The Bad Design Argument

What is in the code makes a difference, but I can think of at least one serious effort to simulate evolution via computer code which failed. They concluded that more processing power (time and chances) was not enough to evolve complexity.

http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu/golem/download.html

Well, I agree in a way, but as far as what God might enjoy doing… if we are indeed made according to His likeness and we like playing with inventing new life forms and guiding them around a “world” then perhaps it is a sign He gets enjoyment from the same thing?

1 Like

Just to confirm, those were @swamidass’ words, not mine. :blush:

@auntyevology was that last part about “no a priori reason” from you or the good doctor? It was hard for me to tell.

1 Like

This is what I’m going on, please correct if missing something:

“I don’t think this is true a priori, even if it happens to be true in our universe.” @vjtorley

“there is no a prior reason to think God’s design should be anything like human designs.” - @swamidass

ETA: corrected to add source name in #65

2 Likes

@jongarvey,

I couldn’t find the place where you think you and I differ.

Are you sure you and I differ?

2 Likes

@auntyevology

My question to @jongarvey was specifically addressing a specific feature of God’s involvement in natural law.

You offer zero insight into his views…and you are completely obnoxious in your attempt to engage me.

Until you develop some manners, I doubt you and I will spend much time conversing. Certainly there was nothing in this post what interested me.

Hi Joshua,

@swamidass:
Only for Spore. It came up because of @anon46279830, not me.

Thanks for the clarification. I see now that you’re not making any radical claims about A.I.

@swamidass:
In general, it is usually a bad idea to try and understand evolution by making analogies to computer code, language, cars, human designs, computer games, etc. We fall prey to the Idol of the Theatre very quickly. Biology is “like” many things, but also very unlike all these things too.

I totally agree. Living things are in a category of their own.

@swamidass:
If the evidence was different, and science was different, perhaps we would have a different position.

However, with evidence as it is, and science as it is, it is not really possible to see divine design in science. (Bolding mine - VJT.)

Good point. I understand now where you are coming from. Cheers.

1 Like

Just FYI, there are thousands of studies that effectively use simulation to understand evolution.

That is true, and most of them seem to do a good job of what they model. So in those cases I think computer programs are a good analogy to evolution, at least on the limited questions where the computer model matches up to things we then see in the real world. The researches thought so too or there would not be hundreds of such programs.

But there is a difference in a program which models say, the fST between five different DNA samples of Bronze Age human remains against certain modern populations and the one I referenced. The one I referenced attempted to measure if increases in complexity could be obtained through a computer simulation of evolution. They concluded it could not. This does not mean it didn’t happen. Maybe their software failed to account for a way of adding information to genomes. Maybe nature has a process which is currently unknown to science. This is just one data point, but that data point concludes that more processing power alone - which is analogous to time and chance in nature, could not get the job done.

Not to be pedantic, but this is important. The simulation might be a good analogy, but the computer program implementing the simulation is not.

1 Like

@anon46279830

I think you need to define “increase in complexity” before you can run tests for it.

When a walking fish becomes a tetrapod, is that loss of complexity? Or an increase?

OK I accept that your point is important so let me see if I understand it. Are you saying that Spore in particular is bad at implementing the simulations (which of course I agree with) or that computer programs in general are bad analogies to what goes on with evolution? That raises a question because your fellow researchers rely on them so heavily. Or are you saying they way programmers take some code and use it to build other code is a bad analogy?

I believe the researchers did that and were interested in how single-celled organism became animals with tissues and organs.

Keeping to the topic: “Ah, what a ‘good design’ on that electric chair!” “Excuse me, that Catholic-run homeless shelter & soup kitchen is a ‘bad design’ and lowers the value of rental units for landowners.”

@swamidass, @anon46279830 where does the use of ‘design’ in your approach begin and end? When would you refuse to use the term ‘design’? When would you conceivably use the terms ‘bad design’ or ‘good design’ in a legitimate or authentic (as if using pomo terms is sometimes required to be understood) way?

I think all are largely or fully agreed here (not trying simply to be unified, but to identify common ground), with the formidable exception of @Agauger & @paulnelson (others should jump in defending it if they arrive), that Intelligent Design Theory isn’t what the majority of people at Peaceful Science want to use to address this topic. We find it a ‘theory’ that can be left aside, not finding it helpful for ‘straight-talking’ science, theology & philosophy conversations and at the same time observing it as having been potentially or actually harmful.

So Joshua, is there anything that you would identify as ‘bad design’? You ask “why do you think that is?” Isn’t the answer best explored first knowing if you allow that term in the door or not, and if so, where/when?

On this matter apparently not!

@anon46279830

This creates the “illusion” of an ever-progressive complexity. But it isn’t something that can be quantified. If it could be quantified, we would be able to answer the question:

If it could ever happen that a fish population becomes a land-based tetrapod, is that a gain in complexity or a loss of complexity?

The tetrapod has lost its gills, but gained lungs. It has lost the ability to swim, but the tetrapod has the ability to run.

The whole system is designed to produce a variety of living things to fill every niche, and whatever input is necessary to jump start that system is also designed. I think @Argon correctly noted that the “bad design” argument does not apply to my model, since nature has plenty of autonomy. So it is not that I am dodging your question per se, it is just that it does not apply to what I believe happened. Under the thread “best arguments against design” I already laid out an experiment which, if it produced enough of the right kind of change, would be my example of a “best argument against design”.