Complexity Without Intelligence? Or an Ogre Without Intelligence?
Kevin McCarthy tries to refute Intelligent Design by tryimng to show how complexity can arise without intelligence- see Tales From an Ignorant Ogre
He starts with a lie-
Intelligent Design proponents suggest that complexity cannot exist without intelligence.
IDists say that mere complexity can arise without intelligence. Dembski and Meyer write extensively about this.
Then he starts offering examples:
Our first example comes from the field of electrical engineering.
Dr. Adrian Thompson, in 1997, wanted to develop a system that could distinguish between the spoken words ‘stop’ and ‘go’ using a field programmable gate array. A FPGA is a network of logic systems that can be programmed to resemble any logic circuit. So, Thompson wrote an evolvable program to program the logic array.
After 3000 generations, the evolving program had developed a FPGA that could successfully distinguish between the spoken words ‘stop’ and ‘go’ using only 37 logic gates. This was considered impossible by human engineers.
What’s truly fascinating about this example, is that, as far as I’m aware, humans still cannot understand how the FPGA voice circuit works. There are 5 logic gates that aren’t even connected to the input/output circuit, but if power is removed from those five, the circuit won’t work.
Let’s see, a FPGA is an engineered, ie designed, device.- designed by an intelligent agency. The program is a targeted search written by an intelligent agency.
How is that complexity without intelligence?
His next example doesn't fair any better although it is an example of what nature, operating freely can produce:
Natural Bridges are also known as stone arches. We all know that these are developed by natural forces. We can observe the various stages of them right now. We can tell the difference between an arch developed by wind erosion and wave erosion. These can be actual functional bridges as three of them have roads built on them. One in Romania is even a daily use road.
So these structures are specified, complex, and, in fact, irreducibly complex… yet completely natural.
How is Kevin defining “complex”? His use of the word seems to be arbitrary. Methinks he is lying again.
And lastly Kevin brings up termite mounds. Termites are designing agencies. They can manipulate their environment for their purpose.
Kevin winds down with another lie:
When referring to genetic algorithms, ID proponents always say that the final result was ‘inserted’ into the code.Unfortunately Kevin doesn’t provide a reference, which tells me he is lying.
This is why asshole evotards cannot afford to have ID taught in schools- it will expose them as liars and losers.