Evolutionry/religious nonsense

As a whole, the universe tends toward disorder, agreed. But localized in space and time there are small pockets of the opposite. (Like eddies that go against a current.) Where ever there's a concentration of matter (or energy) there is a potential for some order. Life is a tiny example.

A localized space by definition is establishment of order. Matter is energy in order. Life is matter in so much order it is a “self replicating” evolving algorithm.

Isn't an algorithm simply a process for problem solving? I think though before the algorithm there is the problem. So.. what's the problem?

Quote:

Isn't an algorithm simply a process for problem solving? I think though before the algorithm there is the problem. So.. what's the problem?

The creator likes creating and would like somebody to share it with. Do you ever create to share? if you do that is an example of the creation revealing the essence of the creator just like your creations reveal something about you. That is the only way individual intelligent beings can share ideas. By physically creating something to share with someone else.

... the original claim was very broad: Order always comes from intelligence. I merely showed this to be false.
Natural systems can produce "order". If nature can produce crude examples, why not more complex or precise ones? How about crystals?

I am not arguing the point that everything 'ordered' in the universe is the result of intelligent design (although it probably is). I was pointing out that even if all the accepted forces of nature are assumed to be 'Natural', there is a class of order that all those natural forces cannot account for. That class is 'Life'.

However, our contemporary views of "God" suggest kind of a static being that doesn't change or evolve. I don't know... if the universe does indeed breath then the universe as a whole is alive and I think being alive involves some degree of development.

If you and jakub would read Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" he reminds us that it was Lamarck who said that
'' All changes in the organic and inorganic world are the result of application of universal Laws not Divine Intercession'
Ken Miller is a devout Roman Catholic BTW.

LAws are universal and used over and over with different conclusions raised from different bases.

Darwin raised the point when he commented on how life on archipelagos reflects their closeby mainlands, not some Creation events ( archipelagos are island chains that often arise when they become separated from their mainlands. Laws were obeyed, no plans were approved.

Philosophers, physicists, biologists, and theologians must work together because the purpose and designer of the algorithm are written into the process of the algorithm and is the reason it is running. God saying you don't know me and I want you to is the problem the algorithm is solving

Now what do you think I had on my mind when I started drumming for detailed inspections of convergent evolution?

Now what do you think I had on my mind when I started drumming for detailed inspections of convergent evolution?

we can see that convergence, parallelism and mimetic evolution are minor examples of the entire spectra of lifes forms. Why is it that convergence only happens in a few phenotypes in even fewer environments?

If you and jakub would read Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" he reminds us that it was Lamarck who said that
'' All changes in the organic and inorganic world are the result of application of universal Laws not Divine Intercession'
Ken Miller is a devout Roman Catholic BTW.

There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life. Scientists have proposed several plausible theories, which share some common elements. While differing in the details, these theories are based on the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and by J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.

Miller then turns to intelligent design. Again he shows that the pace of scientific progress is rapidly making arguments for intelligent design moot as various systems once given as examples for irreducible complexity are explained. He begins in this chapter to point out the dangers of finding a place for God in the gaps or shadows of our knowledge. One never knows when the gap will be filled in or when light will drive away the shadow.

The fourth chapter is given to the basic tenets of old earth creationists. I think that while Miller substantially answers the arguments of the old earth group, there remains the rather difficult question of where God might intervene in a long process of creation and what the evidence might mean.

He summarizes this position by suggesting that there are two possible approaches to such divine intervention-either God would have to create new species instantly, or he would have to manage a slow process of change. In the first case, the theory does not match the evidence found in the fossil record. In the second, we have to imagine God not merely creating new species, but doing so in such a way that anyone who studied the process would assume that evolution had taken place.

In either case, it would appear that God creates incompetently, because most species that have existed on earth are now extinct. His passage on the evolution of the elephant (94-99) and its relation to design is a masterpiece.

I don't know why he come to such a broad conclusion when: