Au contraire, ID isn't a theological argument, as it deliberately goes out of its way to avoid mention of the divine. Its a blatant attempt to pretend not to be Christian, which seems an incorrect attitude to me from both a scientific and religious viewpoint.
ID is a series of specific observations that state "X is too complicated not to have been designed."
Things like the component of the bacterial flagellum, ID advocates claim, have no functional purpose apart from in a flagellum, ergo "an intelligent designer" must have "made" the flagellum from scratch. Arguments to the contrary, which demonstrate the utility of some parts of the flagellum for purposes other than moving around, are largely ignored, because by-and-large, the ID advocates wouldn't be reading that sort of journal anyway.
My problem is not with Christianity, theology or faith in the divine in general, but with ID, which purports to be none of these things.
Both have budget problems, but I'd say both are way more scientifically important than Orion/Ares, at least in the short & medium term.
Its likely 35-50 years before we see any son-of-orion producing scientific results, I mean, we've already got moon rocks...
So you're saying that the vastly higher rate of shootings per head of population in the USA compared to most countries in western europe has nothing to do with there being more guns?
Come off it.
The fundamental flaw, I feel, is the focus on "appearing human" rather than on "appearing intelligent."
As such, these chatbots must lie extensively about their activities, artistic preferences, and other such irrelevant trivialities.
Any measure of intelligence worth using should be passable without lying about your identity.
Of course, tech are looked down upon somewhat. But mostly, I'd blame the techies' hate of things like design specs & schedules, of having ideas imposed on them by "ignorant outsiders," and especially of the necessity of the business logic of spending a week getting something "good enough" rather than a month getting it "perfect" that makes us grumble so.
And they NEVER let us rewrite things from scratch, who cares if that stops us from earning any money for 18 months?
Slashdot Mirror
Au contraire, ID isn't a theological argument, as it deliberately goes out of its way to avoid mention of the divine. Its a blatant attempt to pretend not to be Christian, which seems an incorrect attitude to me from both a scientific and religious viewpoint. ID is a series of specific observations that state "X is too complicated not to have been designed." Things like the component of the bacterial flagellum, ID advocates claim, have no functional purpose apart from in a flagellum, ergo "an intelligent designer" must have "made" the flagellum from scratch. Arguments to the contrary, which demonstrate the utility of some parts of the flagellum for purposes other than moving around, are largely ignored, because by-and-large, the ID advocates wouldn't be reading that sort of journal anyway. My problem is not with Christianity, theology or faith in the divine in general, but with ID, which purports to be none of these things.
Thats the worst thing about ID: its a scientific and theological non-starter. So where does that leave it? Being pushed on all fronts, clearly :/
Both have budget problems, but I'd say both are way more scientifically important than Orion/Ares, at least in the short & medium term. Its likely 35-50 years before we see any son-of-orion producing scientific results, I mean, we've already got moon rocks...
I thought the LOTR movies were done well UNTIL I read the books
So you're saying that the vastly higher rate of shootings per head of population in the USA compared to most countries in western europe has nothing to do with there being more guns? Come off it.
You only have to look at Sun and IBM to see that they are on track with the need to change.
Last I heard, Sun weren't doing terribly well...
The only difference is that the quarks have opposite charge.
The fundamental flaw, I feel, is the focus on "appearing human" rather than on "appearing intelligent." As such, these chatbots must lie extensively about their activities, artistic preferences, and other such irrelevant trivialities. Any measure of intelligence worth using should be passable without lying about your identity.
Of course, tech are looked down upon somewhat. But mostly, I'd blame the techies' hate of things like design specs & schedules, of having ideas imposed on them by "ignorant outsiders," and especially of the necessity of the business logic of spending a week getting something "good enough" rather than a month getting it "perfect" that makes us grumble so. And they NEVER let us rewrite things from scratch, who cares if that stops us from earning any money for 18 months?