RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 24, 2015 at 6:42 am
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2015 at 6:52 am by Heywood.)
(January 23, 2015 at 10:20 pm)Chas Wrote: None of those are isomorphic to biological evolution. Not even close.
How does this claim help you? Biological evolution and those things all fit the definition I gave. They are all isomorphic with the reasonable definition I presented. Is the definition broad? Yes it is a broad definition, but a narrower definition of evolution would only make it harder for you to find an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence without an intellect. The more broad the definition, the easier it should be for you to find a system that conforms with the definition that was observed not to come into existence with out an intellect. Rhythm knows this that is why he wants to define evolution as "procedural generation". His definition is so broad its utterly useless. Its like saying cars are not always the product of intellects because they are collections of atoms and not all collections of atoms are products of intellect.