Re: The "target" of design vs. "target" of evolution.

Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:26:46 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BED42C.B32D69E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

David
> A designer composes the text: "methinks it is like a weasel".
> The next step is to display the phrase on a computer screen. The
> means may be:
> (a) to write a computer program which randomly throws up letters into
> predetermined spaces/slots. If they match the target, they are
> retained; if they do not match, the program iterates. Eventually,
> there is a perfect match.
> (b) to write the phrase into a memory location of the computer and
> then call it up to display on screen.
>
> I will describe (a) as an example of poor and inefficient
> programming, and one which is not worthy of an intelligent designer.
>
> Do I need to add that neither of these are acceptable analogues to
> Darwininism, because according to Darwinism there is no "target".

Chris
Not true: It *is* true that the "target" is not a *particular* species =
or
set of species, something corresponding to "methinks it is like a =
weasel,"
but it is a "target" nevertheless. It is survival. In modern Darwinism, =
it
is genetic survival

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BED42C.B32D69E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

David
> A designer composes the = text:=20 "methinks it is like a weasel".
> The next step is to display the = phrase=20 on a computer screen.  The
> means may be:
> (a) to = write a=20 computer program which randomly throws up letters into
> = predetermined=20 spaces/slots.  If they match the target, they are
> retained; = if they=20 do not match, the program iterates.  Eventually,
> there is a = perfect=20 match.
> (b) to write the phrase into a memory location of the = computer=20 and
> then call it up to display on screen.
>
> I will = describe (a) as an example of poor and inefficient
> programming, = and one=20 which is not worthy of an intelligent designer.
>
> Do I = need to add=20 that neither of these are acceptable analogues to
> Darwininism, = because=20 according to Darwinism there is no "target".

Chris
Not true: = It *is*=20 true that the "target" is not a *particular* species or
set of = species,=20 something corresponding to "methinks it is like a weasel,"
but it is = a=20 "target" nevertheless. It is survival. In modern Darwinism, it
is = genetic=20 survival
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BED42C.B32D69E0--