Using “Evolutionary Algorithms” by Intelligent Design

To: BrandtMichaels

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook

So you are quoting a mechanical engineer regarding biology.

I think I would rather have my cerebral aneurysm treated by a neurosurgeon than auto mechanic, but hey that is just my opinion

Now lets just review four of your points.

I know this is long but we need to be thorough so we can clear up these common misconceptions.

1. “Macro-evolution (organic evolution) has never been observed….”

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution”. Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the “grand scale” resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth’s known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the “fact of evolution” by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This goes into great detail and answers your entire question on this subject. I do strongly suggest that you take the time to read the entire article.

2 “The coding process of DNA simply doesn’t allow for macro changes…………..”

The Evolution Process

Evolution is the change with time of the gene pool of a species. The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, recombination and gene flow.

Mutation provides all initial change. A mutation occurs when the DNA does not replicate perfectly. When a mutation occurs, a new allele is created. As a first approximation, these accidents (mutations) are random (can occur at any location along the DNA). The rate of these accidents is relatively constant within a given species. If the accident occurs in a critical location (believed to be less than 10% of the total in man), the result is usually disastrous. Other areas will accept change with no immediate consequence. Once made, the mutation is perpetuated and variability within the gene pool of the species is increased. Mutations add variability to the gene pool.

Natural selection occurs when the viability of an allele is tested in real life. It makes only one test. Contrary to popular opinion, evolution does not select the fittest, strongest, or most superior organism. It is instead a question of how many offspring the organism will have which in turn will reach sufficient maturity to have its own offspring. If the effect is positive, the allele will become a permanent part of the gene pool. If the effect is very successful, it will quickly become a dominant allele. If the effect is neutral or negative, the allele will not spread rapidly through the gene pool and, usually, will disappear from the gene pool. If more than one mutation is being tested at the same time, usually the case, then it is the summed effect tested. Not all good mutations make it. Some mutations would be good at one time and bad at another, depending on the environment then. A mutation that was necessary at one time may become unnecessary at another time and be consequently negated. Most of the time, the alleles removed or negated are those that harm the organism in that environment. Natural selection removes variability from the gene pool.

The environment which an organism faces and must survive is a complex one, one which is more than climate and food supply, although those are the essential elements that serve as a starting point in the study of evolution.

First of all, the mutation process is not altogether random. An intricate process called recombination developed early in sexual animals. This process serves to mix the alleles available in the two parental gene sets to provide more variability against the environment. It also results in many reproduction errors (mutations). Repair functions were developed by evolution for DNA errors to offset this error propensity. Since both the dissection means and the repair means are relatively fixed processes, then both the dissection errors and the errors in repair will follow certain patterns. When these coincide, a new allele is formed. Mutations, then, occur in clusters around particular loci not yet known or cataloged. Certain defects occur, therefore, with a given frequency, which are wholly the result of the process and not the assumption of a defective ancestral gene.

Another factor which enters into genetic change is that the product of a purely random process (and a large part of human mutations fit that description) will drift to one side or another until an outside force interferes with the drift. For example, the human is now growing larger. If this is the result of genetic drift, it will continue until some other process interferes, such as a shortage of food.

Most of the struggle in life is the struggle for enough food to avoid starvation and an ability to survive the climate. This was the entire struggle at the beginning, but as life became more complex, the selection process also became more complex. Once life began, however, other life became a part of its environment. The food chains were started.

The basic element of species survival is the ability of the individual to survive long enough to insure the survival of its offspring to the point when they also have offspring. If the offspring require no care, then the immediate death of the parent is of no consequence. In the case of the higher animals, those which require care during their maturation, the life of the caring parent must extend through that maturation period (and, of course, the parent must perform its function properly).

If an animal must endure an environment in which its population is normally controlled by predators, it is usual that the young suffer a higher death rate than the adults. In such cases the parents will usually live through several breeding seasons, to offset losses of their young. Some animals resort to large numbers of offspring, thereby feeding the predators, with enough left over to continue the species.

As animals became more complex, they themselves began to be an appreciable part of their own selection (survival) environment. Herein lies the most complex of all genetic processes, and examples abound. Sexual selection (based on an appearance which is sexually attractive) is probably (not for sure) the most common of these. There are times when sexual selection actually harms the ability of the species to survive. There are thousands of examples, but to select one, consider the Cardinal, a beautiful small bird that is quite common in North America. Somewhere back in time, the drab little hens, who had drab little roosters as soul-mates, took a liking to the color red and began choosing mates based on a hint of red in their feathers. Since they mated with roosters who had red in their makeup, their offspring tended to have red in their feathers, which suited the next generation of hens just fine. Quite quickly the rooster was a bright red, and the best target in the world for a predator. The predator, usually a hawk, could lock on to that bright red target and have a meal in no time. As a result the Cardinal rooster is quite skittish, and he should be, but without the red there is no sex and his genes end.

Recombination occurs in sexually reproducing organisms, such as the human. The parent has two sets of chromosomes in each cell, one from its father, the other from its mother. The sperm and the egg carry only one set in each. The one set carried by the sperm or egg is not a whole set from either grandparent but is a mixture of the two. Both original sets of chromosomes, in the case of each parent, are dissected and scrambled, then reformed with entirely new combinations of alleles from both grandparents. This process adds variability to the offspring and allows testing of new allele combinations. Recombination allows new combinations of the variability in the gene pool

Gene flow occurs when populations of a species that have been separated are united and the differing sets of alleles in each gene pool flow into the gene pool of the other. Our species, suddenly reunited with widespread transportation, is an excellent example of this effect. Gene flow distributes the variability in the gene pool.

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/evolution.html

3. “Have you researched Mendel’s Law too? Artificial distinction - NOT!………….”

Mendel (1822-1884) (the founder of Genetics) discovered how variation can be passed on through the generations with his work on pea plants (published in 1865-1869), yet his work was ignored until the early 1900s. Mendel discovered two laws: 1) the law of segregation, and 2) the law of independent assortment. The law of segregation states that half of the genes from one parent are carried by each gamete (sex cell). Each gamete has one allele (or one variation of a gene) out of two from the parent cell (each parent cell in a diploid species can have only two alleles at one gene locus — i.e. genes come in pairs in diploid organisms). The law of independent assortment states that different gene pairs assort independently of other gene pairs into gametes. As it turns out, these two “laws” have several exceptions to them. For example, the second law only applies to genes that are far apart on the same chromosome or are on different chromosomes.

At the turn of the century, after Mendel’s laws were re-discovered, two groups with differing views on evolution emerged: 1) the mutationalists, who believed that Darwin was wrong and Mendel was correct (i.e. evolution occured rapidly through macromutation), 2) the biometricians, who believed Mendel was wrong and Darwin was right (i.e. evolution occured slowly and gradually via natural selection). As it turns out, both Darwin’s and Mendel’s theories could be incorporated into one. The Modern Synthesis of evolution was developed around 1920 - 1947, unifying the principles from both Darwin and Mendel. Many people were involved in the development of the synthesis and these include Ronald A. Fisher (1890-1962), J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1964), Sewall Wright (1889-1988), Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975), George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984), and Ernst Mayr (b. 1904) to name a few. In Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology (1998) textbook there are 20 tenets listed (pp. 26-27) that have been contributed by population geneticists, paleontologists, systematists, and geneticists who studied either laboratory populations or natural populations. Not all of the tenets are accepted by everyone, but the importance of the Modern Synthesis was in the “consistency argument” — the facts of genetics had to agree with the fossil evidence. Thus, the various biological fields became unified through evolutionary theory.

So, the modern paradigm of evolutionary theory is that natural selection acts on genetically different individuals in populations, thus species change over time. However, selection is not the only driving force in evolution. There are other forces such as genetic drift, gene flow, mutation and recombination (defined in “Basic concepts in Evolution”). Also, the modern paradigm rejects the notion of the “inheritance of acquired characteristics” or Lamarckism. There are however, some cases from embryology (developmental biology) and microbiology (e.g. experiments with ciliates) that provide evidence for inherited structural changes (i.e. not genetic changes) which are ignored by mainstream biology. I have posted a short essay that I wrote for an exam that summarizes some of the details.

http://www.geocities.com/we_evolve/Evolution/darwin.html

4. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution.

Charles Darwin never proposed a “molecules to man” theory. The theory of evolution has never attempted to describe the origin of the first living cell. Evolution merely describes the process whereby already existing life radiated into the diversity we see today.

121 posted on 05/10/2009 8:55:01 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)

“When I was a creationist, eventually I admitted that “microevolution” could happen. I figured that changes could happen within species, but it could never turn into a new species.

The problem is, as Carl Zimmer once said, “If you accept microevolution, you get macroevolution for free.” Macroevolution is just microevolution over time. Eventually, enough genetic and/or geographical drift occurs that they become new species — organisms that no longer breed with one another.

So if you believe in microevolution: Congratulations! You’re almost there!”

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/08/12/microevolution/

122 posted on 05/10/2009 9:00:01 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; AndrewC

I want to amend my earlier statement about miracles. It is possible that what we call a “miracle” actually does occur through the processes I referred to. It’s entirely possible that there is a level of control over those processes that some physical being could achieve but that most of us can’t. It calls to mind Clarke’s statement that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

But it would be hubristic to claim that there is no “miracle” that other humans could not eventually master, whether through spiritual and mental advancement or through technology. So maybe it’s as simple as “a miracle is something God can do but we can’t.”

But I think the distinction about whether it requires hands-on intervention or not is still a valid one.

123 posted on 05/10/2009 9:00:56 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

To: tacticalogic

[[As far as I’m concerned, they’re both digital models of an analog system, and neither one can even lay claim to knowing what all the variables are that I can see.

Step away from the glittering generalities.]]

Lol- the only one indulging in ‘glittering generalities’ is you who simply waves a hand at mathematical statistics and pretends it’s the same as a GA system when they are clearly entirely different

Your flaw in reasoning stems fro mthe fact that the statistics that make Macroevolution impossible are NOT improved by adding more ‘unknowns’ because it is the myriad ‘known’s that make it impossible- it’s a buiological impossibility as well- Chemical impossibility, and second law violating impossibility- The knowns in the stats just make it even worse (if htere is such a thing as ‘worse than impossible’)

The myriad ‘knowns’ are overwhelming- so overwhelming infact that they make it impossible- the only variables you could possibly add to ‘make it better’ would be to introduce ‘unknowns’ that VIOLATE scientific principles itself

If you care to know more about the reliability of the mathematical impossibility- take a look here:

http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2008/04/probability-of-evolution.html

GA’s also factor in natural impossibilites- simply ASSUMING they ocured naturally ‘at soem time in the past’- As well, GA’s ARE carefully guided to gauruntee predicted outcomes, and are done in such a way as to deviate from actual nature- Mathematical statistics do NOT do so- despite hte handwaving claim

124 posted on 05/10/2009 9:05:19 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)

Lol- extrapolating from an entirely different biological process in no way bolsters your case- Micro and Macro evolution are entirely different processes-

[[Eventually, enough genetic and/or geographical drift occurs that they become new species — organisms that no longer breed with one another.]]

Good golly- You’re not goign to argue that speciation equates to macroevolution are you? Since hwen is LOSS of information a result in NEW non species specific ifnormation needed for Macroevolution? Go ply your snake oil elsewhere

Macroevolution ADDS NON Species specific information- MICROEvolution works on Species specific information- it has to- mutations can noly work on information that is already present and coded for- Macroevolution however MUST add non species specific information to ‘move a species beyond it’s own specific kind’ (in time)

Macroevolution doesn’t require mutaitons- mutations do NOT produce non species specific ifnormation. Macroevolution NEEDS lateral gene transference from another entirely different species to “ADD the info that is absolutely necessary IF a species is to gain the non species specific info necessary to move beyond it’s own kind” This is a VERY important key distinction between the two processes- again, Mutatiosn can noly work on info already present

Species have very specific, species specific paramters that limit the amount of change they can undergo- they can only undergo change within these very specific paramters, because hte coding simply is not present to create the necessary macroevolving changes needed for megaevolution- We know htese parameters exist after centuries of experiments and tests, which failed to EVER add non species specific info outside of hte parameters of specific species.

Simply, Altering genetic info via mutation, bound by species specific paramters, can never produce new non species specific info- it can only simply change info already present within the parameters of the code already present-

In order for non specieis specific info to be introduced though, the species MUST have the metainformation ALREADY present in order to deal with the invasion of non species specific info- As I mentioend in past posts, it’s not enough to simply suggest that a cell changes, you MUST explain how these singular changes affect ALL systems within the species- IF the species doesn’t have the metainformation to deal with these intrusions of non species specific info, the species will NOT remain fit, and will break down- simply htrowing NEW non species specific info into the fray is like throwing random noise into a finely tuned computer program and expecting it to ‘just work itself out’ without any higher metainformation controlling and conducting the noise in a meaningful manner- you MUST have the metainformation present BEFORE attempting to introduce NEW non species specific info, and htis introduction of NEW non species specific info is hte ONLY way a species can ‘break their species specific parameters, and move beyond their own kinds’

Simple adaptions as seen in microevolution do NOT have the capability of introducing new non species specific info OR to move a species beyond it’s own specific metainformation controlled parameters

125 posted on 05/10/2009 9:09:35 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)

If you care to know more about the reliability of the mathematical impossibility- take a look here:

That guy makes the exact same logical error he's complaining about! His argument only makes sense if you're trying to evolve humans or some other specified organism. If you're just trying to evolve something, his argument doesn't apply at all.

126 posted on 05/10/2009 9:21:14 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?

hmmmm- whoda thunkit? Even Mendel ADMITTED the obvious (at least he was itnellectually honest enough to admit the FACT)- Making philisophical leaps from genetic limits, which are OBSERVED in nature, to genetic limit violating process that are NOT OBSERVED, is not science but rather faith. pointing to microevolutionary process such as genetic drift, recombination and other such microevolutionary events and extrapolating BEYOND the actual evidence is, once again, not science, but philisophical faith

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

127 posted on 05/10/2009 9:31:13 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)

I’m sorry, Ira. What you see as science I see as conjecture. The question to me is not whether there are extinct spiders that looked different, but why this bizarre ability to spin webs could have possibly come to be. Or why hummingbirds can flap their wings 200X per SECOND during courtship. Was it designed? If so, at least that should be admitted to in bio books. If not, I cannot believe that a soup of chemicals could have blindly progressed so extensively and intricately. To me, macro-evolutionary theory is as absurd as global warming, or pardon me, “climate chaos” theory. Cheers, Bob

128 posted on 05/10/2009 9:32:46 AM PDT by alstewartfan

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

[[That guy makes the exact same logical error he’s complaining about! His argument only makes sense if you’re trying to evolve humans or some other specified organism. If you’re just trying to evolve something, his argument doesn’t apply at all.]]

Lol- Suuuure it doesn’t apply- life just evovles from non life al l the time- Don;t dust your house, you could be killing a future inlaw- who knows what might spring on up out of the dust? His argument is just fine- regardless of what you are tryign to macroevolve-

129 posted on 05/10/2009 9:34:21 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)

Please see post number 30.

130 posted on 05/10/2009 9:35:16 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

Please allow me to show that quote in the correct context:

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.” ~ Roger Lwein

http://shell.dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

Looks like that is saying just the opposite of what your asserting.

Quote mining, I thought you were better than that.

131 posted on 05/10/2009 9:42:13 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)

To: alstewartfan

So then how can you use the Scientific Method to disprove the design?

132 posted on 05/10/2009 9:44:39 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Isn’t this like the argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The point is at the other end just like mankind can’t answer all of your theological questions until you/we come face to face w/ the Author of Life.

I think I know where you want to go w/ this argument as I’ve seen this argued on FR debates before. Man appointed sin and death - not God. So the consequences of mankinds sin are death, disease and also natural disasters.

The primary point missing - you/we have no authority to question why God does what God does - neither to assign blame nor judgement. So often we simply forget our place before a Holy and Awesome God - self will is subordinate to His Will.

Now for the time being He has suspended His Will to allow your self will
- free will to choose whether or not to worship Him (as was mankinds primary created purpose). Everything else is not worthy to compare - in the same way this world is not worthy to compare w/ Heaven.

133 posted on 05/10/2009 10:05:06 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels

Nah- it wasn’t quote mining- The quote is accurate and reflects the FACT that they could NOT extrapolate from microevolution to macroevolution (But by golly they go right ahed and extrapolate anyways after CLEARLY stating “What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution.”- they then go right on to declare the two have an ‘overlap’ when htey CLEARLY had stated the one could NOT be extrapolated to mean the one, microevolution, moves towards macroevolution

Double speak at it finest folks! Aint got hte evidence? Baffle em with BS

134 posted on 05/10/2009 10:26:59 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)

So then what does this part of his quote mean..

“What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.”

He plainly states that to two are continuous with notable overlapping, that my friend is far from your assertion that they are not realted. In fact they are one and the same.

No amount of slight of hand will fool anybody that you did not take that quote out of context.

Also take a look at post #30.

135 posted on 05/10/2009 11:10:21 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

I don't think it is. I think you're waxing philosophical or theological in a way that obscures a real difference. Life turns water into wine through well understood, manipulable, controllable, repeatable physical processes

You mixing answers and questions. First you asked me what I thought. I answered you and why I thought that way. Accept it or not. That is my answer. You won't badger me into some position you have dreamt up. You asked me and I answered. God is timeless, therefore any reference to restrictions on him vs time are meaningless. Whatever our perception of the "event".

Secondly, I asked you what you considered a miracle and I gave examples of what could be considered miracles. You made a blanket assertion, "Miracles don't work that way". Well, how do you know? Have you witnessed a miracle? And if so why did you consider it a miracle? I asked an atheist what she would consider a miracle. She did not answer. So, I still say your question is meaningless, it may be due to a profound difference in our view of God, but nonetheless my answer remains. But let me give you a hint, God knows our prayers "before" we speak them.

Psa 139:4 For [there is] not a word in my tongue, [but], lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.

Psa 139:5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.

Psa 139:6 [Such] knowledge [is] too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot [attain] unto it.

God does not have to "violate" or "suspend" his physical laws to perform a "miracle". A million continuous rolls of seven by a pair of dice is not impossible(and does not violate any physical law I am familiar with) but it sure isn't likely. And a person doing so would likely be shot around the fiftieth roll.

136 posted on 05/10/2009 11:48:08 AM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Okay. I see you understand my point about miracles.

So maybe it’s as simple as “a miracle is something God can do but we can’t.”

I would say "... but we think we can't."

And, again, I have stated that God is timeless, so things which unfold to us, are already determined by Him. Everything.

137 posted on 05/10/2009 12:02:10 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)

His argument is just fine- regardless of what you are tryign to macroevolve-

I'm starting to think that because you don't accept macroevolution, you think that any argument that comes out "no" must be valid. It's not.

Your link says

The one in 10^68 is the probability of calling out each card — in order — as you turn them up. That’s the correct analogy between cards and evolution. It’s a certainty you will get a sequence. But is it the exact sequence you want?

Who says we want any particular sequence? That's only the case if we're trying to evolve a specific animal--in which case, yes, the odds are small.

He makes a similar error in the comments. He writes

It’s possible to win the lotto every week for a year, but it’s not going to happen as the odds are too small - it’s not probable.

That's true if you only buy one ticket a week. But if you buy all the tickets each week, it becomes more than probable, it becomes inevitable. Evolution buys a lot of tickets.

138 posted on 05/10/2009 1:16:20 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

To: BrandtMichaels; AndrewC

I think I know where you want to go w/ this argument as I’ve seen this argued on FR debates before. Man appointed sin and death - not God.

I'm not arguing sin and death--I'm not even really arguing theology. I'm trying to stick to genetic algorithms and computer models.

I'll lay out where I was going: it seemed to me that AndrewC was pursuing the argument that GAs don't tell us anything about evolution because there is intelligence involved in their application--someone decides what a solution is and when it's been reached.

It seemed to me that that would invalidate any attempt to computer-model natural systems, like storms--at some point, the programmer has to decide what a "storm" is and how he'll know when he's got one. Now, I don't think most people consider storms as "intelligently designed" in the sense that God needs to step in and start stirring the air to get a hurricane going--rather, once the laws governing the atmosphere are in place, hurricanes pretty much happen on their own. (This is also the way "theistic evolutionists" see evolution--a natural process following God's laws that doesn't require his direct intervention to play out.)

Not wanting to make assumptions about AndrewC's beliefs, I asked if he thought that any natural process happens on its own that way. Apparently he does not. If that's the case, then I don't see how he could accept any computer model of a natural process, because how could a computer program model the intervention of God? It seems like a very small God who could be captured and predicted in a computer program.

139 posted on 05/10/2009 1:28:42 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

That is my answer. You won't badger me into some position you have dreamt up. You asked me and I answered.

I'm not trying to badger you into anything. I'm trying to avoid drawing conclusions from statements of yours that I may have poorly understood, so I was asking for clarification. I still think the distinction I'm drawing is valid, and I think you're using the "it's all the same to God" position to avoid addressing it. Not that it's notall the same to God; but it's not all the same to us.

140 posted on 05/10/2009 1:34:07 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794