The Left’s Intelligent Design Problem by Max Borders

Tech Central Station ^ | 04 Jan 2006 | Max Borders

[r9etb]

Natural selection isn't random either

Mutations are assumed to be random, and those are the supposed analog to individual economic decisions. Because the latter are obviously not random, the analogy fails.

This is a basic, basic, difference. You're looking at the problem from way out in statisticsland, saying that because they look the same from way out there, the underlying mechanisms must be the same as well. But of course they're not the same mechanisms.

Evolution and economics are not the same. One is a statistical result of random mutations. The other is a statistical result of intelligent decisions.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I disagree that you can't make money off short term fluctuations, BTW

You can, but the circumstances where you can are far more limited than most people think - day-trading is essentially high-stakes bookmaking minus the athletic field, for instance. On the other hand, in one of my past lives, I helped put together software for currency arbitrage - don't try this at home kids, the computers are faster than you are ;) - to exploit differences in currency valuations, so it can be done in some situations.

[r9etb]

the mechanism of variation is in general irrelevant to evolution.

And thus, there's no absolutely no scientific problem with the idea that an intelligent designer might be the mechanism of variation, right?

But of course you disagree with that -- it turns out that the mechanism turns out to be quite relevant, precisely at the point of interest in this article. For an economy, the mechanism of variation is intelligent decisions, the very thing that you say cannot be part of a scientific theory of evolution.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Mutations are assumed to be random, and those are the supposed analog to individual economic decisions.

Why, because you say so? The pressures that cause companies (or stocks) to succeed or fail aren't random, and the pressures that cause species to succeed or fail aren't random. Within its limits, the analogy is pretty good.

Evolution and economics are not the same.

Of course they're not - the argument is merely that they are analogous in some respects. Which they clearly are.

[Right Wing Professor]

And thus, there's no absolutely no scientific problem with the idea that an intelligent designer might be the mechanism of variation, right?

That would be no problem for evolution. As I've said before, if you just systematically went through each individual in a population, changing one base at a time, evolution would still occur. However, there's no scientific way we can study the proposition that some Kosmic Kritter is playing games with our genomes.

But of course you disagree with that -- it turns out that the mechanism turns out to be quite relevant, precisely at the point of interest in this article. For an economy, the mechanism of variation is intelligent decisions, the very thing that you say cannot be part of a scientific theory of evolution.

You mean, intelligent ideas like online pet-food sales?

One half of all small businesses close in their first four years.

[Senator Bedfellow]

You mean, intelligent ideas like online pet-food sales?

None of that nonsense for me - all my money's in tulip bulbs ;)

[BMCDA]

Semper Augustus placemarker

[Virginia-American]

Law Merchant

Thanks, I'd never heard of that (and I'm in the midst of reading Tuchman's "Distant Mirror")

[PatrickHenry]

Another service of
Darwin Central
The conspiracy that cares

[skr]

Why is God "weird" for designing animals to behave like animals?

[Right Wing Professor]

Why is God "weird" for designing animals to behave like animals?

Doubtless I'm a prude, but if I were designing a chimpanzee, I would not have included the rather prurient feature of a propensity for trading sex for fruit.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Good book, although Tuchman makes the period seem a bit grimmer than it actually was. Which is actually quite a feat, when you think about it, since the 14th century was kind of grim to begin with. ;)

[narby]

Back in the early 70s I read an article by Noam Chomsky ridiculing the idea that human language could be the product of evolution.

I've read that people who are susceptible to cults of various stripes often will go from one to another without a thought about the inherent contradictions of their beliefs. For example, someone who belongs to an "end-of-the-world-on-this-date-certain" cult may join another similar cult after the first date comes and goes and they're still here.

Perhaps in the 70's Chomsky was a bit more religious (and there are lefty denominations out there) and focused on that rather than his communism beliefs.

[BillyBoy]

>> This article is right on target. Nope, but it's a new spin, anyway. We'll just have to completely ignore the blatant fact that the loudest allies of the Darwinists are left wing activists - the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Morris Dees, Barney Frank, etc... 49 posted on 01/05/2006 5:50:40 AM CST by Hacksaw <<

>> Pennsylvania . . . Gov. Rendell backs evolution... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1494223/posts Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520711/posts Just mythoughts <<

Perhaps you just completely ignore the blantant fact that the biggest ally of creationism-in-public-schools was THIS guy:

William Jennings Bryan

Far left-wing social & labor "activist" and three time DEMOCRAT nominee for President (thankfully defeated by sane rational conservatives)

"Byran was one of the greatest campaigners in American history, making many innovations and made himself the most important leader of the DEMOCRAT party from 1896 to 1912. He graduated from Illinois College in 1881 and after studying law in Chicago he practised law in Jacksonville and Nebraska before being elected to the US Congress in 1890. Bryan soon established himself as one of the nation's leading orators. A Democrat with progressive views, he supported campaigns for graduated income tax, labour unions, and woman's rights. . Defeated in 1894 he was appointed editor of the Omaha World Herald before becoming the Democratic presidential candidate in 1896. In his presidential bids he energetically promoted Free Silver in 1896, anti-imperialism in 1900, and anti-trust in 1908, calling on all "true Democrats" to renounce conservatism, fight the trusts and big banks, and embrace progressive ideas. He became Secretary of State in 1913, under President Woodrow Wilson. In the 1920s he was a strong supporter of Prohibition, but is probably best known today for his outspoken criticism of Darwinism, which culminated in the Scopes Trial in 1925."

Interesting how the "conservative" Tennesseans pushing for creationism had no problem getting in bed with this failed socialist leader to promote THEIR "cause" in the 20s, eh?

[BillyBoy]

See post #154