[Westbrook]

> And yes, genetic algorithm can’t produce Flight Simulator
> from a spreadsheet....yet. But then again, it is still in > its infancy.

You missed the point.

Is “genetic algorithm” a mindless agent, or was it designed intelligently?

As a scientist, you must have heard of the Heisenburg Principle.

I submit that in your experiment, Heisenburg is having a first-order effect.

The Bible talks about those who “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” and as “ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

[jc101]

You made a comment regarding the feasibility of genetic algorithm (in post #22). If I may direct you there, you made no mention whatsoever about intelligent design. A gentleman disputed that comment complete with an example. And instead of defending your stance, or discussing the merit of the dispute, you "rolled your eyes" and then went on an attack against evolutionists. Again bear in mind that the original comment you made had nothing to do with whether the algorithm is intelligently designed or not. It was whether it exists or not.

And to reiterate the stance of scientists - that is what the evolutionary biologists are concerned with. Does the same genetic algorithm exist in nature? How does it work? Dawkins aside, they don't care a whit about whether it's intelligently designed or not. As a matter of fact, science is ill-equipped to deal with such a question. And as such, it doesn't ask it. It concerns itself with how. It very rarely asks why.

Science acknowledges that such issues are beyond it and delegates it to the realm of philosophy and religion. It is a pity that religion does not show the same respect towards science. ID could be the real answer. Who knows? The main point is it is NOT science. Keep away from science classes!

And I do not understand what you're trying to say regarding Heisenberg principle. Please elaborate.