I don't think such a process can be called evolutionary anymore than the metamorphosis of the butterfly is evolutionary, or indeed the growth of an egg into a full organism is. It is some form of programmed transmutation. I have no idea how much randomness vs determinism this davison fellow suggests is involved, but it sounds like randomness is almost totally ruled out as part of new species generation.
ID is against atelic forms of evolution, specifically, the idea that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to do it.
The evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection inspired the computer science field of evolutionary computation. Solutions to complex problems can be generated using the principles of mutation and selection in genetic algorithms and genetic programming. So random change and selection are capable of design. Evolution critics do not deny this, but level the charge that such algorithms are front-loaded by their designers.
I disagree with that assertion, but nontheless they see that darwinian evolution would be capable of design if it were front-loaded. What does front-loaded mean in this situtation? Well there are two critical parts of genetic algorithms to design:
1) A fitness function, which estimates how fit any given individual is.
2) A format for the genome that represents each individual.
Getting these two right is what makes or breaks the effectiveness of the algorithm to design a solution.
So if this is all the front-loading is then front-loaded biological evolution would simply involve designing a fitness function for life (which is redundant as it is inherent in nature - ie the fittest survives tautology), and a format for the genome that makes the algorithm effective.
Basically what I am getting at here is that a better and simpler explaination of front-loading exists than the one davison presents: The first single-celled lifeform on earth was intelligently designed in a way that allowed mutation and natural selection to produce the diversity of life we see today and in the fossil record. That is true evolutionary frontloading and is the position many theist evolutionists have.
Yes I know that the ID movement is against the "idea that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to do it", but that is just downright suspicious as random mutations and natural selection are perfectly consistant as a front-loaded intelligently designed algorithm.
"I have no idea how much randomness vs determinism this davison fellow suggests is involved, but it sounds like randomness is almost totally ruled out as part of new species generation."
Pretty much yes for primary structures.
"The evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection inspired the computer science field of evolutionary computation."
No, it simply renamed non-deterministic computing.
"Solutions to complex problems can be generated using the principles of mutation and selection in genetic algorithms and genetic programming."
Non-determinism only acts beneficially when aided by the program. Basically, the difference between a blind and an assisted search. If you will note most "evolutionary" algorithms are very, very assisted -- at minimum in their semantic constraints on the possible datasets. You should read Dembski's Searching Large Spaces:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.03.Searching_Large_Spaces.pdf
The point that ID makes is not that stochastic processes don't operate, its that stochastic processes are useless unless assisted in weeding out a large portion of the solution domain. Evolutionists completely ignore this when they point to "evolutionary" algorithms.
"So random change and selection are capable of design."
No, they aren't. Only when guided by an overseeing process that limits the choice available drastically (i.e. it only works when designed).
"1) A fitness function, which estimates how fit any given individual is. 2) A format for the genome that represents each individual. Getting these two right is what makes or breaks the effectiveness of the algorithm to design a solution."
Exactly! The semantic constraints within #2 must be properly designed, or the algorithm will not work at all. Likewise, in an organism, the changeable parts of the genome must follow internally consistent semantic rules, and be changed with respect to those rules, or it will not work at all. In both organisms and programs, it requires design to impose these semantic constraints.
"Basically what I am getting at here is that a better and simpler explaination of front-loading exists than the one davison presents: The first single-celled lifeform on earth was intelligently designed in a way that allowed mutation and natural selection to produce the diversity of life we see today and in the fossil record. That is true evolutionary frontloading and is the position many theist evolutionists have."
This is an ID position. The funny thing is that you still want to hang on to RM/NS as the primary mechanism of change when there is no reason -- experimentally or logically -- to do so! Atheists must hang on to RM/NS precisely because they cannot allow any teleology at all. There is no experimental reason to do so. ID'ers are not so constrained. The fact that when biological searches occur they are non-deterministic rather than deterministic is fairly irrelevant. But there is no reason to assume that complex adaptations must occur within a broad set of possibilities. In fact, according to the No Free Lunch algorithms, each beneficial step must have a smaller search space than 500 bits (and realistically much smaller than that). But if you assume a designer for an origin-of-life scenario, there is no reason to commit to the idea that the range of possible steps is very big at all, even if they are complex.
You might be interested in a short article I'm working on. I've got a work-in-progress version of it available here:
http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/creation_change.html
In addition, if you grant the special creation of an individual life form, there is no experimental reason not to grant multiple special creations, even if you believe that they all occurred at the single-celled level. In fact, such an idea is precisely what Doolittle and others are working on, and even they are working from an entirely atheistic origin-of-life scenario.
Again, I think your biggest problem with ID is not that you disagree with it, but that you haven't understood what it says.