Compromise model for Intelligent Design?

[Friar Broccoli]

I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
desired goal:

http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14

An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually does. Thus if
evolution is seen as an algorithm, the process observed would be without
goal, while it's designer could have one. This is a specific case of
Deism.

I presume this is the sort of position held by Francis Collins -
although I have never read anything by (or even much about) him.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[wiki trix]

On Jun 18, 11:38 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
> Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
> desired goal:
>
> http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14
>
> An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually does.  Thus if
> evolution is seen as an algorithm, the process observed would be without
> goal, while it's designer could have one.  This is a specific case of
> Deism.
>
> I presume this is the sort of position held by Francis Collins -
> although I have never read anything by (or even much about) him.

I never heard of the definition of "algorithm" as a set of steps that
require no intelligence to achieve a desired goal. Why define a
perfectly clear notion with ill-defined terms such as "intelligence"
and "goal"? That just seems stupid. And non-standard.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:46:53 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jun 18, 11:38�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
>> Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
>> desired goal:
>>
>> http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14
>>
>> An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually does. �Thus if
>> evolution is seen as an algorithm, the process observed would be without
>> goal, while it's designer could have one. �This is a specific case of
>> Deism.
>>
>> I presume this is the sort of position held by Francis Collins -
>> although I have never read anything by (or even much about) him.

.

>I never heard of the definition of "algorithm" as a set of steps that
>require no intelligence to achieve a desired goal.

Is it your position then that computers don't have intelligence, or
perhaps that they don't use algorithms?

>Why define a
>perfectly clear notion with ill-defined terms such as "intelligence"
>and "goal"? That just seems stupid. And non-standard.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:06:38 -0700, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:46:53 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jun 18, 11:38�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
>>> Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
>>> desired goal:
>>>
>>> http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14
>>>
>>> An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually does. �Thus if
>>> evolution is seen as an algorithm, the process observed would be without
>>> goal, while it's designer could have one. �This is a specific case of
>>> Deism.
>>>
>>> I presume this is the sort of position held by Francis Collins -
>>> although I have never read anything by (or even much about) him.
>
> .
>
>>I never heard of the definition of "algorithm" as a set of steps that
>>require no intelligence to achieve a desired goal.

.

>Is it your position then that computers - don't have intelligence - , or

>perhaps that they don't use algorithms?

I meant - do have intelligence -

[wiki trix]

On Jun 18, 1:06�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:46:53 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 18, 11:38�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
> >> Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
> >> desired goal:
>
> >>http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14
>
> >> An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually does. �Thus if
> >> evolution is seen as an algorithm, the process observed would be without
> >> goal, while it's designer could have one. �This is a specific case of
> >> Deism.
>
> >> I presume this is the sort of position held by Francis Collins -
> >> although I have never read anything by (or even much about) him.
>
> �.
>
> >I never heard of the definition of "algorithm" as a set of steps that
> >require no intelligence to achieve a desired goal.
>
> Is it your position then that computers don't have intelligence, or
> perhaps that they don't use algorithms?

Depends on the meaning of "intelligence", which is a rather
unintelligent word. Machine learning would seem to fit the bill IMO.
And yes, all computers can do is algorithms. Wolfram and Deutsch would
argue that all anything can do is algorithms. I am OK with that
assessment as well.

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4f0c6613-548e-4ee6...@jr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

So algorithm is an intelligent word?

[wiki trix]

Not you again....

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8e0b8a7c-71bf-4b60...@googlegroups.com...

I'm not an algorithm?

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 6/18/2013 11:38 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
> Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
> desired goal:
>
> http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14
>
> An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually does. Thus if
> evolution is seen as an algorithm, the process observed would be without
> goal, while it's designer could have one. This is a specific case of
> Deism.
>
> I presume this is the sort of position held by Francis Collins -
> although I have never read anything by (or even much about) him.

I don't think there was any issue that if one may freely define "God" or
create entities one can reconcile religion with science, and intelligent
design with neodarwinian mechanisms; also demonstrate a .05 to .95
probability that the life on Earth was seeded by aliens that looked
uncannily like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Mitchell Coffey

[John Harshman]

On 6/18/13 8:38 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
> Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
> desired goal:
>
> http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14
>
> An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually does. Thus if
> evolution is seen as an algorithm,

I think that's your problem right there. Evolution isn't an algorithm
and shouldn't be seen as one. Try designing a system that has life but
no evolution. Not easy. Evolution is just something that happens under
certain conditions, not something extra you have to put in.

[Kalkidas]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:38:04 -0700, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>

>I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
>Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
>desired goal:
>
>http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14
>
>An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually does. Thus if
>evolution is seen as an algorithm, the process observed would be without
>goal, while it's designer could have one. This is a specific case of
>Deism.
>
>I presume this is the sort of position held by Francis Collins -
>although I have never read anything by (or even much about) him.

I've never heard of an algorithm that has no goal, except maybe a
buggy one that crashes or loops endlessly.

[jonathan]

"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ru0s85qa44sggmi9...@4ax.com...

>
> I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
> Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
> desired goal:
>
> http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14
>
> An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually does.

But nature uses two different types of processes, one is deterministic
like an algorithm, the other is random and chaotic, like a cloud.
And the two are apples and oranges. Just like the duality of light
it depends on the observer whether you see a particle or a wave.
That duality in nature results in one person seeing design, another
happenstance, depending on whether the observer judges the
straight forward rules of operation are definitive, or the uncertainty
of mutation and selection dominate the output.

While in truth both and neither dominate.

And like the Uncertainty Principle, you can't know both with
complete precision as they are paired properties. The more one
reduces to the simple algorithmic rules, the less one can see
the global emergent properties. And the reverse.

But this duality is of our own making, it's an artifact of a fundamentally
flawed assumption about modeling real world systems.
The assumption that detailing the simplest or most equation like
aspects of nature is the path to unraveling the complexity or underlying
processes is the cause of this pervasive duality.

By reducing to the simplest, by starting with the basic building blocks
we will always be on the outside of nature looking in.
Nature is normally complex, an entanglement of the two
opposing forces. This leads to the ridiculous situation where
all of our methods are based on the past, yet all of our
decisions are about the future. Apples and oranges.
Linear and non-linear. Equation like and chaotic.

The only logical way around this contradiction is to begin with
complexity in order to understand the components.
Turn the lens around. Seek out and understand uncertainty.

Which leads to several initial and fundamental assumptions
just to name a few.

Nothing ever repeats.
Everything is unique.
Cause and effect are not directly related
The future is unpredictable

The source of creation and evolution are not defined by
some mindless equation or algorithm, but by just the opposite.
A random disturbance to a random system.

Tossing a penny into a pond. A wistful emotion or
that shudder in a storm.

Randomness squared so to speak, and like magic, spontaneous
cyclic order and relentless hill-climbing spring from nothing.
From an elegant cloud of uncertainty. An interstellar cloud of
gas and dust. From the Mona-Lisa smile.

The definition of beauty or even God.

Call it what you like, what science and religion are ultimately
trying to grasp happens to be the one thing that can't be defined
so that all agree.



Jonathan



"This is a Blossom of the Brain
A small -- italic Seed
Lodged by Design or Happening
The Spirit fructified

Shy as the Wind of his Chambers
Swift as a Freshet's Tongue
So of the Flower of the Soul
Its process is unknown.

When it is found, a few rejoice
The Wise convey it Home
Carefully cherishing the spot
If other Flower become.

When it is lost, that Day shall be
The Funeral of God,
Upon his Breast, a closing Soul
The Flower of our Lord."



s

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 16:38:04 UTC+1, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
> Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
> desired goal:
>
> http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14
>
> An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually
> does. Thus if evolution is seen as an algorithm, the

> process observed would be without goal, while its designer

> could have one. This is a specific case of Deism.
>
> I presume this is the sort of position held by
> Francis Collins - although I have never read anything by
> (or even much about) him.

Perhaps then you ought not to be even this definite about
his opinions, or his sanity.

I would hesitate to use a computer textbook as a philosophy
lesson - some people also would distrust a snake as a source
of advice. But there's something in this - but less tha you see,
I'd say.

I think the term "theistic evolution" includes both the doctrine
that we're accustomed to associate with "Deism", that God
made the world at first, and may have had foreknowledge
of what would happen in it, but didn't touch it again -
and the "intelligent design" doctrine, which specifically
rules out some features of present-day developed organisms
as possible products of natural evolution: someone must
have done it on purpose. Intelligent designists, as I've
said, are lying thieving cowards who deny their God,
but it is that God that they have in mind for doing this.
But they can't get public school money for their books
and videos and so forth if they say that. Hence, as I say,
the lying, and the thieving. Their goal is to pick the
public pocket.

Some theistic evolutionists like to suppose that God
created original life that already contained the
"information" to produce apparently difficult things
like eyes, so that they could suddenly aappear
in a lineage that didn't have eyes before.
That comes under "intelligent design" too, of course.
It tends to be paired with insisting that mutations
are always harmful and destroy "information", and
never produce a positive outcome.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:39:56 UTC+1, Glenn wrote:
> So algorithm is an intelligent word?

As a computer programmer myself, I prefer to keep the word
"algorithm" (whose etymology apparently includes two great
confusions) for the intelligently designed plan that I
use to define how my program is going to produce a
desired outcome. It occurs to me that the program itself
can be regarded as an algorithm, but some parts of it
may be vestigial, if I'm also using a "heuristic" approach
of trial-and-error.

Imagine the shape of an aeroplane: that's an algorithm
for mechanically powered flight. But did you imagine
seats inside the plane? Perhaps not. When you implement
the algorithm in a real plane, you need to put seats in.

[Glenn]

"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message news:9d8ddba6-ae73-4923...@googlegroups.com...

And complimentary peanuts.

[jonathan]

"Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:kpreo7$hjn$1...@dont-email.me...

There's nothing like the aroma of 200 closeted people all opening
and chewing a handful of peanuts at the same time


s

[Friar Broccoli]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:47:10 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 6/18/13 8:38 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>
>> I am reading an online book on Python, which essentially defines an
>> Algorithm as a set of steps that require no intelligence to achieve a
>> desired goal:
>>
>> http://howto.py.cz/english/ch06.xhtml#auto14
>>
>> An algorithm has no goal, but its human designer usually does. Thus if
>> evolution is seen as an algorithm,

.

>I think that's your problem right there. Evolution isn't an algorithm
>and shouldn't be seen as one.

Shouldn't?

No doubt I have problems, but I don't think this is clearly one of them,
especially since the definition of algorithm is not precise, for example
from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm

"While there is no generally accepted formal definition of "algorithm,"
an informal definition could be "a set of rules that precisely defines a
sequence of operations." which would include all computer programs,
including programs that do not perform numeric calculations. For some
people, a program is only an algorithm if it stops eventually. For
others, a program is only an algorithm if it performs a number of
calculation steps."

Thus it seems to me that evolution could be seen as an algorithm with
matter as both the hardware and input using a single instruction:
"replicate carelessly". If the hardware is acceptable, life will
result.

>Try designing a system that has life but no evolution.

Can't, but don't see why this is relevant.

>Not easy. Evolution is just something that happens under
>certain conditions, not something extra you have to put in.

I don't see how this contradicts or limits the idea that evolution could
be an algorithm (or program [which seems to have an overlapping
definition]).

>> the process observed would be without
>> goal, while it's designer could have one. This is a specific case of
>> Deism.

Note that in my mind one can have a algorithm/program without
necessarily having a Designer. My interest here is in finding an
accurate and agreeable description of our past and current state that
doesn't require strict theists and materialists to agree on a Final
Cause.

Thus I should be able to have a discussion with a religious Intelligent
Design advocate using the creator's algorithm for generating life,
without having to violate any of the evidence based conclusions
concerning biological evolution.

More broadly, I am particularly impressed with Kenneth Miller's take on
rerunning the evolutionary tape. He thinks it is quite likely that we
would wind up with something quite similar to what we see today. As
evidence he points out all the cases of convergent evolution from
Australia's flying phalanger and the North American flying squirrel to
all the cases prokaryote-eukaryote symbioses.

I have no idea whether he is correct or not, but working from the
evidence we cannot know for certain if we are running under an algorithm
created to produce (in part) an output like us.

[John Harshman]

That seems like a serious stretch of the term "algorithm" to me. Is
"falling" an algorithm? Is there any process in the world that isn't an
algorithm?

>> Try designing a system that has life but no evolution.
>
> Can't, but don't see why this is relevant.

It's relevant because your formulation demands that an algorithm be
designed. Evolution just happens even if you don't design it.

>> Not easy. Evolution is just something that happens under
>> certain conditions, not something extra you have to put in.
>
> I don't see how this contradicts or limits the idea that evolution could
> be an algorithm (or program [which seems to have an overlapping
> definition]).

It means that even if there's a designer, the designer didn't design
evolution, even if the designer designed life. If you design the Eiffel
tower, you didn't design the fact that an egg dropped off the top will
break upon landing. By the way, is an egg breaking when it falls to the
ground an algorithm?

>>> the process observed would be without
>>> goal, while it's designer could have one. This is a specific case of
>>> Deism.
>
> Note that in my mind one can have a algorithm/program without
> necessarily having a Designer. My interest here is in finding an
> accurate and agreeable description of our past and current state that
> doesn't require strict theists and materialists to agree on a Final
> Cause.

> Thus I should be able to have a discussion with a religious Intelligent
> Design advocate using the creator's algorithm for generating life,
> without having to violate any of the evidence based conclusions
> concerning biological evolution.

Sure. But what you have done is produce a creator who does nothing. We
can say with assurance that nobody designed evolution, just as we can
say that the designer of the Eiffel Tower didn't design the feature that
an egg dropped from its top will break.

> More broadly, I am particularly impressed with Kenneth Miller's take on
> rerunning the evolutionary tape. He thinks it is quite likely that we
> would wind up with something quite similar to what we see today. As
> evidence he points out all the cases of convergent evolution from
> Australia's flying phalanger and the North American flying squirrel to
> all the cases prokaryote-eukaryote symbioses.

I'm glad you're impressed, but I don't see that as very impressive.
Starting from similar points (a mammalian fauna), we get a number of
similar adaptations in eutherians and metatherians. Then again, we get a
number of quite different ones too. What does that make inevitable? I
don't see it.

> I have no idea whether he is correct or not, but working from the
> evidence we cannot know for certain if we are running under an algorithm
> created to produce (in part) an output like us.

Working from the evidence, we sure can, unless the algorithm was
carefully crafted to look exactly like no algorithm at all. (Or, if you
prefer, as you seem to, to consider almost every process as an
algorithm, substitute "an uncreated algorithm" for "no algorithm at
all".) We can certainly say that similar starting points are likely to
produce similar ending points, at least over the short term.

Look, if you just want a justification for deism, no problem. God
creates a big bang in which the initial conditions are set up to
eventually produce life, which will eventually produce some intelligent
species, assuming that's his goal. With a big enough universe, no
problem, as long as you don't want this intelligent species to be H.
sapiens and as long as you don't care where and when it arises. This has
nothing to do with evolution being an algorithm.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Jun 18, 1:17�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:38:04 -0700, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>

Knuth defines an algorithm as being finite, definite, and effective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm_characterizations#1968.2C_1973_Knuth.27s_characterization

Here's a simple algorithm that has no goal:

A: B1R F0L
B: C0R D0R
C: D1L E1R
D: E0L D0L
E: A0R C1R
F: A1L Z1R

http://www.drb.insel.de/~heiner/BB/bb-6list

Any integer can be converted to a similar algorithm (if one relaxes
the "finite" restriction). Infinitely many of the integers will
result in a finite algorithm. As integers aren't generally thought of
as having goals, I don't expect their algorithmic representation would
have a goal either.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 20 June 2013 01:35:13 UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/19/13 4:44 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:47:10 -0700, John Harshman
>
> > <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Evolution is just something that happens under
> >> certain conditions, not something extra you have
> >> to put in.
> >
> > I don't see how this contradicts or limits the idea
> > that evolution could be an algorithm (or program
> > [which seems to have an overlapping definition]).
>
> It means that even if there's a designer, the designer
> didn't design evolution, even if the designer designed
> life. If you design the Eiffel tower, you didn't design
> the fact that an egg dropped off the top will break upon
> landing. By the way, is an egg breaking when it falls
> to the ground an algorithm?

Can I suggest that we replace the mysterious word "algorithm"
with "plan"?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_tower> describes a
structure in which falling has a purpose, and is part of
a plan. I'm not aware of the Eiffel tower being used thus.

There are various versions of stories in which an bird
carries a tortoise to a great height and drops it.
I don't know if this actually happens, but in at least
one version of the story, the bird is figuring that
there is meat inside. Also, in at least one version,
the outcome is predicted of tortoises that can fly.
Well, like Buzz Lightyear can fly, anyway. Evolution.

I think I've heard of a mathematical, computational,
possibly robotic implementation of "evolution" to produce
a practical design result, such as an efficient aeroplane
wing, or something.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria>
is almost a practical application of evolution, if you
had a quantity of unwanted nylon to dispose of, and if you
had the idea to breed a microbe that can deal with it
before it happened naturally anyway.

[jonathan]

"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:9d8ddba6-ae73-4923...@googlegroups.com...

Maybe the poster just meant a rote process, that with the same
conditions gives the same result each time, as in a computer.

It's important to distinguish between that kind of process
and an evolutionary process which must be allowed to
emerge as it will, so the future isn't precisely predictable
as would be with equation-like process.

With evolving systems, the inputs and outputs often have
no direct relationships, as is the case with most non-linear
behavior.


s

[Kalkidas]

"This is a list of 6-state TMs producing many ones"

So the goal is to produce many ones.

[Garamond Lethe]

You've confused "property" with "goal".

Would it help if I told you that no one sat down to code up the algorithm that produced the greatest number of ones? This particular program was discovered via an exhaustive search of all possible programs of that size.

(I'm now trying to imaging numbers having the goal of being prime or transcendental or what have you.)

[Kalkidas]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 01:01:47 -0700 (PDT), Garamond Lethe

But someone sat down to code the algorithm which found the algorithm
that produced the greatest number of ones. The entire process was
controlled in every particular in every step by the programmer, whose
goal was to find the algorithm that produced the most ones.

If the coding is error-free, The goal of the programmer *is* the goal
of the algorithm he creates.

[Mark Isaak]

> But someone sat down to code the algorithm which found the algorithm
> that produced the greatest number of ones. The entire process was
> controlled in every particular in every step by the programmer, whose
> goal was to find the algorithm that produced the most ones.

So if I set down a plan to find termites under old discarded boards, and
I turn over old boards and find termites, then my goal is to eat wood?
You really do not think these things through, do you Kalkidas?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Kalkidas]

This dime-store debunking is futile. If you set down a plan to examine
many termite colonies to find the termites that eat the most wood,
then your goal is to find termites that eat the most wood. That is the
true analogy to the example.

If your plan is to find termites "for no reason", then you are merely
an idiot. Just as someone who "for no reason" coded an algorithm to
find algorithms that produce the most ones is an idiot.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kpq7je$gso$1...@dont-email.me>,

Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think there was any issue that if one may freely define "God" or
> create entities one can reconcile religion with science, and intelligent
> design with neodarwinian mechanisms; also demonstrate a .05 to .95
> probability that the life on Earth was seeded by aliens that looked
> uncannily like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Is the FSM composed of cooked or raw spaghetti?

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[jillery]

On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 07:43:52 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <kpq7je$gso$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think there was any issue that if one may freely define "God" or
>> create entities one can reconcile religion with science, and intelligent
>> design with neodarwinian mechanisms; also demonstrate a .05 to .95
>> probability that the life on Earth was seeded by aliens that looked
>> uncannily like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
>
>Is the FSM composed of cooked or raw spaghetti?

Al dente.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 6 July 2013 12:43:52 UTC+1, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <kpq7je$gso$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think there was any issue that if one may freely define "God" or
> > create entities one can reconcile religion with science, and intelligent
> > design with neodarwinian mechanisms; also demonstrate a .05 to .95
> > probability that the life on Earth was seeded by aliens that looked
> > uncannily like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
>
> Is the FSM composed of cooked or raw spaghetti?

Is spaghetti created in the form in which we find it in the supermarket?
I think that stuff is dead.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/1/newsid_2819000/2819261.stm>
1957: "Spaghetti is not a widely-eaten food in the UK and is considered by many
as an exotic delicacy. Mr Dimbleby explained how each year the end of March is
a very anxious time for Spaghetti harvesters all over Europe as severe frost
can impair the flavour of the spaghetti. He also explained how each strand of
spaghetti always grows to the same length thanks to years of hard work by
generations of growers."

But when you get it in the supermarket, it's dead. Or in tins; it's just
better preserved.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <kpq7je$gso$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I don't think there was any issue that if one may freely define "God" or
>> create entities one can reconcile religion with science, and intelligent
>> design with neodarwinian mechanisms; also demonstrate a .05 to .95
>> probability that the life on Earth was seeded by aliens that looked
>> uncannily like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

>Is the FSM composed of cooked or raw spaghetti?

If the F stands for "flexible" the answer is obvious.

--
--- Paul J. Gans