Hi - I'm new here, and I'd like to start a discussion in the Intelligent Design forum.
The issue is this: It's clear that appropriately constructed computer systems can exhibit behaviors that qualify as "intelligent" (as described, say, by Bill Dembski). At first blush, then, it would seem that artificially intelligent computers represent an existence proof that deterministic (or stochastic) physical systems can generate complex specified information, contrary to the tenets of ID.
I've generally heard two responses to this. The first is that computers don't actually exhibit intelligent behavior at all. I won't reply to this argument in anticipation here, except to say that finding a criterion for detecting intelligent agents that serves the needs of ID theory while excluding computers seems to be quite impossible.
The more common response is that while computers might
appear to be intelligent, they are only reflecting the intelligence of the
real intelligent agent - the human programmer. But a moment's reflection should reveal the flaw in this line of reasoning: If computers are not
truly intelligent because they are the product of another intelligent agent's design, then human beings - also the product of intelligent design according to ID - must not be
truly intelligent either. If the IDist chooses to rebut this
reductio ad absurdum by granting that computers are in fact intelligent in their own right, we are left with the conclusion that material processes must be capable of intelligent behavior after all.
Any thoughts on this?
Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.
™ Version 4.2