video by william craig on the ambiguity with language, how sam harris abuses the good to mean pleasurable Theives might find it a pleasure to steel money and 'good' for them, but not 'good' for society
subscripts for good, and bad:
A good team is not a moral tema , thus sub good1 or 2
Same issue with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(mathematics)
The edges may be directed (asymmetric) or undirected (symmetric). For example, if the vertices represent people at a party, and there is an edge between two people if they shake hands, then this is an undirected graph, because if person A shook hands with person B, then person B also shook hands with person A. On the other hand, if the vertices represent people at a party, and there is an edge from person A to person B when person A knows of person B, then this graph is directed, because knowing of someone is not necessarily a symmetric relation (that is, one person knowing of another person does not necessarily imply the reverse; for example, many fans may know of a celebrity, but the celebrity is unlikely to know of all their fans). This latter type of graph is called a directed graph and the edges are called directed edges or arcs.
This is what links from the ID article on Dembski on wikipedia see
Why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undirected or Undirected in the opening paragraph of the ID article redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(mathematics) instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness ? Undirected is the synonym for Randomness and random is the semantic opposite of non- random(Design), which is a pattern with a Purpose(http:// scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Purpose1). But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-random redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness, is the intention of the Wikipedia editors to assert that randomness is the same thing as non- random? Is life the same thing as death, is light the same thing as darkness.
The intentionality article speicifcially does not list its thesaurs opposite
The site claims Quote: Natural Selection is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again. But most people will be very surprised to discover that no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. Information theory shows us why this is so: In communication systems, Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it. (Bolding original) Mr. Marshall suffers from the common creationist misapprehension that evolution is fundamentally a random process. It isn't. It is undirected, in the sense of not having long-term goals, but it is not random. The process of evolution proceeds through the interaction of random (with respect to fitness) mutations and natural selection. The latter is quite definitely a non-random process. Once again, evolution arises from the interaction of stochastic and non-stochastic processes, and is therefore not purely random.
Further, Marshall's claim that "noise always destroys the signal" is factually false, and he should know it given his field of expertise. There are circumstances in which adding stochastic noise to a system enhances the system's performance. See here, here, and here for examples. The latter is in a communication framework, by the way. More generally, I suggest Marshall look up "stochastic resonance" for more examples.
I suggest that Mr. Marshall acquaint himself with Evolutionary Computing. In any number of applications, random mutations coupled with selection generate distinctly non-random outcomes. My company uses evolutionary algorithms employing random mutations (a Mersenne twister generates them) and selection to produce very non-random adaptations of artificial agents that must operate successfully in a complex adaptive system out in the real world. If they didn't operate successfully I'd have some very unhappy clients.