Joined: Nov. 2007
Maybe these quotes aren't the most tardish, but they sure are the most ingenious pro-ID argument and anti-evolution argument I've seen in a while. I'll try to translate them.
The pro-ID one:
|All modulair cybernetic systems we know are the result from rational and intelligent design. (ofcourse that's not true by definition, because we don't know if that's the case with life, wich is apperantly also a modulair cybernetic system) The reason we prefer modulair designs, is because we want expandability, re-use, and control for bigger designs.|
|We don't know any (unintelligent) mechanism wich causes something with a structure like (with wich he means modulair cybernetic systems, ofcourse) that to arise out of it's own (in an unknown number of steps). There even are good arguments that such a mechanism is impossible: For example, there is no reason why a goal-less and unintelligent process should result in a modulair system. A modulair system always is less efficient then a non-modulair system. All examples of "design" by evolutionaire algorithms (I think he's trying to compare apples with pears here, because how well do those evolutionaire algorithms (he doesn't even name one) simulate the whole of the evolutionaire theory ánd reality.) show that there is a preference for non-modulair design.|
The bolding is from me.