Caveat emptor

(For context see here.)

Kirk Skeptic

I'm all for that, but what about buying smuggled goods from the source?

I'm afraid to report that over the last year or so I've been sorely disappointed over the smuggled goods I've purchased from "the source." (Ahem, *wink* *wink* *nod* *nod* - I won't mention his name but I know precisely the person to whom you're referring.)

I mean, sure, "the source" has had a fairly decent track record over the years of catering smuggled goods to my mad scientist operation. If we're talking several years back, or maybe even a couple of years ago, then I'd definitely rate "the source" at least a 4 but likely even 5 stars out of 5. No question.

However, ever since the IPO launch, things just haven't been quite the same. For one thing, I feel as if "the source" has become too commercialized now. He's lost the ma and pa shop feel. It's not the same beloved family friendly outfit I once knew.

For example, "the source" used to have my uranium-235 as well as plutonium-241 hand delivered to me in lovely little hand-crafted heavy metallic storage containers, which in turn were even shaped to look like their own miniaturized nuclear reactor units, complete with control rods and cute external digital displays that would flash funny stuff like "Critical mass has been reached" or "Supernova or bust"! But now I'd be lucky to get such quality service and packaging. Let alone if the entire amalgamation didn't experience a catastrophic meltdown before it arrived in my barriered underground supervillain lair.

On another occasion, I ordered a wormhole portal gun from "the source." I knew something was wrong the second I fired it up. The tachyon particle levels instantly skyrocketed to above what I'd normally expect to see, the anti-gravity machine went on the fritz, and causality reversed direction. But it was when Stephen Hawking walked through the wormhole with Schrodinger's cat on a leash that I had had enough. After all, this isn't rocket science 101! I'm familiar enough to know there is no parallel universe in the multiverse in which Hawking can walk! So I put Hawking, the cat, and the wormhole portal gun in a big enough box along with a small flask of hydrocyanic acid, and returned to sender, posthaste.

Anyway, 1/5 I'll not use "the source" for my smuggled goods ever again. I'm going to go with Han Solo instead.

I, robot

Richard Dawkins once said:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Imagine a genius inventor is able to manufacture a human android. Say an android like David 8 in Ridley Scott's Prometheus. But far better (e.g. sans white colored blood, etc.). Indistinguishable from an actual human being.

Of course, one could ask, is David a "living" organism? But given the beliefs and worldview of someone like Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne (e.g. atheism, materialism, reductionism, neo-Darwinism), would there be a substantial difference between David and a living, breathing human being like Dawkins?

If so, what would it be?

If not, then how would an evolutionist like Dawkins differentiate between a "living" human being which evolved and David who is an artificial creation? Say the inventor is the only other who knows and he's not telling! Neither is David.

After all, both appear designed. But real humans (e.g. Dawkins) have come to appear designed due to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas artificial humans like David have come to appear designed due to the guided and purposeful intelligence of a genius inventor. That is, real humans have the appearance of design, while artificial humans have in fact been designed.

This scenario may sound far-fetched to many people; it's in the realm of science fiction, naught else. Maybe so. But given Dawkins' worldview, why not...someday? Indeed, Craig Venter "created" artificial life not too long ago. Apparently Venter had even placed a genetic signature or watermark in his synthetic life in order to make it known it was his creation. Not unlike, perhaps, Mr. Weyland placing "W" on the fingertip of his creation David in Prometheus:

So, short of some sort of a watermark or signature in the cell, if it's not possible to distinguish between a real human being and an artificially designed human being, then how could we tell one did indeed evolve according to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas the other was intelligently designed?

If we can't, then an outsider might as well conclude David evolved according to evolutionary theory, whereas Dawkins was designed by a genius inventor. But we don't really know because we can't distinguish between the two.

As such, on what grounds could Dawkins aka the Dawkbot say humans merely have the "appearance" of design rather than actual design? Couldn't it go either way? If so, then Dawkins shouldn't be so quick to pronounce the appearance of design over actual intelligent design.

Calvin & Muad'Dib

Hilarious!

Malcolm Reynolds