Comments on: Pennock's Pragmatic Test

By: Eric Anderson

Eric Anderson — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:04:11 +0000

"Of course. That's because AI and GA do not have at their disposal all of the tools that factor in evolution."

Art, you crack me up. What tools might those be? Surely you don't mean RM+NS?

By: bFast

bFast — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:28:30 +0000

Hmmm, it seems that this forum is dominated by software developers. Maybe we should start a "software deveopers discuss evolution" forum or something. I bet that the software development community would be much more inclined towards ID than the biological community is. I suspect that most of us naturally see DNA as program code.

By: MatthewCromer

MatthewCromer — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:25:42 +0000

Of course. That's because AI and GA do not have at their disposal all of the tools that factor in evolution.

Such as intelligence. . .

By: David

David — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 05:28:47 +0000

Art - Could you elaborate?

By: Art

Art — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:20:37 +0000

I also have to agree - as a software developer for two decades, AI and its offspring such as GA are very limited.

Of course. That's because AI and GA do not have at their disposal all of the tools that factor in evolution.

By: David

David — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:51:36 +0000

I also have to agree - as a software developer for two decades, AI and its offspring such as GA are very limited. Many of the genetic algorithms that I am familiar with are probably good demonstrations of front-loading, since the selection criteria is very specific to the goal in mind.

Scientists that point to GA's as examples of evolutionary mechanisms should have their tenure revoked!

By: bFast

bFast — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:08:19 +0000

As a software developer, I have watched AI techniques, evolutionary programming techniques, and genetic programming techniques for a long time. I have found them to produce tidbits of value here and there, but very little. I feel much more threatened by inexpensive software developers in India than I do by evolutionary programs providing software development expertise.

By: Salvador T. Cordova

Salvador T. Cordova — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:07:11 +0000

and he suggested that ultimately, the success of evolved designs will win over these fields.

Hardly. Evolution by natural selection was a creationist conception articulated by creationist Blyth. For evolution to work it must be designed and created. Further evolvability has limits. Engineers and chemists know this.

Pennock only displays his insulated exposure. Last Fall, I asked some creationist computer science types, "you write software. Do you write Genetic Algorithms?"

"Yes," they replied.

"You think mindless forcess can create software like that," I ask.

"No way," they replied.

Pennock makes a misrepresentation of ID. ID can operate through surrogates like an evolutionary algorithms, but evolutionary algorithms have limits. That was the point of Dembski's No Free Lunch.