Mission Statement
FAQ
Organization
MISSION STATEMENT:
iDesign Club at UCI seeks to foster scientific discussions regarding the origins of life and the universe. Theories such as Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, and creationism will be critically analyzed.
FAQ:
Q: WHAT IS THIS CLUB ABOUT?
Origins! We are interested in discussing alternative theories to the origins of biological structures. While the current mainstream theory in academia is Darwinian evolution, we would also like to discuss other viable ideas, such as intelligent design.
Q: WHO CAN BE A MEMBER OF THIS CLUB?
Anybody!
Students of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Engineering, Anthropology, and Philosophy may especially find this club intriguing. However, you do not need to have a science background to be an effective member of this club.
Q: WHEN AND WHERE ARE CLUB MEETINGS?
Please check blog entries for time and place.
Q: WHAT IS THE MEMBERSHIP FEE?
Nothing! There are no membership dues.
Q: IS THIS CLUB BIASED TOWARDS ONE SPECIFIC THEORY OF ORIGINS?
Perhaps. Ponder the name of this club. This club is ideologically the mirror of another club at UCI, the Students for Science and Skepticism. However, our main goal is to give a balanced view of the controversy regarding the origins of life so that students can come to an informed conclusion themselves.
Q: WHAT DOES THE LETTER "i" STAND FOR IN iDESIGN?
Good question -- the answer is intelligent. Q: WHERE IS THE CLUB CONSTITUTION?
We adhere to the minimum constitution that was provided by the Dean of Students. In the future, we plan to draft a comprehensive constitution and bylaws.
Q: IS iDESIGN AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION?
No. However, we are friends with the IDEA Center ORGANIZATION:
PRESIDENT: Arthur Information and Computer Science
VICE PRESIDENT: Brian
Biology / English
DIRECTOR: Andrew
English / Economics
|
Thursday, August 17, 2006
There is an interesting exchange going on between Salvador Cordova of Uncommon Descent and Dave Thomas of Panda's Thumb. First, Dave posts about his genetic algorithm for finding Steiner trees ("the shortest networks of straight-line segments connecting a given collection of fixed points"). He claims his algorithm (explained in detail in an earlier post) is not targeted because it does not contain the optimal solution, but selects for incrementally better ones randomly. He challenges ID'ers to come up with a solution to the 6-node Steiner Tree problem. I think his aim was to prove how much better his genetic algorithm was than the intelligent attempts of design proponents. Next, Salvador responds with a genetic algorithm he designed, which correctly finds the sum of the first 1,000 integers. The algorithm does not have a direct target (i.e., it is not explicitly searching for the answer), but instead uses Gauss's algorithm - obviously targeted in a secondary sort of way, which he implies is akin to Dave's Steiner tree algorithm. Finally, Dave insists his algorithm is not targeted and is in no way analagous to Salvador's, which is blatantly targeted, and Salvador replies that of course his algorithm is targeted, and that the smoke and mirrors in his algorithm are indeed similar to Dave's. The contentious issue here is what, exactly, constitutes a "target". Salvador's point is that if your cost function is intentionally designed to approach the solution you are looking for, the absense of the actual optimum value is a technicality. Dave's algorithm is clearly only good at finding Steiner trees because he designed the cost function to reward better Steiner trees. As johnnyb points out in a comment to Salvador's latest reply: The problem is that the fitness function cannot be directly related to the problem being solved. Natural selection simply says the animal must survive or be better at reproduction, but somehow guides processes such as eye formation. Therefore, in a fitting scenario the selection algorithm should not directly correspond with what you are searching for, in fact there should be a large disconnect. This is exactly right, and so succinct I wish I'd come up with it myself. There may or may not be a genetic algorithm for constructing a structure like the human eye (depending on the number and structure of interdependencies between its parts). If one exists, then its cost function will be specifically designed for producing an object like the eye, whether the "target" is explicit or not. There is no evidence that a vague cost function like "survive" is capable of doing anything interesting.
Posted by Wedge at 4:36 PM
|
iDESIGN BLOGROLL:
The Design Paradigm
Design Watch
Creation-Evolution Headlines
Telic Thoughts
Uncommon Descent
ID the Future
ID Plus
CreationEvolutionDesign
Evolution News
Dualistic Dissension
ID in the UK
ID Update
Intelligently Sequenced
PRO-DESIGN SITES:
Access Research Network
IDEA Center
UCSD IDEA Club
ISCID
PRO-EVOLUTION SITES:
Panda's Thumb
Talk Origins
Students for Science and Skepticism at UCI
NAS: Science and Creationism
PRO-CREATION SITES:
Answers in Genesis
Institute for Creation Research
A.E. Wilder Smith
Reasons to Believe
Baraminology News
CreationWiki
OTHER INTERESTING SITES:
American Scientific Affiliation
Richard Sternberg
ANTEATER LINKS:
University of California, Irvine
New University
Irvine Review
School of Biological Sciences
School of Medicine
School of Physical Sciences
Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Science
Henry Samueli School of Engineering
UCI Athletics
UCI Alumni Association
BLOG ARCHIVES:
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
April 2007
|