"A failure of imagination"

"Intelligent Design, especially as epitomized in Behe's Darwin's Black Box, reduces ultimately to a failure of imagination . . . since the advocates can't grasp how the process might produce the end result, they declare it impossible" writes Barry Kearns of VekTor, referring to our own recent post citing Pope Benedict XVI's "each of us is necessary" inaugural:

My work in Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming (specifically as they relate to Artificial Intelligence) has shown me that, while the process might not be intelligent, thoughtful, considered or even meaningful . . . it is the result of the process that is often far from meaningless.

I've been frankly startled by the power and efficacy of the evolutionary process for solving problems, without even stating the nature of the problem itself to the solution engine.  Watching powerful solutions arise out of the 'digital goo' in real time is downright spooky.  And that's with relatively tiny population sizes.

Scale that up to population size in the quadrillions or more, all operating in parallel, and mind-bogglingly difficult problems can get 'solved' by the unintelligent process of real-world evolution.

Just what we wanted to hear -- natch -- from someone in the field, as we know in our bones that Intelligent Design is a matter not of scientific inquiry but of faith, the progenitor of science. Our species is wired for faith. By nature we seek  patterns in chaos and causes in coincidence. It's a survival thing -- as blogged here. But once you've reached the discipline of scientific inquiry, how can you turn back to Intelligent Design?

Comments

[Barry Kearns]

Thanks for the reference, Sissy! Today is the first day of running my own blog... and I'm thrilled to have you be the first one to reference it.

sisu has always been one of my favorite destinations when the rest of my reading gets my blood pressure going... nothing like cool cat photos to help bring sanity to a goofy world!

[Sissy Willis]

The pleasure is all mine, Barry. Welcome to the 'sphere! :)

[Partisan]

You know "in our bones that ID is a matter not of scientific inquiry but of faith"?

Really? In your bones? That's quite a standard of evidence with which to dismiss the opposition.

Do you not have any feel for the irony of that statement?

[Sissy Willis]

You've got to be RIBBING me, Partisan. My regular readers know that I naturally select my words with the utmost care. Colorful language, finely attuned to the subject at hand, is my stock in trade, and my bones do indeed tell me the folks behind the ID movement are snake-oil salesman trying to pull a fast one.

[Partisan]

Hi Sissy,

Sorry, I'm a newbie to the site.

I couldn't tell if the "in my bones" reference was neo-Darwinian fossil codespeak, testible and falsifiable and irrefutable, for the initiates who deplore the state of technical literacy among the masses, or merely irony. :)

Just kidding.

After 30 years of following the debates from a layman's perspective, I'm newly energized and getting drawn back into the topic. I'm reading up on both sides to refresh myself (Dembski on ID, Dawkins on evolution). I'll be writing my take on the issue on Partisan Newsjunkie.

I did enjoy the give and take from both sides on your site here, and will read more regularly. Nice blog.