Smithsonian Scientist's Complaint Backed [or "unsupported" -- about the Meyer ID article]

The Washington Times ^ | 16 August 2005 | Joyce Howard Price

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent post and the ping to this sidebar with anguish!

I agree with you that we must look at evolution from at least the level of the biosphere (and perhaps the universe) as an evolution of one.

Also, with regard to randomness, I would like to again mention Wolfram's challenge to Chaitin concerning Omega - namely, that randomness is only pseudo-random because every effect was caused. In that context, only the void can be truly random because there is no physical causation in the void.

I also strongly agree with the fractal understanding suggested by Swenson. Whether thermodynamics, Mandelbrot sets, evolution or cell intelligence the pattern of one foot in the finite and the other in the infinite (the boundaryless meaning as compared to timelessness meaning) seems to recur in space/time.