> 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.
Again - we care not a whit about what you think the right explanation is. It could be Zeus flaunting his thunderbolts or your so called designer. You believe what you believe and although we might not like it, we'd respect it.
It is only when you try to pass it as science are we concerned. Because it is not. Not because we look down upon it. Not because we think our theories are holy. But simply because they are two different animals. If you want to teach it in philosophy or religion classes...fine. There is no way we'd allow it to pass as science however.
A red apple and a tomato are both red, round, and delicious. I like apple and although I don't really like tomatoes, I'd respect people who do. To each his own I say. But if a person then tries to sell a tomato as an apple, forgive me if I say less than kind words about him.
And really...spend some time in the scientific community. We try out a lot of ideas to test things out. We might hold on to a few ideas longer than what is required, but at the end, if they don't work, we toss them out. If evolution is as wrong as you say it is, we would not hold rites to our holy cow to extend its life. We'd heavily modify or maybe discard it.
And the sacred cow of materialism? Just like I said, science is ill-equipped to deal with non-materialistic matter. It is our short-coming, but yeah, it is pretty much the definition. Just like science doesn't concern itself with poetry, it doesn't concern itself with God. Both are beautiful in their own way, but try it as you might, both are not science.