Intelligence or lack thereof is not correlated to being naturally blonde but lack of intelligence is correlated to being a bleached blonde.
Posted on 02/01/2003 9:01:09 PM PST by gore3000
Great point about intelligent design! Regrettably, these folks manage to keep the faithful in line by clouding the facts with continual rewrites of the same old fiction (i.e. Man was transplanted on Earth by an alien race, etc).
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot. (Romans 8:7)
Yes, Dawkins's views are indeed scary and remindful of a "Brave New World" (also written by a virulent atheist). His views are indeed quite simplified. The failures of cloning show that genetic manipulation is quite a lot more difficult than his facile statements make them out to be.
I wonder if he would have made these observations had he realized what it truly means. You can write a self-organizing, proliferating program, but it must be made operative. As a software program, the genetic code must also have a bootstrap.
My hypothesis: algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design.
Yes, the evolutionists coulc not dispute that. Clearly they are trying in many ways to find a way to counter intelligent design. For example they keep talking of evolutionary pathways as if that would solve the complexity problem, they talk about co-evolution of traits (too bad random mutations cannot be reconciled with such an approach), and now they are even talking about 'self programming' as Dawkins does. Clearly all of these are attempts at explaining away the points being made by intelligent design but they are impossible to reconcile with evolutionary theory and change by mutation.
Clearly all of these are attempts at explaining away the points being made by intelligent design but they are impossible to reconcile with evolutionary theory and change by mutation.
Indeed, the theory of evolution requires that the process never be directed and that it have no purpose. But the above article by Richard Dawkins has this to say:
And that presents a problem to the theory of evolution - because the only substantive thing that separates them is the concept of randomness (no order or purpose). And the randomness pillar itself is under siege by the very disciplines lauded by Dawkins: mathematics, physics and information theory.
Marcel-Paul Schützenberger calls it a “fatal attraction:”
And finally, it is worth observing that the great turbid wave of cybernetics has carried mathematicians from their normal mid-ocean haunts to the far shores of evolutionary biology. There up ahead, Rene Thom and Ilya Prigogine may be observed paddling sedately toward dry land, members of the Santa Fe Institute thrashing in their wake. Stuart Kauffman is among them. An interesting case, a physician half in love with mathematical logic, burdened now and forever by having received a Papal Kiss from Murray Gell-Mann. This ecumenical movement has endeavored to apply the concepts of mathematics to the fundamental problems of evolution -- the interpretation of functional complexity, for example.
The irony is that non of the names raising these issues are from the intelligent design (much less young earth creationist) camps: von Neumann, Yockey, Schützenberger, Patten, Chaitin, Rocha, t'Hooft, Penrose, Wolfram.
The only counter to randomness that evolutionists can offer is determinism ( Science at the crossroad) but that presents this dilemma:
If guided, it may be by deterministic laws or by intelligence.
If it is guided by deterministic laws, then the goalpost has moved (e.g. from biogenesis to big bang to multiverse) - the question will come up again.
Ultimately, one can either choose intelligent designer or anthropic principle or the plenitude argument (everything that can exist, does exist) to resolve the issue to one’s own, personal ideology.
Just my two cents…
Thank you.
Questions beyond knowing for certain, are to be with us always.
Intelligence or lack thereof is not correlated to being naturally blonde but lack of intelligence is correlated to being a bleached blonde.
I see our discussion about 'the radndomness pillar' didn't affect your view in any way. Oh, well. What was it you said? "prejudice and ideology"? Yep, you are right.
Regards,
Lev
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.