An IDolator explains the problem

I think Gil means something different, but this pretty much explains why IDC doesn’t make any sense:

A microbe did not mysteriously mutate into Mozart and his music, and most people, thankfully, are smart enough to figure out that this is a silly idea.

This is essentially what ID argues. With a few magical tweaks here and there, the IDol just *poof* created whatever. No process, just “mysteriously mutate” something into something else.

Science doesn’t operate by invoking mystery. ID does.

Comments

  1. #1 somnilista, FCD
    September 16, 2006

    IDiaF is also confused; ID proposes miracles, evolution does not.

  2. #2 Scott
    September 17, 2006

    It seems neither Gil nor his punch-card-programming commentators have ever programed even a single layer neural network. It’s amazing what self organization can do, even in a computer program. It’s especially amazing how very simple interacting neural networks can spontaeously produce truly “irreducible” behaviours, like walking. It doesn’t require “an unimaginably complex, sophisticated, fault-tolerant, self-repairing, self-replicating computer program.” And (as just one example) with no “poof” involved.

    But then, I suspose they would claim that the walking behaviour is “front loaded”.