RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 2708
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2007,07:22   

William Dembski  
posted a reference the other day to a peer-reviewed paper by two Finnish ID-supporters that I claimed supported ID. The paper highlighted that evolutionary methods work to the degree that they are directed.

That's not accurate. In fact, the paper specifically says that Rapid progress and impressive results have been made towards this goal using rational design and random techniques or a combination of both, and There is also overreliance on the Darwinian blind search to obtain practical results.

In other words, progress is being made by Darwinian search, but faster progress might be possible in order to obtain practical results (meaning useful to humans) by implementing rational design. However, due to theoretical limitations, we need to rely on a combination of both.

So the paper concludes that Darwinian search has been useful in the past, is useful in the present, and will continue to be useful in the future. But that a better understanding will allow rational design in the future. And this paper was written by a Creationist.

Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]