

Or at least no need for one, so the arguments that ID's proponents use that organisms must be designed because they couldn't have evolved fail. So to establish that organisms were designed, they need to find evidence for the existence of a designer or of interventions made by that designer.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Say a person, P_if, favoring the intelligent falling hypothesis says the slow fall of a feather is an argument against Newtonian gravity.

Let's stick to talking about things that are actually being debated.

 

[T'ai Chi]

On a more serious note, you seem to think that computer programs are uncapable of creating information that was not included on the original code.

I am asking a question here.

P_dev would tell you that this is not true, as his code demonstrates.

If his code was intelligently designed, it might indeed demonstrate that the information came from an intelligent designer.

More fundamentally, it is not his code that is creating information, it is the Darwinian process being simulated.

Where did the code come from? Do you not think the code itself is information?

 

[T'ai Chi]

But otherwise, as others have said, it makes no sense to claim that, just in principle, an accurate simulation cannot demonstrate something about the natural process being simulated.

It demonstrates something about the natural process being simulated, that's for certain.

But it also can demonstrate that, since the code is designed by an intelligent designer, that the result is due to an intelligent designer.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If one is saying the code is a simulation of the real world, what in the real world would be analogus to the intelligence who created the code?

 

[Apathia]

It does not follow.

It does not follow that if a computer simulation of a natural process can be written, the natural process isn't natural but artificial.
("Artificial," an artifice, a thing fashioned by a maker as opposed to the end product of a natural process.)

 

[Darat]

This is nothing more than window dressing for "turtles all the way down".

 

[T'ai Chi]

This is nothing more than window dressing for "turtles all the way down".

But either way it is turtles all the way down. Some just want to beg god after god, and some just want to claim no matter what it is natural all the way down.

Either way, 'what came before' is a killer question.

Now what?

 

[T'ai Chi]

It does not follow that if a computer simulation of a natural process can be written, the natural process isn't natural but artificial.
("Artificial," an artifice, a thing fashioned by a maker as opposed to the end product of a natural process.)

What if the code writer claims his program closely models nature?

If he doesn't, then the simulation isn't very useful.

 

[RandFan]

T'ai Chi,


Well, sure, he can say that. But he'd obviously be wrong, because in the example you gave P_dev did, in fact, show that X can happen under Darwinian evolution. So P_id's argument that he has not shown this is clearly false.

Either the program shows that X can happen under Darwinian evolution, or it doesn't. The argument that showing it via a computer program somehow means that an "intelligent designer" was required to make X happen because the computer program was intelligently designed, is utterly vacuous. After all, writing the computer program and running it didn't make X happen. The entire argument is a complete non-sequitur.


Dr. Stupid

Damn you to hell for not posting here as often as you used to.

Thanks for the post though. Well take what we can get and be happy with that.

ETA: Just to avoid any confusion. I miss your involvement in this forum. You are one of my favorite posters. I understand that some people have a life and there is a limit to swatting the same old tired flies.

Thanks for the memories.

 

[CFLarsen]

But either way it is turtles all the way down. Some just want to beg god after god, and some just want to claim no matter what it is natural all the way down.

Either way, 'what came before' is a killer question.

Now what?

Science is advocating the "Turtles all the way down" explanation? Science?

That has to be the most idiotic, ignorant, narrowminded argument of all times.

What if the code writer claims his program closely models nature?

If he doesn't, then the simulation isn't very useful.

How "closely"? That, to paraphrase Shakespeare, is the question.

A question you don't dare answer.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Either way, 'what came before' is a killer question.

...snip...

It's only a "killer question" when you have used it as part of your argument to "prove" that "god did it".

 

[Apathia]

What if the code writer claims his program closely models nature?

If he doesn't, then the simulation isn't very useful.

It makes no difference how well it models. It does not follow that what is modeled is artificial itself.

 

[Apathia]

It makes no difference how well it models. It does not follow that what is modeled is artificial itself.

Let me add something else for clarity's sake:

A successful model not only doesn't prove an natural object or process is artificial itself, it doesn't prove anything about a Creator or a Designer of nature.

It also doesn't prove that natural processes came about by or solely by natural processes. Computer models of evolution may at best show that its possible for the amazing things we see in nature to come about naturally without a tinker's hand.

Proof for either ID or Evolution is not provided.