Replies

“So, God did actually create, but we can rest assure that it was a long time ago. If God is doing anything today, it is only because the universe is a part of God, which means that we are God.”

We are God, says the writer. Same goal as Darwin/Neo-Darwin, and it brings you no farther than where Darwin/neo-Darwin would get you. In all cases, man wanted to be God, and in the end, declares himself to be God.

The problem can be readily seen in the application of genetic algorithms to computer science. They are almost always used for tuning algorithms, not creating them. And, when they are creating algorithms, they are usually very simplistic (see what sorts of things Avida has been making, for instance).

I'm sympathetic to some of the author's overall argument. But this argument is not very strong. He criticizes Genetic Algorithms because they are used for "tuning." But that's what Genetic Algorithms do--they are just optimizers. It's kind of like criticizing a car for only transporting people.

The author should instead look at the Genetic Programming and the NEAT algorithms. Try Banzhaf, Genetic Programming: An Introduction and search for NEAT on the Internet. Both algorithms evolve structure AND tune the structure and do so quite successfully.

He should also look at the Q-beta replicase experiments in biology (probably from the 60's). There is an extensive description of the Q-Beta-Replicase experiments in Banzhaf, cited above.

In all of these situations, there's a lot more going on than just tuning the parameters.

I also don't know where the author gets the claim that the fitness slope is usually downward with natural selection. At least in the computer simulation world, which the author relies on when he refers to Genetic Algorithms, that is manifestly false. Thousands of peer reviewed publications say otherwise.

I believe that God created the universe and Man. But I also believe that God created a universe in which evolution is a force within that universe. So, as I said, I am sympathetic to the author's argument. But I know a little something about evolutionary computation and I can tell you the author's argument in that regard is a thin reed indeed.

Best scientific answers coalesce when one can observe, measure, replicate by experiment, and compute formulas for a phenomenon. Examinations for many physical events have not reached this four-fold rationality.

One example is String Theory, or the “theory of everything”; everything for atomic, micro-processes. Elegant mathematical models utilize eleven dimensions to unify gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear strong and weak forces. Here is computation without experiment, measurement, or observation. Niels Bohr would say, “Yes, yes you have the mathematics. But does it make sense?” Notable critics say scientists utilize mathematics, but inadvertently venture into philosophy or religion. Rigorous debate continues.

At the other extreme is Darwinism, where all is observation. Rigorous measurements and experiments require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history. Scientists contemplate observed phenomenon, and decide evolution explains everything. Yet evolution does fail computational testing with Thermodynamics covering macro-processes in open systems. Natural processes, required by natural selection, create increased disorder and release energy. Even huge net energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge absent intentionality. All debate prohibited.

Darwinist advocates contend arguments against require the intrusion of God. Yet good theologians of desert religions would say a god hedged in by observation, measurement, experiment, and computation ends up equivalent to the golden calf the Israelites constructed in the wilderness. Their God can only be found by mystical, faith encounter. Investigation requires intrusion by scientists equivalent to the theoretical physicists of String Theory, who neither tremble before, nor reach for religious heresy.