If I were to be "worked up" it would be because it is not rational to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And when I'm told, "oh, well, even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still means we need to do such and such" then I become immediately suspicious. I don't like handwaving. The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.

Massage therapy can be effective. That's not the issue. At issue are the claims that chiropractors make about "subluxations of the spine" being the cause of various conditions. That's quackery.

While I appreciate the sentiment, you don't have to worry about offending me. However, I'm not attacking the scientific method; rather, I'm questioning some of the assumptions that go into certain areas of 'scientific' thought. As for more compelling arguments, well, I have some rebuttals to make, but I won't get to them tonight. To much software design work to do...

Suppose you were inside the computer, a la Tron, and were observing the behavior of quicksort. Would there be any scientific way to tell one way or another whether the process was designed or not?

These days it seems there's a fine line between the two.

Then, circling around to the reason for this post, in order for science to be better accepted, scientists need to do a better job of denouncing the neoatheists, just like Christians need to do a better job of, say, denouncing the Westboro Baptist fruitcakes.

I'm not sure I buy that. Take Dawkin's Weasel program, for example. Yes, it's not an example of evolution, since it embeds information about the target in the search. Nevertheless, if the mutation rate, max number of children per generation, and max generations aren't chosen correctly, the target string isn't found. The parameters need to be "fine tuned" for it to work. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think biologists have address the issue of tuning.

Sure. But that's not the point. A random process is observed. Is it correct to therefore conclude that the process is unguided/blind?

So if something is random, there is never any design behind it? It's always the case that when randomness is observed that it's unguided?

You asked, "Where does Knuth say - or even imply - that God exists?" You didn't put any qualifiers on that question.

And you'll note that I didn't say that he did. What I said was the Knuth gives evidence than randomizaton can be evidence for design.

Just curious, but is science the only guide to true knowledge?

First, if that's true, then why do a number of those who reply make the claim that there is no evidence for God? Second, it seems to me that you're in an epistemological catch-22. Using the example of randomization, it can be evidence for sight and blindness. Why, then, is evolution "blind"? This is a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one.

This isn't an accurate summary of the issue. Dawkins sees "random process" and assumes that it is blind. Knuth states that randomization is used in the design of sophisticated algorithms.

How does Dawkins know that the randomization seen in nature is truly blind? Is there any scientific evidence, or is it all metaphysical?

It's no secret that Knuth is a Christian. ...

Without getting into all of the problems of your post (if I find time, I may take it up on my blog) let me point out what seems to have escaped some of my correspondents. Science isn't going to be accepted by "a few million other people" (it's much larger than this, btw) as long as what they hear is "you are insane. Science says so!"

Yes, I'm sure, especially since I read the entire book. Knuth is talking about algorithms that are designed to use randomness in order to achieve a purpose. Inside the system, the observer would just see the randomness. But to thereby conclude that it is "blind" is to miss the point.

Dawkins, in his book "The Blind Watchmaker", makes the assumption that random processes are blind. Then, like Hawking, he concludes that since god isn't needed, god doesn't exist.

Knuth, in his book, "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About", says: "Indeed, computer scientists have proved that certain important computational tasks can be done much more efficiently with random numbers than they could possibly ever be done by any deterministic procedure. Many of today's best computational algorithms, like methods for searching the Internet, are based on randomization."

So we have two scientists, one who says that randomness is evidence of atheism; while another implies that randomness can be evidence of design.

One of you prove it, scientifically, or shut up -- at least as far as "science says" when it says no such thing.

I don't expect you to do my job for me. I've had too many job applicants from prestigious universities whose degree was no indication of their knowledge. If I end up hiring a "cat", I'm capable of firing the same.

With these price comparisons, are any of the brick-and- mortar costs subsidized by federal, state, or local funds? If so, then unsubsidized costs should be compared.

Where does intelligence come from, if not from the interactions of sub-atomic particles (strings/waves, ...)?