I find this article laughable, as the author inadvertently makes a great case against his own arguments. The problem is that in each example, there is design behind each success. Whether its the design of the wiki of wikipedia, or whether its the PhD working on the Netflix problem, either way there is a designer at the core of the solution.
Sure they are using are vast variety of input, but the input isn't random, its also from "intelligent" sources, we aren't talking about a bizillion monkeys creating the wikipedia, or accurate NetFlix predictions made by random input. So, these arguments are not arguments for evolution if you believe in Intelligent Design, but rather quite the opposite.
An atheist obviously will accept the evolution argument more readily because he's not allowing himself the simple solution.h
Slashdot Mirror
I find this article laughable, as the author inadvertently makes a great case against his own arguments. The problem is that in each example, there is design behind each success. Whether its the design of the wiki of wikipedia, or whether its the PhD working on the Netflix problem, either way there is a designer at the core of the solution.
Sure they are using are vast variety of input, but the input isn't random, its also from "intelligent" sources, we aren't talking about a bizillion monkeys creating the wikipedia, or accurate NetFlix predictions made by random input. So, these arguments are not arguments for evolution if you believe in Intelligent Design, but rather quite the opposite.
An atheist obviously will accept the evolution argument more readily because he's not allowing himself the simple solution.h