From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 13:35:02 EDT
>From: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
> I'm sure this illustration has been suggested before, but what would you
> call a the specific abilities of a robot whose structure and movements were
> "designed" by a computer model using evolutionary programming? I think
> Howard would call this Mindfully Designed, since the parameter of
> replication, mutation and selection (optimiality criteria) were mindfully
> incorporated into the evolutionary program by a person so as to ensure a
> successful end result (the researcher instilled the program with a Robust
> Formational Economy and nothing more).
Yes, I believe I could call it "mindfully designed" (or "purposefully
conceptualized").
> We would all call the end product
> (robot) "designed" in the ordinary, broad sense. However, it was not
> really specifically designed or directly fashioned by a person in the sense
> meant by ID theorists.
Correct. The key to evaluating the claims of ID theorists like Dembski is to
understand the restricted and, by comparison to common contemporary usage,
unconventional meaning that most ID advocates give to their marketing logo,
"intelligent design." The movement is not about design (in the usual sense
of the term), it's about getting things assembled (in a manner that requires
non-natural action in the course of time).
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 14:04:02 EDT