Evolutionary progress, as brought to you by intelligent design…

Artistically, these Strandbeests are amazing, and a brilliant idea. But do they support “evolution” in the way Theo Jansen thinks they do? From Wikipedia:

Jansen has been creating Strandbeest (Dutch: strand=beach; beest=beast), wind-walking examples of artificial life, since 1990. What was at first a rudimentary breed has slowly evolved into a generation of machines that are able to react to their environment: “over time, these skeletons have become increasingly better at surviving the elements such as storms and water, and eventually I want to put these animals out in herds on the beaches, so they will live their own lives.”

Constructed as intricate assemblages of piping, wood, and wing-like sails, Jansen’s creations are constantly being improved and have become excellently adapted to their sandy beach environment.

Biological “improvement” assumes teleology and, thus, creative intentionality. Thoughts?


About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Evolutionary progress, as brought to you by intelligent design…

  1. Unless it can be shown that two fornicating beasts produced an offspring with one or more existing organs neighter parent had, then macro-evolution is a joke.

    O, and will ya give M.J a break with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences with its 80 members comprising a MAJORITY of no-Catholics and included in the 80 are a vast majority of evolutionists and not a few atheists etc

    Lord have Mercy. It makes as much sense to invite those men to sit on that academy as it would have made sense for Lord Al Davis to hire Kansas City employees to run the Oakland Raisders Draft .

    O, and this is cool from this gentleman who was a Jew who became a Piskie before converting to Catholicism near the end of his life:

    Lawrence Auster:

    This “stochastic” idea is apparently that God could plant all the apparently random mutations in the mix which would still lead to fish and spiders and birds and chimpanzees. And I repeat, if the “randomness” was created by an intelligence to have certain results, then the process is not random, even if it appears random to us.

    This idea is exceptionally hard for people to get, for two reasons: one, because it is so simple; and two, because they want so strongly to believe both in God and in Darwinism, and this idea precludes that. If the mutations occur randomly, then there’s no intelligent purpose behind them. If there is an intelligent purpose behind the mutations, then they are not random. Any definition of randomness that is used to get around this fundamental logical contradicton is not honest in my opinion


  2. Theodore says:

    It did not climb out of the primordial slime, it was created…by.someone…

  3. Theodore says:

    I guess you said that. ha.

  4. Zippy says:

    Mighty Joe Young:

    Ah, Larry.

    Larry and some others have always had a problem comprehending that random inputs can in fact be used as an ingredient – an important point is that the random input is an ingredient, not the only ingredient – to produce definite, designed, predetermined results. I once told him truthfully (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001172.html — I am “Matt”) that I’ve actually designed such things myself.

    But some folks refuse to budge on something that they find counterintuitive; even when faced with actually existing hold-in-your-hands counterexamples.

  5. c matt says:

    Ask any Vegas casino.

  6. Dear Zippy. MJ always finds you convincing, even when he forgets he has found you convincing previously. As in so many other subject areas, MJ knows he is out of his depth but while he is dogged about his ignorance he is less defensive about it as time passes.

    O, and MJ has been reading Dr Feser’s articles about our origins and MJ knows enough to know he lacks the capacity to understand them but, really, is that cause not to be bombastic in opposition to them?

    (Reminder to self – restore the lost link to Zippy’s blog)

  7. c matt says:

    speaking of restoring lost links, the one to Harvesting the Fruit seems to be off. fyi elliot

  8. susan says:

    Why o why does man continue to think he can successfully do what satan was cast down for?….I will be like the Most High!

    I just don’t get this rabid desire to be God.

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s