<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Squeakland Evolution project
thingy</title></head><body>
<div>We realize all this. Read the essay more carefully (and maybe we
should have written it more carefully). Before going further, I
should reveal that I have a degree in Molecular Biology ....</div>
<div> The active essay in question was developed as
a paraphrase (plus active examples) of a chapter in Richard Dawkins'
book "The Blind Watchmaker" (and ours was written for the
Junior High School age range). The various metaphors were adapted
from Dawkins. His book is quite to your early points. If evolution is
a process, then a process can certainly shape -- whether that is a
subpart of "design" is moot to me. It's just a metaphor. Is
it going too far to have a "designer" be heat plus
stickyness?</div>
<div> We are not giving evolution credit for
intelligence and creativity. In fact, the chapter in question
in Dawkins' book is not about evolution per se, but about how a small
amount of memory can vastly improve almost random processes. Why is
it not about evolution? Because the environment contains an actual
goal and the fitness test is how close are the evolvees to the goal.
Maybe we should have made that clearer in the essay.</div>
<div> As to the last part of your criticism,
I think you have a good point. What Ted and I were trying to show
(again following Dawkins) was that some of the arguments against the
improbablity of evolution should be seen in the context of
"ratcheted systems" whose shaping to an environement is
incredibly efficient compared to random processes. We shouldn't have
convolved that point with points about evolution itself.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Alan</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>------</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 6:17 PM +0100 5/29/01, Keith Hodges wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt>Dear Alan Kay,</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I am writing to express my
disappointment at your evolution thingy as the centre piece of the
exhibit on squeakland.org<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Your first page of the active essay is
tremendously enthusiastic about how complex the world is and how well
things have been, and I try and paraphrase (because I cant look at it
on solaris at the moment) , "DESIGNED BY EVOLUTION".<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I appreciate that you are trying to
communicate the concept of "wow! how clever is evolution",
but I put to you that giving intelligence to a dumb process is
somewhat misleading and overstating the case.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Here you are saying that the incredible
complexity of life is being DESIGNED, and therefore your use of the
word design and the enthusiasm and the words that you use actually in
what you say points to the need for there to be a DESIGNER. A concept
that evolution advocates vehemently deny.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In normal understanding and use of such
language we tend to make statements like, "Squeak that's a cool
complex software tool.... who thought of that? Who programmed it who
designed it?". It is the complexity and amount of structured
information that leads us to make a simply cognitive association
between complexity and design and therefore intelligence. If I was to
say "Squeak that's a cool programming tool, isn't my cat clever
to have made this" then you would automatically suspect
something is wrong. Can I be blamed for questioning your presentation
on the basis that I suspect that something is wrong in a similar
manner.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>You are giving evolution the credit for
having intelligence and creativity, which by definition it being a
random process it does it does not have. Given that you invest so
much enthusiasm into what is obviously a false statement, given the
known relationship between design, designers and intelligence/motive.
The built in mismatch here that should lead us to question the
principles and the assumptions behind the statements, rather than to
present them as indisputable facts.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>There is an old saying... If it walks
like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is likely
to be a duck!<br>
Occams razor (or the XP equivalent, use the simplest thing that could
possibly explain that!) indicates that if you found DESIGN then the
best and simplest explanation for that is that there is a DESIGNER!
Evolution is actually quite a complex theory and it is quite
difficult to get it to actually work in practice. It flies in the
face of Mr Occam since it is not the most obvious conclusion to state
as a fact after wondering at the complexity of the natural world
around us.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In contemporary science as people have
investigated it further especially at the molecular level inside
cells. The more that complexity, or to be more specific
"irreducible complexity" is used as an argument against the
viability of evolution as an agent of design. I am amazed that you
are able to state clearly the opposite to this. I.E. The logical
thing to say as a scientist is "wow isn't this complex,
how on earth did that evolve." You are saying, "wow isn't
this complex isn't evolution cool." It is on this basis that I
am questioning your "scientific credibility", your approach
to science in this case appears to be based upon assumptions, rather
than on genuine scientific method. I am not trying to start a debate
here but I am appealing to you to do good science!<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Let me give you a complete picture of
how I believe that science works and hopefully you will get what I am
saying. You observe something, hypothesize and test. Given an event
that is observed there are four possibilities that can be
considered.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>1. Law<br>
2. Chance<br>
3. Some agency (intelligent or otherwise)<br>
4. Highly Improbable event.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>For example a Forensic scientist may
look at a crime scene seeing a plant pot scattered on to the floor.
He would consider.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>1 law. If the window is wide open
and the wind is blowing at 90 mph the laws of physics give an
explanation as to why the pot is on the floor.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>2. chance. If the window is flapping and
the weather is gust then there is a chance that an accidental gust of
wind blew and then the pot fell.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>3. If the window is shut but there is a
foot print in the earth and finger prints on the vase The vase
falling incident has resulted in an increase in
"information" and thus this points to an intelligent
agency.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>4. If none of the others is a suitable
explanation then this is the last one, unlikely but remote.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>---<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The key thing to note about number 3 is
that it is possible to measure, based upon "measuring
information content" whether there has been an intelligent
agency involved. There are many techniques (information flows,
convergence of paths etc.) that can be employed that make testing
"Item 3" hypotheses viable!<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>---<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The problem with evolution is that those
who propose it have accepted by faith a "naturalistic
materialistic" philosophy, this philosophy makes an assumption.
(Science is supposed to question, or at least be suspicious of
assumptions!) The assumption is that "there is no intelligent
agency involved." This means that by definition there is no
Option 3 in the naturalistic philosophy of science as applied to the
question of origins. If you wear a red filter on your glasses then
you will mot be able to see certain colours, asserting that those
colours do not exist is not valid given that they can be measured via
other means!<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>There are currently scientists that
seriously propose theories of origins using both options 1
(Denton) and 3 (Behe).<br>
Defining a philosophy of science without option 3, means that the
only possibility left is that chance (2) is the "designer",
as directed by "law" (2). Such a philosophy of science is
incomplete, and basically irresponsible.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>---<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I would like to finish on a positive
note, here is another chance for you for go WOW.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Here is a model of a car engine!<br>
<a
href="http://www.phoenix-model.com/images/Minicraft/MIN11201.jpg"
>http://www.phoenix-model.com/images/Minic<span
></span>raft/MIN11201.jpg</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Here is an animation of a molecular
engine! WOW!<br>
<a
href="http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm">http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm</a
><br>
<br>
<a
href="http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmechanism.htm"
>http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmechanism.h<span
></span>tm</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>finally as a direct challenge to the
content of your active essay perhaps you could look at. <a
href="http://www.theory-of-evolution.org"
>http://www.theory-of-evolution.org</a> on this site there is an
almost identical presentation using the "methinks it is a
weasel" example. as a java applet.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>thanks for your time, "methinks
there is a cat among the ducks"<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>respectfully<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Keith<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>