09.14.08
Limits of Avida
I cited this interesting essay yesterday, and here it is again, Bits, Bytes, and Biology, a critique of the complacency in the evolutionary algorithm world.
In spite of the basic cogency of the argument–that such algorithms simply cannot demonstrate Darwinian evolution to be capable of what it claims, the article, as usual with the ID group, discusses the issue in terms of ID concepts, e.g. irreducible complexity, with the usual false dualism implied or slipped in, to the effect that somehow the case for irreducible complexity is thereby established, etc…
The critique of Avida should be stated without ID concepts, for the simple reason that such primitive programs don’t really demonstrate much of anything, save the fantasies and forlorn hopes of Darwinists.
The concept of irreducible complexity is a highly interesting one, but it is a flawed concept as far as evolution is concerned. In broad strokes, Behe’s point was well taken: the existence of complex structures was a severe challenge to Darwinian oversimplifications about random evolutionary processes. But does it follow that these structures are irreducible? Actually, we don’t know, and that’s that. We can’t presume the failure of Darwinian mechanisms to show irreducibility, if the job is done by some other complex naturalistic process that we as yet know nothing of, perhaps teleological. That’s all there is to it: we haven’t proven irreducibility anymore than Avida-ists have demonstration Darwinian evolution.
Avida-ists are addicted to computer fantasies, and the ID people to anthropomorphic legerdemain.