Tuesday, June 10, 2008

They never give up ...

By way of background, my kids had AP Evolution (err, AP Biology) at the local high school (top ranked public school in northern California). They came back from school claiming "any answer is correct, as long as it mentions evolution". This is really true: Because evolution is a synonym for change and is the superset of all theories, it is guaranteed to explain anything that mankind has explained. Now the explanation may be made on Monday and discarded on Tuesday as rubbish, because of a better and mutually exclusive explanation, but evolution is only enhanced by this purifying process! And so the truly amazing part of the theory is that no matter how complex the biological phenomenon, and no matter how limited the intellect studying the phenomenon, it is no problem to come up with a scientific explanation using the theory of evolution! Oh what explanatory power!

The above blogger seems to be looking for some ecumenical relations between religion and atheism based on a shared awe of evolution. Sometimes I wish these theologians would just become atheists themselves, get out of the church, and stop teaching in the name of God.

8 comments:

Delirious said...

I never realized before how easy it is to understand the Bible. If you don't understand something, or if it seems too fantastic or miraculous to be explainable, then we can just write it off as something that didn't actually happened, it was just symbolic! Pfftt....with that kind of thinking, next you know they will be saying Jesus never really existed, He was just a symbolic image. Wow....how far our society has sunk. I hope you don't mind if I quote a Book of Mormon scripture here:

"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish." 2 Nephi 9:28

Looney said...

I won't complain about the book of Mormon being quoted. Although I don't view it as part of scripture, that doesn't make things automatically wrong.

My fear isn't that they will make Jesus disappear, but rather that they redefine Jesus on crucial items. Then they still wanted to be pastors and teachers.

LoneRubberDragon said...

I saw an argument that a watch or jet couldn't form in a tornado of old parts. This is true, in the measurable age of the universe. These consitituent items to not posess netural bonding qualities to allow this effect to occur naturally in finite time. But if old gears and turbines and springs had natural bonding abilities, then the permutations of combinations would drastically drop, allowing natural parts to naturally form configurations, eventually naturally forming a watch or jet in a much shorter time.

In a similar manner, atoms and molecules have very good natural bonding capabilities in only a few ways from their electrical proerties. Why is it unreasonable in a sunlight flooded lake on the early earth to energize open system formation of numerous increasing species of chemicals, which eventually hit on the most basic of protien and RNA molecules in natural chain reactions that allow natural prosperous reactions to reproduce and spread?

My blog: LoneRubberDragon.blogspot.com, section 3 Evolution theory, describes in some layman level of understanding the chemistry involved in energy open system, combinatorial, feedback chemistry, that could lead to primitive forst life, naturally.

What do you think of this modification of the watch / jet building analogy modification with bonding combination reduction allowing a foreshortening of time for things to occur naturally, moreso influential in chemical reactions?

So you don't think I am a complete athiest, in section 9, I propose that simple sensations indicate the presence of a transcendental spirit that science cannot explain. So I am a Christian and Scientist, and zealous when arguing both sides, so I am a man split in two, but hopefully both point to the ultimate truth.

Looney said...

Lonerubberdragon, a few notes:

First, I am an engineer. The definition of engineering is this:

Engineering = science + intelligent design.

ID is the center of my world view.

Second, I don't believe in the existence of dragons, scientists, or a theory of evolution. Researchers exist, but there is no such thing as a scientist. A theory must have a fixed mathematical form and involve measurable quantities. The "theory of evolution" is a vague meta-narrative, although it takes credit for real theories routinely.

And as for bonding properties being a substitute for design? Dawkins too mocked the notion of a tornado going through a junkyard and producing a 747. Maybe he forgot the glue?

Thanks for dropping by.

LoneRubberDragon said...

========Looney: "First, I am an engineer. The definition of engineering is this:

Engineering[1] = science + intelligent design [+ goal]."
(square brackets context added by LRD.)

====LRD: This is true, what you define, so I have no disagreement with you here. I am glad you are an engineer, so we may have a meaningful discussion. I am an engineer too, who has written much code for computers, machines that you cannot lie to, for if you lie to a computer, it does exactly what you tell it, in error, but by project completion, my code always satisfies the customer requirements and goals, so the computer accepts the process exactly, no small feat of logical thinking ID.

What you define is traditional intelligent design engineering, engineering1, based on analytical knowledge methods.

But it is not the only class of methods that can design something, as you imply. One also has:

Engineering2 = (1) finite-applied-modality modules + (2) combinatorial-heirarchical-exploration of modules + (3) utility-function-biasing goals for judging module-fitness + (4) a medium to run the evolution on.

To exemplify engineering2 in industry; in efficient integrated circuit layout, engineering2 now does what was once done by humans by hand and engineering1. Today with an engineering2 method, one defines:

(1) Sub-circuit modules that have finite connection route modes, and finite module placements, e.g. the A-shortest-paths between any module-B and module-C out of D-total-modules in an integrated circuit.

(2) A combinatorial heirarchical exploration, either hueristically refined, or by brute force, of E-module-arrangemnets (placements in combinations). Combinatorial in that every one of the E-arrangements possible, in brute force, or hueristics, is explored. Heirarchical, in that for hueristic refinement methods, if, say F-modules-in-a-group have a particularly good routing as a group, it will be used to chunk the process versus exploring each of the F-modules permutations every time from scratch.

(3) A utility function is applied, to the E-arrangements of D-total-modules for the A-shortest-paths between module signal routing (or also F-modules-groups evaluated the same way can be chunked to reduce brute force searches hueristically).

(4) In the search, each circuit mode thus produces a specific power consumptions, signal delay, circuit robustness in wafer process, etc. profile that can be used to rank F-module groups, and E-total-circuit-arrangements.

When one is done running these basic definition layout programs used in VLSI industry, the machine produces one best circuit, nearly optimal or optimal, and numerous ranked runners-up layouts. All of this is done through combinations, fitness, and natural selection criteria, and no intelligence. It is a medium program of module physics, that remains a black box tool to most users going on faith on its useful performance. The job can be given to a technician, where they just enter module properties, and the program performs the exploration of designs by itself, simulating the evolution of best deisgns through trial, evaluate, and ranking of "non-error" towards design goals.


========Looney: "ID is the center of my world view.

====LRD: I have no problem with you here, either, as you agree with me, well. As an engineer1,2, my personal work centers around ID analytical methods, but I am also aware of the peripheral world views that have applications in enginnering2, as chance favors the prepared mind. Some tasks are too combinatorial or complex to route through mundane matter, to perform analytical methods on. This is where evolutionary design methods take over. Humans can't design DNA code systems, but will make programs that evolutionarily explore designs in combinatorial chemistries to deisgn a specific protien. This is something nature does in high parallel numbers, but humans do serially on computer, or batch in experiments, or parallel in pharmaceutical combinatorial chemistry programs. But they are not intelligent engineering1, as much as they are using brute force engineering2 methods, selecting the best fitness chemicals. In 1000 input chemical trials, with more than 1000*1000 potential reactions, in steric reaction sites with different energized states, places the problem beyond intelligent engineering1, it is in the realm of brute force and selection criteria engineering2.

========Looney: "Second, I don't believe in the existence of dragons, scientists, or a theory of evolution. Researchers exist, but there is no such thing as a scientist."

====LRD: Sorry, irrelevancies to real topics, semantics, and faith-as-truth-statements has no firm place in research debate. Please re-phrase/frain non-sequitur.

========Looney: "A theory must have a fixed mathematical form and involve measurable quantities. The "theory of evolution" is a vague meta-narrative, although it takes credit for real theories routinely."

====LRD: I respectfully disagree. Evolutionary design and intelligent design should work hand in hand in the progress of general engineering practices, as best applicable. Formal mathematics dissolves into systems and characteristics and then into abstractions as one describes life. To date, there are no truly formal and fixed definitions for perception, consciousness, soul, and God. And yet, we see colors in dark brain matter processing essentially numbers, we are sentient beings unlike inanimate matter or animals with a knowledge of non-formal-mathematical concepts like good and evil, we have a presently ineffable spirit, and God cannot be denied from human thoughts.

========Looney: "And as for bonding properties being a substitute for design? Dawkins too mocked the notion of a tornado going through a junkyard and producing a 747. Maybe he forgot the glue?"

====LRD: You're right, again, Dawkins is wrong in so many ways, so we agree well. And you seem to understand the essence of the argument. For example in a continuum of probabilities

(1) if the parts are tight press fit, and dirty in the junkyard, the odds of any part-bond forming are virtually zero, and the combination in a large machine increases to virtually infinite time requirements.

(2) if the parts are loose fit, and clean, it is quite obvious the odds of any one couple forming increase, so the product probability equation for a combination exponentially reduces the time requirement, but is still very large.

(3) if the parts are loose fit, clean, and designed to easily couple and uncouple in two different interactions, then the odds of any one couple forming increases more, and the product of combination-probability exponentially-decreases more, becoming almost feasable within the age of the universe.

(4) and finally, if the part bonds were designed to be magnetic matching patteren connectors, then the odds of a bond forming are quite high, and the probability of making a combination machine in a reasonable time scale is possible. It *all* depends on the nature of the modules in nature in context.

And the "glue" is definitely "not forgotten", when it comes to finite mode chemical bonds, forming increasingly complex compounds in probable finite times, in a rich inorganic chemical broth, using energy, catalysis, inherent new chemical product feedback into the chemical species broth "natural combination-machine", and natural fitness in forward reaction numbers and chemical specie durability. Dawkins does miss the mark, by falling short, wholeheartedly agreed, not applying how chemicals have electronic glues and solvents in catalysis and enzymatic type reactions.

========Looney: "Thanks for dropping by."

====LRD: No problem. I always like rational discourse and debate in research and theorizing.

And we also agree that evolution is not the explanation for everything in design, as evolutionists like to claim. The step from evolutionary brute force methods, to intelligent design methods, verily creates a dramatic increase in the speed of design flow, as seen in ideas in human hands, versus molecules and organisms in nature's hands. Just imagine what will happens when the DNA can be intelligently and proficiently controlled and programmed by human hands, a feat no species on earth has ever achieved before to that level.

LoneRubberDragon

Looney said...

LRD, I will try to catch up with this on a regular post. On travel ...

Looney said...

LRD, if you are still checking this thread, I posted a response. My background in engineering and scientific programming for things like car crash and metal forming. Thus, I have a lot of direct experience (25 years + ) implementing and testing various optimization algorithms (both GA and classical) and trying to distinguish what can be done by the computer and what requires a user intervention.

LoneRubberDragon said...

Yes I am, I am following your words. Tho', still learning how to follow threads on distributed date blogs, but I will go and read your new words on the new blog post, that I see.