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.
> You made a comment regarding the feasibility of genetic
> algorithm (in post #22).
No I didn’t. My comment was that random injection and removal of bits from a spreadsheet program would never turn the spreadsheet program into a word processor.
It was the person who responded to that comment who changed the subject saying that there was a “genetics algorithm”.
My response to that was a sarcastic remark indicating that it was SILLY to attribute the results of a carefully crafted genetics algorithm to mindless chance.
> 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.
Good.
Then they and you should not be concerned that there are those of us who believe that DESIGN implies a DESIGNER and that CODE implies an AUTHOR.
But this is NOT the case, because it challenges the Sacred Cow of Materialism, the fundamental premise of which is, “There is no God.” As an aside, Materialism is the basis for Marx’s Communism.
The slightest mention of an Intelligent Designer as an explanation for the otherwise unexplainable brings the ACLU and their minions in PAW and their pet “scientists” into the county and state courtrooms to halt any such mention of Intelligent Design in any Tax-Funded, Government-Mandated, Union-Run school.
And I stand by my premise.
Even if a program could be designed to help Flight Simulator evolve in to Linux, the intelligence and effort required to devise such an engine would be considerable indeed.
Furthermore, the intermediate stages between Flight Simulator and Linux would be neither a simulation nor an operating system and would likely serve no useful purpose.
This is why the Evolutionists have to devise nonsense such as “punctuated equilibrium” and “hopeful monster” scenarios, because nothing else really explains the diversity and sudden appearance of life in the “cambrian explosion” and beyond.