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.
A biologist and statistician by day, battling pseudoscience and raising a family by night.
0 COMMENTS
IDiaF is also confused; ID proposes miracles, evolution does not.
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”.