First off, computers are not a bunch of wires sticking out, whether it is symmetrical or not, this has nothing to do with efficiency and purpose. In networking, for example sending and receiving data we use encoding algorithms to transmit the data from source to destination such as sending in frames, packets, cells which can be represented by the binary bits of sequences being sent out through the copper/fiber optic cables. Computers, the ones you have on your desktop perform synchronously (according to frequency, voltage etc...) and that synchronization is based on the purpose for fast processing and stability, to increase efficiency, there is also parity bit for redundancy (checking for errors or CRC's) included which makes transmitting through the short bus lines even more efficient. Another example of transmitting in long distances for hundreds or thousands of miles, repeaters or signal enhancers would be used to strengthen or amplify the signal so that it can reach the destination without the external noise or electromagnetic interference being a significant factor. I'm just giving examples in design since we are talking and relating to design in nature vs. human design to make a point.
Doesn't RNA perform encoding/decoding mechanisms for building proteins? Has evolutionary Biology figured out the algorithm, does it need to or doesn't it, this is where I believe Intelligent design can go more deeply into, and not just process of “change”, why it changes, what are all the external factors forcing this part to be a subsystem or a dependant component of the other. Evolution can assume how the eye evolved, but like I asked why is it more complex, why does the eye specifically need to be more complex, because complexity is one thing and specified complexity is another, how many factors induced this change, which ones exactly, is it just mere chemical processes, laws of physics combined with fitness...in this case...Nature seems to be doing an amazing job dealing with all these elements the way it is, does it just change because changes occur and therefore....or is it more specific in that external intelligence plays a key role in the whole thing.
The bacterial flagellum that Michael Behe introduces about irreducible complexity states that if you take out one part, the whole thing seizes to function or doesn't function properly, but that begs the question, what if it does function if you take out a bunch of parts from it? Doesn't that mean that it is not irreducibly complex...NO, it actually means more so, that this is designed. The BEST human designs are the ones that are "REDUNDANT" or are "FAULT TOLERANT". Take for example a space craft, not accounting for the heat being dispersed when traveling back through the earths atmosphere would cause catastrophe. Adding more layers to it or using stronger material would prevent anything from shredding/ripping apart, this is what I mean about redundancy.. But EVERYTHING has its limits angel, everything.
No. This might be irrelevant to the issue but I cannot agree with what you claimed.
I do not need to know what perfect means in order to know when something is imperfect.
Something is imperfect if I can improve it.
So what are the limits to improving something, for example, I can think of many ways to improve my computer, for example, I wake up one day and decide that Microsoft makes crappy operating systems, it has shown to have severe security and vulnerability issues (ie: crackers and viruses). I decide to make my own operating system (forgetting that Linux/UNIX OS's are much more efficient). So what I do is make my own OS, and I make it in such a way that only I am able to use it, that means that I can't contact or use the Internet (this means not including TCP/IP communication standard protocols), what I do is I want to make it perfect, that means completely free from viruses and attackers, physically and logically, so I encase the PC in steal chamber, I make it so that logically only I can access it, others can't and that means I can't access the Internet. So this is my idea of a perfect computer, virus and hacker free.
Building this so called perfect design would be perfect to me but imperfect to somebody else who wants to contact me via e-mail, or how about servicing the hardware it if it breaks down?
Building up on the old Windows would not fix any problems, because I know that the outside world (external environment) would get access to it either way if I updated the patches, service pack etc...But it seems to be perfect for business even though they loose billions of dollars/year of stolen personal information (ie: credit cards etc..), but they use it either way.
The point is that if something fulfills a purpose it doesn't need to be quantified by "perfection" or "imperfection". The environment takes its toll, we live in it and we abide by the physical constraints of the environment, so the environment will always have an effect on us, whatever our design or whatever we design..design should incorporate free will, so limiting the free will is adding layers upon layers to the spacecraft until either it can't function or it can't move at all due to the weight, or perhaps making it so redundant that the external environment has almost zero effect on it and be prevalent to loss of free-will inherent in that design .
The same redundancy can be compared to a human cutting himself and then healing, eventually it heals, bones break and heal, but cutting off a leg won't grow back, but what does that mean to design? It means there is a limit to every design, cutting off the leg without growing back shows a limit to that design If you smoke heavily you will be prevalent to health problems or perhaps cancer in the long run, do you believe the designer should have also incorporated something to prevent this from happening?
Another very good indication of design is size. Size implies a couple of things, notice how technology keep getting smaller and smaller but the technology is much better and can perform more functions then previously. The cell for example, has more computing power then all the super-computers that exist. Its also a good indication where technology is going, technology is an illusion of design compared to living systems (laughable in comparison), technology I believe is leading towards a “cellular” level of expression. The size, the function, the mechanisms, even the idea of reproduction that non-living systems can reproduce is now a reality.
Why does intelligence need to explain what is inherent in living systems, didn't we already know we were designed or not designed?
It took 4 billion years to set up the conditions and less than 100 years to get to computers
So I'm not to sure about this statement here angel. If one simple cell is that much more powerful than all the CPU processors combined on the planet, then you could say that these computers aren't really designed at all, in comparison.
Another question needs to be asked, if intelligent systems can only be designed by intelligence, then that begs evolutionary theory for the existence of intelligence in the first place, the mind exhibits intelligent thinking processes whether they are frequent or not, we are conscious about our acts and therefore we have to ask why does intelligence even exist in the first place, why do we define it?
The fact is that nothing has shown to produce or simulate anything functional or mechanistic in ND'sm, there are no predictive theories or rules of logic for evolutionary theory, so explaining it would be wandering off into assumptions, well maybe that happened or this was the case, but the fact remains that nothing has been simulated, the problem is it hasn't been simulated because its very complex and hard to work with, the second fact is it hasn't been simulated because the process of simulation is either presumptive, the third fact is the method of simulation, what method will you simulate it. If you have the wrong process but the right imaginary tract than its possible to simulate it through computers, but if that process is wrong you can imagine all you like and the burden is on you to explain your imaginative theory in a mathematically precise way and taking in all the external factors that contribute, because there seems to be alot more than just the natural selection, since you can't simulate it with this. Intelligent design has shown either or a combination of the following:
a. ND'st are incapable of explaining evolutionary theory from a hard-scientific perspective
b. ND'st conform to the wrong method of explaining evolutionary theory
c.ND'st have completely missed out and evaded the principles of intelligent systems
d. That ND'st still need lots of time to explain everything what ID believes it cannot explain, and ND'st are working on it
ID is claiming something completely different. They say that biological systems have been designed
by an unkown designer, external to Nature,
whose intelligence is not implemented in a biological or artifical
or physical structure (since it must have a CSI higher than anything physical in the universe).
We never observed scientifically anything like that. Nor something similar.
For that reason ID cannot be called a scientific explanation for biological systems.
We have never observed natural selection producing anything significant either, but it must have produced the way ND'st says because...the battle is between the environment and the living system, so therefore there is nothing else that can contribute to this process but this environment, and if this environment is finely tuned for life, or that the laws of gravity, the earth, solar system and galaxy shows, then the environment itself must be an illusion of design as well.
Not at all, godslanguage. I may have been unclear or you misunderstood.
My referring to the "market" does not refer to a functionality of the camera.
The camera functions is to take pictures.
The market enters my argument just as a way of estimating the general attitude towards
a particular model. I never mention profits. As far as my argument is concerned the camera
might be sold for free. Still people would condider the side effect of seing wires in their pictures a
bad feature of the camera, I think.
Yes, well, I was referring to how the product adapts to market conditions, technology is based on the needs of people, so what purpose does a 4.0 megapixel camera have for a two year old or what attitude might that two year old have towards that compared to a camera with a bunch of wires sticking out, either way the 2 year old would discard it and play with his superman doll. What purpose would that have for the army? The attitude towards it is based on the purpose of the product. I'm not mentioning profits either, my point is around the fact of intent.
One hundred and fifty years ago, Darwin didn't know how intelligent these systems in cells (DNA, RNA) are. Coincidently now technology seems to have kept up with Darwinian evolution. The cell is not just some blob of protoplasm or goo like Darwin believed back then. Unfortunately the belief seems to be the same among ND'st today, theoretically they see the cell the same way, that it was gradually developed over time, time had created this illusion of design through these “natural” mechanisms (random mutation, natural selection etc...). Now reason through technology has provided evidence otherwise through not only by examining this stuff in microscopes but through the design capabilities themselves and the explicit similarities being shown. So it is no wonder Darwinists are being challenged, this is from the scientific and a lot to do with the technological/engineering/creative perspective. So do you doubt technology, engineering, creation? Do you doubt that design or systems that exhibit intelligence mechanistic processes could not have been designed, in this case Intelligent
Design is very scientific to assume.
The other part about it is the method that is used to predict any changes that occur in genetic sequences. Is there any predictive logic, set of rules or theories in evolutionary biology to show how and why things change the way they do. Beneficial mutations can be compared to designing a motherboard on a computer and adding or taking away a component to produce/achieve a specific complex function. Beneficial mutations can be shown to have goal directed processes, another sign in my opinion, of an intelligent system.
Now Bgood and many disagree about comparing design to natural design because life reproduces. But I disagree that design is only constraint to human artifacts. It CAN be compared to either way and effectively because intelligence is recognizable and when looking through that microscope, we find similarities we can make reasonable assumptions that intelligence played a role in the design. I guess the one thing we can do is say since there is a pattern that we can “NOW” recognize as a fundamental property of design because of our own reasoning and current knowledge of elements of pattern in design, we can make this inference of design in anything because we recognize how it works, or how it must work, but before, lets say 150 years ago we would make a different conclusion because the design back then does not even show “similarities” to design in living systems as does technology/engineering show now.
a. Either that design was directly designed
b. Indirectly designed (evolutionary process initiated by origin (ie: First living cell))
c. both a and b (progressively designed)
d. It wasn't designed at all, just looks designed (ND'sm)
Scripturally speaking, did God the designer create us perfect in his image?
Did God say he made us to be gods or that we are gods, or that we are to fulfill his purpose?
Or does God say we are truly flawed, that we have weaknesses? But, scripturally speaking it all makes sense, the design, the purpose, the plan and everything, it makes perfect sense to me, but it might not make sense to you.
"Is it possible that God is not just an Engineer, but also a divine Artist who creates at times solely for His enjoyment? Maybe the Creator really does like beetles." RTB
