Comment #13603

Posted by Great White Wonder on January 13, 2005 03:39 PM (e) (s)

I second Mr. Sandefur’s congrats to the amici, and extend my thanks and congrats to him as well.

And thanks for this nice overview, too!

Comment #13612

Posted by Ed Brayton on January 13, 2005 04:13 PM (e) (s)

And Congratulations to you, Mr. Sandefur. Thanks for the hard work you put in on that brief, I know it was a bit of a scramble to get done in time. In fact, as it turned out, it didn’t get done in time, but the judge obviously read it and thought it contained important information anyway. Great work. I’m sure I speak not only for the Michigan group but for all the other state science organizations who signed on to that brief in saying thank you for doing such a terrific job with it.

Comment #13627

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on January 13, 2005 05:34 PM (e) (s)

I’m proud to say that I wrote the amicus brief for the Colorado Citizens, et al.,  with the help of Georgia attorney Lynn Fant, and you can read it here.

Hey, I helped too, as did Sarah Pallas.

Comment #13629

Posted by DaveScot on January 13, 2005 05:48 PM (e) (s)

Tim,

I echo your sentiments about a society full non-specialists.

It is quite distressing to me that biologists who do not specialize in the design of complex machines pretend to be experts in design.

Most of my 25 year professional career has been a computer hardware and software design engineer.  I recognize an intelligent design when I see one.  It’s too bad most biologists do not, but why should they, since they’re not design specialists?

Comment #13630

Posted by Mike on January 13, 2005 05:52 PM (e) (s)

Dave, biologists do recognise design.  They just realise that natural selection et al was the “designer”.  They understand life evolved the way it has due to selective pressures, amongst other things.  Just because you don’t know what you’re talking about, or understand biology, doesn’t mean that they are wrong.

Comment #13631

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on January 13, 2005 05:59 PM (e) (s)

I’m very sorry, Mr. Cartwright. I certainly didn’t mean to demean anyone’s contribution. You and Dr. Pallas did indeed help write it, and several other people proposed changes that we incorporated. It was a big, fast-paced project, and everyone was very helpful. In fact, Mr. Cartwright was the leading client among the amici curiae.

DaveScot’s attempt at wit falls pretty flat, in my view. Evolutionary biolgoy is the study of design, rightly understood, and it has revealed a thorough, fascinating, brilliant, exhaustively proven explanation of the apparent design around us, that is genuine science. It’s called evolution. ID proponents, by contrast, parade about with a childish, unscientific sham argument which they dress up in a lab coat and call “design theory.” It just ain’t so.

Comment #13632

Posted by DaveScot on January 13, 2005 06:00 PM (e) (s)

No,  biologists don’t recognize design.  If they did they wouldn’t cling for dear life to the materialist dogma.  Perhaps if you were a designer you’d understand.

Comment #13634

Posted by Mike on January 13, 2005 06:04 PM (e) (s)

I am a designer.  I’m an electrical engineer.  I understand perfectly: you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Comment #13635

Posted by Jeremy Mohn on January 13, 2005 06:05 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

It is quite distressing to me that biologists who do not specialize in the design of complex machines pretend to be experts in design.

I would guess that it is quite distressing to biologists that computer hardware and software design engineers sometimes pretend to be experts in biology.

DaveScot wrote:

Most of my 25 year professional career has been a computer hardware and software design engineer.  I recognize an intelligent design when I see one.  It’s too bad most biologists do not, but why should they, since they’re not design specialists?

Don’t you really mean that you recognize an intelligent human design when you see one?  Computers and living things are quite different.  For one thing, computers don’t reproduce.  Or maybe you know something I don’t…

Comment #13636

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on January 13, 2005 06:05 PM (e) (s)

Sandefur wrote:

I’m very sorry, Mr. Cartwright. I certainly didn’t mean to demean anyone’s contribution.

No offence taken, I just want to take my props, just like you.  In fact, the entire Panda’s Thumb crew should take props since they helped with the revisions.

Comment #13637

Posted by Tom on January 13, 2005 06:14 PM (e) (s)

To DaveScot: Please enlighten me about design, and what it is about design that makes biologists unable to recognize it. I’m not being sarcastic. I’m seriously interested.

Comment #13638

Posted by Douglas Theobald on January 13, 2005 06:19 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

Most of my 25 year professional career has been a computer hardware and software design engineer.  I recognize an intelligent design when I see one.  It’s too bad most biologists do not, but why should they, since they’re not design specialists?

…

No,  biologists don’t recognize design.  If they did they wouldn’t cling for dear life to the materialist dogma.  Perhaps if you were a designer you’d understand.

I’m a designer and a biologist. As is Cartwright. I am sure Reed will agree, software design is quite far removed from biological design, though there are a few similarities. Perhaps if DaveScot had ever tried to design a protein or a catalytic RNA he would understand. Random variation and selection for function happens to be the most efficient and successful method known for designing biological systems. Imagine if randomly deleting or changing characters in the text in C code usually had no effect on the operation of a binary, and in fact made it better a significant fraction of the time.  The syntax of C code essentially prohibits such a thing, while the physical properties of nucleotides, amino acids, and folded proteins are quite amenable.

Comment #13640

Posted by Wayne Francis on January 13, 2005 06:33 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot do you use GAs?  The only way you’d say some of the programs that are created by one of my systems are “designed” is that you can’t imagine a system that wasn’t designed.  The scheduling component of my system was not designed by me but rather evolved over generations with random mutations.

It also makes me annoyed when people that don’t know biology say biologists don’t know about math or statistics or design or even computer programming.  All it does is show a massive ignorance on your part.

Comment #13641

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on January 13, 2005 06:39 PM (e) (s)

The interesting thing is that engineers are beginning to use random mutation and natural selection as enginerring techniques to solve their design challenges.  The results are often better and more creative than anything that human, “intelligent” designers that they are, could come up with.  IIRC, evolution was used by NASA to design light-weight trusses for the space station.

I’m curious how DaveScot defines “design” such that “materialistic” mechanisms are excluded.

Comment #13650

Posted by Steve on January 13, 2005 07:07 PM (e) (s)

Among the logical fallacies, I believe DaveScot’s argument would be classified as begging the question.  To extrapolate from his claim to be able to recognize an intelligent design when he sees one, I take it he would claim that if something appears to have been designed by an intelligent agent, then it necessarily was designed by an intelligent agent.  But the whole point of evolutionary theory is that it demonstrates, in great detail and with a gigantic amount of evidence to support it, how life on earth can have the appearance of design without any directing intelligence behind it.  In effect, DaveScot seems to be claiming that evolution is false because the appearance of design is always a reliable indicator of an intelligent agent, when in fact the reliability of that appearance is precisely what’s in question.

I would also note that the rather condescending statement that “perhaps if you were a designer you’d understand” combines an ad hominem (“You’re not a designer so your views are worthless”) with an appeal to (his own) authority.  The evidence is what matters, not how many years you’ve been designing things.

My apologies to DaveScot if I’ve misrepresented his views.

Comment #13665

Posted by Douglas Theobald on January 13, 2005 08:30 PM (e) (s)

Wayne Francis wrote:

It also makes me annoyed when people that don’t know biology say biologists don’t know about math or statistics or design or even computer programming.  All it does is show a massive ignorance on your part.

There is a good argument to be made that biologists, specifically evolutionary biologists and population geneticists, are essentially wholly responsible for the foundations of modern scientific statistics. Ronald A. Fisher, A. W. F. Edwards, Sir Francis Galton, George Yule, Karl Pearson, William Gosset (AKA “Student”), William Cochran, C. R. Rao, Jerzy Neyman — these are all the greats in modern stats and they all were biologists too of some sort. And evolutionary ones at that.

Comment #13672

Posted by DaveScot on January 13, 2005 09:21 PM (e) (s)

http://www.jtbf.org/article_iii_judges/cooper_c.htm…

Judge Cooper was appointed a United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Georgia by President Clinton on May 9, 1994.

A Clinton appointee during the time when the U.S. Senate was controlled by Democrats rubber-stamping all Clinton’s judicial nominations.

That sure explains the decision.

Comment #13673

Posted by DaveScot on January 13, 2005 09:28 PM (e) (s)

Wayne,

Start changing random bits in MS Windows executable files.  Let me know when a random change makes it work better.  Better yet, let Bill Gates know.

LOL!

Comment #13675

Posted by Great White Wonder on January 13, 2005 09:30 PM (e) (s)

A Texas Republican software engineer creationist-apologist who claims to be agnostic?

And I thought Charlie Wagner was a fish out of water.

Comment #13678

Posted by DaveScot on January 13, 2005 09:51 PM (e) (s)

Wayne Francis and others that think complex machines can be made better by mutation/selection:

Start changing random bits in MS Windows executable files.

If the change does no apparent harm, keep it and repeat the process.  If there’s harm then kill that version and go back to the previous iteration.

Y’all are trying to sell me on the concept that this will eventually fix bugs and add features to Windows.

Sorry, I ain’t buying what you’re selling.

To demonstrate that I’m not a mean guy I strongly suggest you back up your disk one time at the beginning of this experiment and keep the backup handy because I know what the nature of the results will be.

If you want to waste even more time & money, since it’s now possible to introduce random changes into the DNA of critters, try making one fitter for its environment through random change to its DNA.  Please use a lower animal for this as I’m something of a PETA sympathizer and, as with the computer experiment, I know what the nature of the results will be.

Comment #13680

Posted by shiva on January 13, 2005 09:56 PM (e) (s)

Dave Scott says, “Start changing random bits in MS Windows executable files. If the change does no apparent harm, keep it and repeat the process.  If there’s harm then kill that version and go back to the previous iteration.” Design something that can produce offspring or atleast spontaneously divide and then call me with the evidence. Maybe we will agree that living things are “designed”!

Comment #13684

Posted by RBH on January 13, 2005 10:09 PM (e) (s)

Wayne wrote

DaveScot do you use GAs?  The only way you’d say some of the programs that are created by one of my systems are “designed” is that you can’t imagine a system that wasn’t designed.  The scheduling component of my system was not designed by me but rather evolved over generations with random mutations.

And on any given day, the artificial traders my company’s GAs evolve control up to $1bil in market positions.  Autonomously.  And we poor suffering humans have no idea why they have any particular position on!.  That makes clients edgy sometimes.  :) 

Similarly, there is research (Reed’s anti-spam filter won’t let the URL through: search on [“hardware evolution” AND (Layzell AND Thompson]) in which real physical circuits evolve to perform tasks (e.g., oscillation) and produce ‘designs’ no human designer would produce, but that nevertheless work.  In fact, some of the evolved hardware designs (that actually work) are inscrutable to the programmers of the GAs evolving the circuits: the humans can’t figure out how the circuit is actually doing the task.

For a nice platform in which computer programs evolve, see Avida.  It evolves digital critters whose genomes — instructions — are assembly language programs.  And yes, the instruction sequences (programs) are mutated — changed by substitution, deletion, and insertion — and the bloody programs evolve!  Remarks about how computer programs can’t evolve rest on (1) the brittleness of the languages in common use and the syntactic constraints imposed by the languages (and programmers, come to that), and (2) the inability of programmers like DaveScot to think in population terms.  So what if a mutation is lethal?  That instance dies but the rest of the population keeps going.

RBH

Comment #13686

Posted by frank schmidt on January 13, 2005 10:28 PM (e) (s)

How about bacteria?

Nature 387, 703 - 705 (1997); doi:10.1038/42701

Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli

PAUL D. SNIEGOWSKI*, PHILIP J. GERRISH† & RICHARD E. LENSKI†

* Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
† Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.D.S. (e-mail: ).

Most mutations are likely to be deleterious, and so the spontaneous mutation rate is generally held at a very low value. Nonetheless, evolutionary theory predicts that high mutation rates can evolve under certain circumstances. Empirical observations have previously been limited to short-term studies of the fates of mutator strains deliberately introduced into laboratory populations of Escherichia coli, and to the effects of intense selective events on mutator frequencies in E. coli. Here we report the rise of spontaneously originated mutators in populations of E. coli undergoing long-term adaptation to a new environment. Our results corroborate computer simulations of mutator evolution in adapting clonal populations, and may help to explain observations that associate high mutation rates with emerging pathogens and with certain cancers.

Comment #13687

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on January 13, 2005 10:34 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot is priceless. “A Clinton appointee during the time when the U.S. Senate was controlled by Democrats rubber-stamping all Clinton’s judicial nominations,” he says. “That sure explains the decision.” I suppose. Or the decision could be explained by reference to the law and controlling precedent. The latter interpretation has the added benefit of explaining why a person such as myself—hardly a defender of the Clinton administration and its ideological current—agrees with the judge. But then, DaveScot’s fondness for ad hominem has already been noted.

Comment #13689

Posted by Tom on January 13, 2005 11:18 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot says:

Start changing random bits in MS Windows executable files.  Let me know when a random change makes it work better.

Which suggests that it all began with a design. Well, that’s faith, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with DaveScot’s experience as a software design engineer.

Here’s a better analogy: 100 software design engineers are locked in a room without food or water. After a panicky struggle to escape, in which 50 of the designers are trampled, the other 50 try to work cooperatively toward making an escape. As that effort becomes prolonged, it breaks down in acrimony; cliques develop and fights break out. Before long, there are only a few dozen engineers left, and they have split into three camps.

One camp (the scientists) believes it can discover a method of escaping the room, given adequate observation and analysis. The second camp (the mystics) believes that there’s no way out and prepares for death by calmly meditating. The third camp (the pragmatists) is agnostic about escape, but isn’t ready to die, so its members begin to kill and eat the mystics.

As they are being killed by the pragmatists, the mystics console themselves by saying that it’s all part of a grand design, and that they’ll have food and water in the next life.

What happens next? After eating the mystics, do the pragmatists turn on the the scientists and eat them as well? Or do the pragmatists keep (some of) the scientists alive, in case the scientists can discover a way out of the room?

If the pragmatists eat the scientists, the pragmatists will then begin to eat each other. The last pragmatist to die (of starvation) will say that it was the inevitable outcome, given the initial conditions in the room.

If the pragmatists spare the scientists (or some of them), and the scientists don’t find a way out of the room, the pragmatists will begin to finish off the scientists, then each other. The last pragmatist to die (of starvation) will say that it was the inevitable outcome, given the initial conditions in the room.

If the pragmatists spare the scientists (or some of them), and the scientists find a way out of the room, the pragmatists will claim that it was the inevitable outcome, given the initial conditions in the room.

The scientists, on the other hand, will say that escape was merely one of many possible outcomes. It merely seems inevitable in retrospect.

And the cynics among the scientists will say: If the mystics had survived they would have claimed that it was all part of the grand design.

Comment #13690

Posted by Tom on January 13, 2005 11:22 PM (e) (s)

P.S. to the last paragraph of my comment #13689. I wrote:

And the cynics among the scientists will say: If the mystics had survived they would have claimed that it was all part of the grand design.

To which I should have added: And the cynics would be right.

Comment #13692

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on January 14, 2005 12:03 AM (e) (s)

Posted by frank schmidt on January 13, 2005 10:28 PM

How about bacteria?

Nature 387, 703 - 705 (1997); doi:10.1038/42701

Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli

PAUL D. SNIEGOWSKI*, PHILIP J. GERRISH† & RICHARD E. LENSKI†

* Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
† Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

That lead author would of course be the same Paul Sniegowski that was one of the ringleaders of the UPenn faculty letter to the Dover Area School Board.

Comment #13697

Posted by Alex Merz on January 14, 2005 12:36 AM (e) (s)

What’s not funny about Dave Scott entering a discussion of legal issues in evolution and in essence saying, “I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it…”?

On a more serious level, the random mutagenesis experiment that Scott suggests has been done many times, with precisely the results he thinks won’t be found. That he is unaware of this suggests that he knows vastly less about biology than he thinks that he does. And that’s not funny; it’s just sad.

Comment #13702

Posted by steve on January 14, 2005 01:13 AM (e) (s)

Using evolution to do what engineers can’t is already big business. One can’t help noticing that their products appear messy and irregular and positively biological compared with the products of intelligent, that is to say human, design.

Comment #13716

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on January 14, 2005 10:15 AM (e) (s)

For DaveScot: Avida

You can read about it in the February 2005 issue of Discover magazine.

Comment #13719

Posted by Adam Marczyk on January 14, 2005 10:39 AM (e) (s)

If DaveScot refuses to believe that changing bits in code randomly can produce functional results, then he clearly isn’t well informed on the research within his own field. For his edification, here is a partial listing of some of the things that have been produced by such a technique:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html#examples…

Comment #13723

Posted by Wayne Francis on January 14, 2005 11:48 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

Wayne Francis and others that think complex machines can be made better by mutation/selection:

Oh you show how much you don’t know.  Do you realise that there are tons of items that are no longer “designed” by humans but via GAs.  They are modified randomly and selection over many generations produces a product that does the job most often much better then a human could design it?  Many circut boards are evolved not designed.

You also don’t understand that biological systems are orders of magnitude more tolerant of mutations then code.  That said I see my scheduling system work every day very efficiently useing code that no human has written because it was evolved over many generation.  Please read up on GA before opening your mouth and haveing only stupid statements come out.

Comment #13724

Posted by DaveScot on January 14, 2005 11:52 AM (e) (s)

Where the Cobb opinion is flawed.  Justice Clarence Cooper states:

In this case, the Court believes that an informed, reasonable observer would interpret the Sticker to convey a message of endorsement of religion.  That is, the Sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the Sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.

The fact that evolution is being presented in the textbook without criticism or mention of opposing theories sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are favored members of the political community and sends a message to those who question evolution that they are political outsiders.  The Sticker, by encouraging critical thinking and pointing out that evolution is not irrefutable fact, sends a message that those who do not believe in evolution are POLITICAL EQUALS with those who do believe in evolution.

Justice Cooper clearly got it wrong in who is being favored.  Cooper’s flawed logic in deducing favoritism is the basis of his finding that the Sticker fails to meet the Lemon test.  Absent this conclusion of political favoritism he finds no other failure to meet the Lemon test and would thus have to rule in favor of defendents.  I believe that his decision will be reversed on appeal, if there is an appeal, because of this.

Comment #13725

Posted by DaveScot on January 14, 2005 12:02 PM (e) (s)

Wayne,

You have absolutely no clue how commercially saleable computer hardware and software is designed if you think genetic algorithms play any part whatsoever in the design process.  I’m not going to argue with you about it further.  I’ve worked in the computer industry as a hardware and software design engineer my entire adult life.  You are simply full of crap about any role that GA plays.

Comment #13732

Posted by Orbital Mechanic on January 14, 2005 12:29 PM (e) (s)

Hmm…someone’s getting a mite touchy that his professionalism is being impugned.  I’d call it irony, except that combining stupidity with hypocrisy doesn’t really count….

Comment #13735

Posted by repo on January 14, 2005 12:36 PM (e) (s)

Sure he does, DaveScot.
He spent a day studying it in college.
You have no idea how fast his brain works.

Comment #13737

Posted by Great White Wonder on January 14, 2005 12:37 PM (e) (s)

David Scott Springer continues digging his hole:

The fact that evolution is being presented in the textbook without criticism or mention of opposing theories sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are favored members of the political community and sends a message to those who question evolution that they are political outsiders.

No, it just sends a message that those who question evolution are outside the scientific community, as a matter of fact.

Same with those who question the moon landing and the holocaust and the double-helical structure of DNA.

Comment #13738

Posted by DaveScot on January 14, 2005 12:38 PM (e) (s)

Adam,

The GA you reference is not modifying either the hardware or the software that comprises the computing platform.  That simply is not done in the computer design business. 

Evidently you’re failing to distinguish between application software and computer hardware, firmware, and operating systems which host the applications.

GA is being employed to help discover unique and unexpected solutions in various applications but those applications do not include modifying the platform which supports the application software.  Fixing a bug in Windows or adding a new feature to it via random bit flipping is preposterous and will get you laughed out of any shop involved in platform development.

Random searches through solution spaces is not a new concept and it is sometimes applied as an adjunct to directed design, but not as a replacement for design.  In my experience it’s employed usually as a result of sloth.  It’s easier to design an algorithm that simply tries and tests all possible solutions than it is to think up intelligent restrictions which reduce the size of the set to search and test, trading off brain power for computer power.

Be that as it may, evolution does not posit some design and some random searching through solution spaces.  It posits no design and nothing but random searches through solution spaces.  Complex machines simply don’t come about through completely random mechanisms.  At least not any complex machine I’ve ever seen where the origin of the machine can be determined.

Comment #13739

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on January 14, 2005 12:39 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

The fact that evolution is being presented in the textbook without criticism or mention of opposing theories sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are favored members of the political community and sends a message to those who question evolution that they are political outsiders.  The Sticker, by encouraging critical thinking and pointing out that evolution is not irrefutable fact, sends a message that those who do not believe in evolution are POLITICAL EQUALS with those who do believe in evolution.

Justice Cooper clearly got it wrong in who is being favored.  Cooper’s flawed logic in deducing favoritism is the basis of his finding that the Sticker fails to meet the Lemon test.  Absent this conclusion of political favoritism he finds no other failure to meet the Lemon test and would thus have to rule in favor of defendents.  I believe that his decision will be reversed on appeal, if there is an appeal, because of this.

A more basic question might be why a SCIENCE textbook should be sending any political message at all. It should be passing on SCIENCE, and Creationism has repeatedly been found to be religion, not SCIENCE.

It’s pretty simple: if Creationists want their message in or on a public school textbook, they need to get their ideas accepted scientifically. So far they have failed miserably at that, and the stickers are an attempted end-around.

Comment #13740

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on January 14, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot says that the flaw in the Selman decision is in the notion that the disclaimer “sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the Sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” This, he says, is a problem because “[t]he fact that evolution is being presented in the textbook without criticism or mention of opposing theories sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are favored members of the political community and sends a message to those who question evolution that they are political outsiders.”

But the Constitution does not require the government to remain neutral with regard to science, or to avoid stepping on the toes of people who have secular differences with others. It can, for instance, unequivocally state that vaccination is valid, legitimate science and that magnetic bracelets are quackery. Likewise, it can say that creationism is quackery so far as its scientific claims are concerned. The only thing it cannot do is send a message to those who believe in religion that their views are specifically disfavored by the state (or vice versa). In other words, official sanctions are not allowed only in the religion context.

This gives rise to two problems. First, it stymies ID creationists, because they want to portray their beliefs as science. But when they do so, the state can legitimately refuse to teach it, since it’s fake science. On the other hand, if ID creationists portray their views as religious, the state can refuse to teach it, since the state’s not allowed to teach religion.

The more serious problem is that some people believe that official sanctions are their constitutional right. That is, they believe that their right to Free Exercise of Religion includes their right to use the state make religious pronouncements, or teach religion, or even tell us how to pray or what to read or what to do in the bedroom. These people feel ]an entitlement to things like the disclaimer sticker, and they feel that they are having their rights violated when the court says “no, you may not endorse religion through the state.”

It is this sort of thinking that underlies DaveScot’s statement that“Justice [sic] Cooper clearly got it wrong in [sic] who is being favored.” Note the unspoken premise that the state must stay neutral between (1) science, and (2) whatever crackpot “alternative theory” a person comes up with and slaps the label “Religion” on.

If “fairness” requires the state to avoid “sending a message to those who those who believe in evolution that they are favored members of the political community,” then it also would require the state to remain neutral with regard to the medical efficacy of magnetic bracelets, or the flatness vs. the roundness of the earth, or whether cigarette smoking causes cancer. Every governmental pronouncement would have to be accompanied with some sort of disclaimer: “Surgeon General’s Warning: Smoking is known to cause cancer. However, the First Church of Ooglethorpe in Snodgrass, Alabama, disagrees. Citizens are encouraged to exercise critical thinking….” The First Amendment simply does not require this. Cf. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 885 (1990) (“To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling’—permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’—contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.”)

The state is not allowed to endorse religion. It is allowed to endorse science. That simple fact is not changed by the fact that some people, for religious reasons, refuse to believe in that science.

Comment #13743

Posted by neo-anit-luddite on January 14, 2005 12:52 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot, you are obviously a part of the priveleged coder conspirisy, unwilling to accept new ideas that threaten your dominant position even though you know that Wayen Francis is absolutely correct.  You dont keep an open mind, you just ignore the evidence and keep repeating your mantra.  Why are you so scared, trying to keep evolution out of the computer field?

Comment #13744

Posted by DaveScot on January 14, 2005 12:52 PM (e) (s)

Great White Wonder (whatever that is) says:

[qoute]
No, it just sends a message that those who question evolution are outside the scientific community, as a matter of fact.
[/quote]

By that do you mean that skepticism isn’t allowed in science anymore?

I guess science has changed a lot while I wasn’t looking.  When did this paradigm shift occur?

Comment #13748

Posted by Mike on January 14, 2005 01:06 PM (e) (s)

You are such a gigantic tool DaveScot.  The Theory of Evolution has been scrutinized for over 150 years.  It has withstood the rigors of scientific scrutiny and skepticism and been modified accordingly.  It will continue to be scrutinized, just as it always has been.  Why do you think that high schoolers, who barely get any evolutionary biology education in the first place, need stickers on their textbooks.  Have you even seen the textbooks in question?

Comment #13755

Posted by Great White Wonder on January 14, 2005 01:28 PM (e) (s)

By that do you mean that skepticism isn’t allowed in science anymore?

Your kind of skepticism is not useful to science, Mr. Springer.

Comment #13775

Posted by Tracy P. Hamilton on January 14, 2005 02:39 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

Adam,

The GA you reference is not modifying either the hardware or the software that comprises the computing platform.  That simply is not done in the computer design business.

Evidently you’re failing to distinguish between application software and computer hardware, firmware, and operating systems which host the applications.

GA is being employed to help discover unique and unexpected solutions in various applications but those applications do not include modifying the platform which supports the application software.  Fixing a bug in Windows or adding a new feature to it via random bit flipping is preposterous and will get you laughed out of any shop involved in platform development.

Making a new operating system via random mixing of two
operating systems is preposterous and will get you laughed
out of any shop involved in platform development. 

By this reasoning, biological reproduction is ridiculous.

But of course, it is NOT ridiculous.  Whether a GA works
(or even qualifies as an evolutionary algorithm) depends critically on how the random changes get implemented.

Early attempts at applying evolutionary principles to
computing to solve problems were complete failures precisely
because they were trying things like making random bit flips
in executables.

DaveScot wrote:

Random searches through solution spaces is not a new concept and it is sometimes applied as an adjunct to directed design, but not as a replacement for design.  In my experience it’s employed usually as a result of sloth.  It’s easier to design an algorithm that simply tries and tests all possible solutions than it is to think up intelligent restrictions which reduce the size of the set to search and test, trading off brain power for computer power.

The whole point is that you can’t search all possible solutions.

DaveScot wrote:

Be that as it may, evolution does not posit some design and some random searching through solution spaces.  It posits no design and nothing but random searches through solution spaces.  Complex machines simply don’t come about through completely random mechanisms.  At least not any complex machine I’ve ever seen where the origin of the machine can be determined.

Nor do complex machines come about from reproduction, that you have ever seen.  Should make you think - maybe living things are not designed.

Comment #13832

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on January 14, 2005 05:10 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

By that do you mean that skepticism isn’t allowed in science anymore?

I guess science has changed a lot while I wasn’t looking.  When did this paradigm shift occur?

Would you consider someone who was ‘skeptical’ of the heliocentric solar system to be “in science” or wallowing in psuedoscience?

Comment #13848

Posted by Ed Hessler on January 14, 2005 06:26 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Sandefur:

From a chilled and getting chillier Minnesota, thanks to you and all others involved.  Thank goodness, this view of life, a science as a way of knowing view, has been upheld.

Cheers.

Comment #13851

Posted by Ed Hessler on January 14, 2005 06:30 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Sandefur:

From a chilled and getting chillier Minnesota, thanks to you and all others involved.  I’m glad to know that this view of life, call it science as a way of knowing, has been upheld. It is what we learn and teach in science classrooms; based on evidence, too or especially.

Cheers.

Comment #13878

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on January 14, 2005 11:05 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot, you need to drop that little buzzword, “random”, as in:

Be that as it may, evolution does not posit some design and some random searching through solution spaces. It posits no design and nothing but random searches through solution spaces.

Then go look up certain little things in the scientific literature - starting with “selective pressure”, proceeding to e.g. “nosocomial infection”, “multiple-antibiotic resistance” and so on. Then get back to us when you´ve seen the light, ´cause, you know, the Truth will set you free…

Comment #13923

Posted by Ralph Jones on January 15, 2005 06:25 PM (e) (s)

DavScot,

Anti-evolutionists call macroevolution “just a theory.”  There is an essential distinction between the phenomenon of macroevolution and the theory of evolution.  A scientific theory is a well-supported and useful general explanation or organizing principle as exemplified by the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution refers to the mechanisms, such as mutation, competition, and population isolation that cause evolution.  Macroevolution itself is a scientific fact, not a theory in any sense of the word.  Because of overwhelming evidence, such as the fossil record found in the geologic column, comparative anatomy, and the distribution of species, almost all professional biologists accept the phenomenon of macroevolution with the same confidence that they accept heliocentrism.  Scientific facts are not absolute truth.  They are accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by a near consensus of scientists, but by definition are tentative.  It is a scientific fact that if you let go of a pencil, it will fall toward the center of the Earth, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it will fly into space.

Comment #13925

Posted by Ralph Jones on January 15, 2005 09:42 PM (e) (s)

Anti-evolutionists call macroevolution “just a theory.”  There is an essential distinction between the phenomenon of macroevolution and the theory of evolution.  A scientific theory is a well-supported and useful general explanation or organizing principle as exemplified by the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution refers to the mechanisms, such as mutation, competition, and population isolation that cause evolution.  Macroevolution itself is a scientific fact, not a theory in any sense of the word.  Because of overwhelming evidence, such as the fossil record found in the geologic column, comparative anatomy, and the distribution of species, almost all professional biologists accept the phenomenon of macroevolution with the same confidence that they accept heliocentrism.  Scientific facts are not absolute truth.  They are accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by a near consensus of scientists, but by definition are tentative.  It is a scientific fact that if you let go of a pencil, it will fall toward the center of the Earth, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it will fly into space.

Comment #13926

Posted by Ralph Jones on January 15, 2005 09:47 PM (e) (s)

Anti-evolutionists call macroevolution “just a theory.”  There is an essential distinction between the phenomenon of macroevolution and the theory of evolution.  A scientific theory is a well-supported and useful general explanation or organizing principle as exemplified by the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution refers to the mechanisms, such as mutation, competition, and population isolation that cause evolution.  Macroevolution itself is a scientific fact, not a theory in any sense of the word.  Because of overwhelming evidence, such as the fossil record found in the geologic column, comparative anatomy, and the distribution of species, almost all professional biologists accept the phenomenon of macroevolution with the same confidence that they accept heliocentrism.  Scientific facts are not absolute truth.  They are accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by a near consensus of scientists, but by definition are tentative.  It is a scientific fact that if you let go of a pencil, it will fall toward the center of the Earth, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it will fly into space.

Comment #13936

Posted by ArtK on January 15, 2005 11:41 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

You have absolutely no clue how commercially saleable computer software is designed if you think genetic algorithms play any part whatsoever in the design process.

Mr. Scot… I’ve been in software development for 25 years, writing commercial software for Lockheed, AT&T, NCR, IBM and several other companies.  I would suggest that you have little knowlege of good hardware or software design if you a-priori discard a technique and say “it isn’t used.”  GAs will play a major role in the next generation of database query optimizers, for instance.

Fifteen years ago, fuzzy logic played no part in software or hardware design; nowadays, if you ride on an elevator that is fast and smooth, you’re probably coming in contact with a fuzzy algorithm.

Comment #14372

Posted by Larry Bishop on January 21, 2005 02:59 PM (e) (s)

My comments are in regard to Mr. Jones’ comment #13926. You said, “Because of overwhelming evidence, such as the fossil record found in the geologic column, comparative anatomy, and the distribution of species, almost all professional biologists accept the phenomenon of macroevolution with the same confidence that they accept heliocentrism.”  I apologize for not being readily familiar with the term “heliocentrism”, but in regard to the other, the fossil record shows no macroevolutionary transition, but just the opposite.  Most scientist believe in the “Cambrian explosion” or Big Bang theory (approximately 540 million years ago.  I respectfully submit that Darwin’s Tree of Life represents his theory and it is not supported by the physical evidence scientist have found in fossils to date.  I believe Darwin said, “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down.”  He acknowledged that major groups of animals—he calls them divisions, now they’re called phyla—-appear suddenly in the fossil record.  That is not what his theory predicts.  His theory predicts a long history of gradual divergence from a common ancestor; with the differences slowly becoming bigger and bigger unil you get the major differences we have now.  The fossil evidence, even in his day, showed the opposite:  the rapid appearance of phylum-level differences in what’s called the Cambrian explosion.” If you are aware of any fossil records which support his theory or contradict the sudden appearance of much more complex animals during the Big Bang,  please let me know.

Respectfully submitted,

Larry Bishop

Comment #14375

Posted by Great White Wonder on January 21, 2005 03:44 PM (e) (s)

If you are aware of any fossil records which support his theory or contradict the sudden appearance of much more complex animals during the Big Bang

Please somebody please archive this post in the Hall of Shame with a big fat blue ribbon.

Trackback: Cooper Rules

Posted by De Rerum Natura on January 13, 2005 10:09 PM

Well the verdict is in; [url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/index.html]the Cobb County disclaimers are unconstitutional[/url]. Still no reaction from the Discovery Institute. On can read some [url=http://www.ajc.com/metro/...

Trackback: Dover Watch – ID Statement Delayed (Plus Cobb County Update!)

Posted by The Two Percent Company's Rants on January 13, 2005 11:27 PM

As reported in the York Daily Record, the Dover, PA evolution disclaimer — a statement to be read to students explaining that evolution is "just a theory," and implying that Intelligent Design is a feasible alternative explanation for the origins...

Trackback: Decision in Cobb, County: Disclaimer Stickers Must Go

Posted by Agnosticism/Atheism on January 14, 2005 06:36 AM

As is appropriate, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the evolution disclaimers being used in Cobb County, Georgia, are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and must be removed. Religious critics of evolution weep in anguish, but sci...

Trackback: Decision in Cobb, County: Disclaimer Stickers Must Go

Posted by Agnosticism/Atheism on January 14, 2005 07:15 AM

As is appropriate, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the evolution disclaimers being used in Cobb County, Georgia, are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and must be removed. Religious critics of evolution weep in anguish, but sci...

Trackback: Legal Victory Over Intelligent Design Creationists

Posted by Unscrewing The Inscrutable on January 15, 2005 07:31 PM

It's been an excellent week for science all around! The attempt by religious fundamentalist board members and residents in Cobb County Independent School District, to place misleading stickers on biology textbooks concerning evolution, was struck down ...

Trackback: Legal Victory Over Intelligent Design Creationists

Posted by Unscrewing The Inscrutable on January 15, 2005 07:31 PM

It's been an excellent week for science all around! The attempt by religious fundamentalist board members and residents in Cobb County Independent School District, to place misleading stickers on biology textbooks concerning evolution, was struck down ...

Trackback: Legal Victory Over Intelligent Design Creationists

Posted by Unscrewing The Inscrutable on January 15, 2005 07:34 PM

It's been an excellent week for science all around! The attempt by religious fundamentalist board members and residents in Cobb County Independent School District, to place misleading stickers on biology textbooks concerning evolution, was struck down ...

Trackback: Legal Victory Over Intelligent Design Creationists

Posted by Unscrewing The Inscrutable on January 15, 2005 07:35 PM

It's been an excellent week for science all around! The attempt by religious fundamentalist board members and residents in Cobb County Independent School District, to place misleading stickers on biology textbooks concerning evolution, was struck down ...

Trackback: Cobb County

Posted by reality based community on January 17, 2005 07:32 PM

At some point soon I'm going to tackle the entire Cobb County School District opinion with some in-depth legal analysis, but for now, I'll just say: 1) Yay! 2) Wow. I didn't quite expect this, being that so many other...

Trackback: Cobb County

Posted by reality based community on January 17, 2005 07:36 PM

At some point soon I'm going to tackle the entire Cobb County School District opinion [pdf] with some in-depth legal analysis, but for now, I'll just say: 1) Yay! 2) Wow. I didn't quite expect this, being that so many...

Trackback: Cobb County anti Evolution stickers invalidated

Posted by Law Evolution Science and Junk Science on January 18, 2005 04:09 PM

I wrote about the Cobb County evolution creation trial a few months ago on my other blog.

Trackback: Cobb County anti Evolution stickers invalidated

Posted by Law Evolution Science and Junk Science on January 18, 2005 06:09 PM

I wrote about the Cobb County evolution creation trial a few months ago on my other blog.

Trackback: Cobb County anti Evolution stickers invalidated

Posted by Law Evolution Science and Junk Science on January 18, 2005 08:31 PM

I wrote about the Cobb County evolution creation trial a few months ago on my other blog.