"On the other hand, if someone claims that leopard spots could not possibly have arisen without intelligent intervention, then a CA model that produced them would certainly be of interest."

That's right, but "it could possible have happened" is about the weakest claim you have made. Mike and I have alway acknowledged that, sure, IC structures could have arises without intelligent intervention; what matters is whether they did. Similarly, an intelligent designer could have planted the bacterial flagellum, but that doesn't mean that this actually happened.

"In any case, Avida is certainly not "blind to the whole problem of biological adaptation", modelling as it does the essential components of a Darwinian process: replication, heritable variation, and selection."

True; this part of Shalazi's critique doesn't apply to Avida.

"So you don't agree with Shalazi's opinion of Wolfram's work? You have a funny way of getting this across, and I'd bet that most readers didn't get your point."

If you will read through the thread again, you will notice that it was you who raised the issue of "crankiness", not me. If there was any point that I wanted readers to get, I would want it to be the one I made in my post. Try reading it.

Scientists are no different than other people, and so it's no surprise that scientific networks have certain tribal qualities, with customs and stereotypes playing a large role.

So you don't agree with Shalazi's opinion of Wolfram's work? You have a funny way of getting this across, and I'd bet that most readers didn't get your point.

If, however, you think you have explained why leopards are spotted after coming up with a toy model that produces spots, it will not occur to you to ask why leopards have spots but polar bears do not, which is to say that you will simply be blind to the whole problem of biological adaptation.

On the other hand, if someone claims that leopard spots could not possibly have arisen without intelligent intervention, then a CA model that produced them would certainly be of interest. Not as a detailed model of the actual process by which they came about, mind you, but as an existence proof.

In the same way, Avida is of value not as a detailed model of biological reality, but as an abstract demonstration of the characteristics of Darwinian processes, including their ability to produce irreducible complexity.

In any case, Avida is certainly not "blind to the whole problem of biological adaptation", modelling as it does the essential components of a Darwinian process: replication, heritable variation, and selection.

"Shalazi reminds us of the true state of ID and teleology:"

No, Shalazi reminds us of the sociological nature of science. There's more to science than just making observations and developing hypotheses to explain them; you also need a social network to bounce your ideas off, get pointers to new data, and make sure your articles get published. And we all know how tribal humans are - anyone who went to high school know this. Scientists are no different than other people, and so it's no surprise that scientific networks have certain tribal qualities, with customs and stereotypes playing a large role. The extent to which the scientific community is enslaved to the "ID = dangerous nonsense" meme has been explored on this blog nummerous times, so we'll skip this.

A similar list is Robert L. Park's "The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science", which, unlike Shermer's list, makes the following, very reasonable, point:

I have identified seven indicators that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse. Of course, they are only warning signs — even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate.

Let me try to sum up. On the one hand, we have a large number of true but commonplace ideas, especially about how simple rules can lead to complex outcomes, and about the virtues of toy models. On the other hand, we have a large mass of dubious speculations (many of them also unoriginal). We have, finally, a single new result of mathematical importance, which is not actually the author's. Everything is presented as the inspired fruit of a lonely genius, delivering startling insights in isolation from a blinkered and philistine scientific community. We have been this way before.

(Shalzi quotes another source here - go to the article for details)"[Some cranks] are brilliant and well-educated, often with an excellent understanding of the branch of science in which they are speculating. Their books can be highly deceptive imitations of the genuine article "” well-written and impressively learned….

[C]ranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues. Not isolation in the geographical sense, but in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers…. The modern pseudo-scientist… stands entirely outside the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are introduced and evaluated. He works in isolation. He does not send his findings to the recognized journals, or if he does, they are rejected for reasons which in the vast majority of cases are excellent. In most cases the crank is not well enough informed to write a paper with even a surface resemblance to a significant study. As a consequence, he finds himself excluded from the journals and societies, and almost universally ignored by competent workers in the field….. The eccentric is forced, therefore, to tread a lonely way. He speaks before organizations he himself has founded, contributes to journals he himself may edit, and "” until recently "” publishes books only when he or his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed privately."

Boy, does all of that sound familiar, or what!?