Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:37 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:21 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:55 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:37 am
It would be helpful if you commented my last post, #36
Nils

My understanding is that your statement
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why."

Was an attempt to refute the position ID proponents such as Meyer and Behe.

Not generally, only their position on creation of new information, specifically during unguided parts of the evolution, namely that it's impossible.

I'm still trying to figure out precisely where we agree and disagree on your computer example

Do we agree on the following statement that you posted earlier?
If you say that the execution of a program and the output from the program is dependent on the programmer even after the program is finished and the programmer has moved away then there is no program that is independent of the programmer, by definition.

Is there anything in the following statement that you disagree with?
- It is impossible for a computer to create new information without a program
- It is impossible for a computer program to exist without an intelligent programmer.
==> It is impossible for a computer to create new information without an intelligent programmer

Too unspecific to comment.
- - - -
There are so many things that have to be clarified. Apparently you don't understand what I'm discussing. Perhaps a way to explain is if you look at Meyer in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg. This video is nicely structured in smaller sections, each about two minutes. The sections 2:48 Can evolutionary mechanisms explain the DNA code and 4:29 Why do random mutations tend to degrade the genome, is about the problem we discussed in the thread Atheist question, namely the big Solution Space and how evolution works in it. Let's call this the SS problem.

In the section at 6:10 If evolution can't explain the origin of genetic information, he discusses another problem. This is the problem I discuss in this thread and is about who or what can create information. This is a different problem than the SS problem above. Let's call it the Info problem.

Meyer says here:
6:32 "We know from our experience that information always arrives from an intelligence source." and
6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

I think that these claims are better to understand the problem. In the OP I talked about what is "needed" to create information and that was a wording that probably caused your misunderstanding of the problem. I didn't think of your interpretation of my wording.

My labyrinth solving program example (see the OP) is meant to show that the two statements of Meyer above are false. The information I talk about is the message LRRL. This information is derived from the input of the labyrinth data. The software programmer had no idea of how the specific labyrinth would look so the information can't possibly come from the programmer (via the code). You might say that the information is within the data about the labyrinth that is fed into the computer but that data could have been created by another program that used a random generator as input. (And the programmer of that program would have no idea of the information LRRL).

So the question is: If the computer program didn't create the info LRRL who or what did that instead?

My answer is that the information "LRRL" arrived from the labyrinth program and that this program is the source of the information, a program that is an undirected material process. So Meyer's claims are false. In the OP i mentioned some other reasons why. Using programs to get knowledge is an established method.

Please comment my #36. There I explain that there are two cases. In both cases it is possible to apply the worlds "necessary" or "dependent on" but in the case I talk about the world "interfere" is more suitable.

In the OP i defined the problem thus:
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information."
The person arguing for this claim could reason like you saying: God created the universe and made the process of Darwinian evolution possible so any information that is created by that process is dependent on God so the process itself can't create any independent information.

That is a potentially legitimate position...
... if Darwinistic processes can be demonstrated to be capable of producing what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.

I don't happen to hold that position, for reasons that we have already discussed in another thread.

They don't argue for the self evident claim that if God created the universe everything is in some way dependent on God. They make a stronger claim that the process itself, without any reference to who or what created it, can't create information.. I know that Philip and others argues something like this self evident proof but the author of the article and the Discovery Institute claim something stronger. They claim that "intelligence is needed to create new information" and what they intend is that some intelligence actively interferes with the biological process.

I agree with that 'stronger' claim based on the following.

Darwinian Evolution presumes "random" mutation.
We have empirical data regarding the capability of "random mutation", and as we have discussed elsewhere the observed capability of random mutation is inconsistent with what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today (by astronomical orders of magnitude).

Therefore if we assume mutations have occurred that are beyond the empirically observed capability of "random" mutation, then that is evidence (at least to me) that some intelligence has potentially "interfered' in the mutation process to generate new information.
Some might call that a 'creative' act.

That's my .02.

But to get back to the OP, I am unaware of any situation where new information has been created that is not ultimately dependent on intelligence of some sort.
And I think that is the key point here.

As I said above, this is not a response to the Info problem. It is a response to the SS problem.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:21 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:37 am Do we agree on the following statement that you posted earlier?
If you say that the execution of a program and the output from the program is dependent on the programmer even after the program is finished and the programmer has moved away then there is no program that is independent of the programmer, by definition.

Is there anything in the following statement that you disagree with?
- It is impossible for a computer to create new information without a program
- It is impossible for a computer program to exist without an intelligent programmer.
==> It is impossible for a computer to create new information without an intelligent programmer

Too unspecific to comment.
- - - -
There are so many things that have to be clarified. Apparently you don't understand what I'm discussing. Perhaps a way to explain is if you look at Meyer in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg. This video is nicely structured in smaller sections, each about two minutes. The sections 2:48 Can evolutionary mechanisms explain the DNA code and 4:29 Why do random mutations tend to degrade the genome, is about the problem we discussed in the thread Atheist question, namely the big Solution Space and how evolution works in it. Let's call this the SS problem.

In the section at 6:10 If evolution can't explain the origin of genetic information, he discusses another problem. This is the problem I discuss in this thread and is about who or what can create information. This is a different problem than the SS problem above. Let's call it the Info problem.

Meyer says here:
6:32 "We know from our experience that information always arrives from an intelligence source." and
6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

I agree with both of these statements, and they are both factually accurate.

I think the 6:52 statement is the key.
Applying this statement to your specific example, we can see the new information created by the computer and trace the ability of the computer to create this new information back to an intelligent source, the programmer who created the computer program that allows the computer to create new information.

The information I talk about is the message LRRL. This information is derived from the input of the labyrinth data. The software programmer had no idea of how the specific labyrinth would look so the information can't possibly come from the programmer (via the code).

The programmer didn't know the specifics of the input, but the programmer did design a computer program with the ability to process various types of input. The ability of the program to process that input is a manifestation of the program algorithms that can ultimately be traced back (as Meyer correctly notes) to the intelligence of the programmer.

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:10 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:21 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:37 am Do we agree on the following statement that you posted earlier?
If you say that the execution of a program and the output from the program is dependent on the programmer even after the program is finished and the programmer has moved away then there is no program that is independent of the programmer, by definition.

Is there anything in the following statement that you disagree with?
- It is impossible for a computer to create new information without a program
- It is impossible for a computer program to exist without an intelligent programmer.
==> It is impossible for a computer to create new information without an intelligent programmer

Too unspecific to comment.
- - - -
There are so many things that have to be clarified. Apparently you don't understand what I'm discussing. Perhaps a way to explain is if you look at Meyer in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg. This video is nicely structured in smaller sections, each about two minutes. The sections 2:48 Can evolutionary mechanisms explain the DNA code and 4:29 Why do random mutations tend to degrade the genome, is about the problem we discussed in the thread Atheist question, namely the big Solution Space and how evolution works in it. Let's call this the SS problem.

In the section at 6:10 If evolution can't explain the origin of genetic information, he discusses another problem. This is the problem I discuss in this thread and is about who or what can create information. This is a different problem than the SS problem above. Let's call it the Info problem.

Meyer says here:
6:32 "We know from our experience that information always arrives from an intelligence source." and
6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

I agree with both of these statements, and they are both factually accurate.

I think the 6:52 statement is the key.
Applying this statement to your specific example, we can see the new information created by the computer and trace the ability of the computer to create this new information back to an intelligent source, the programmer who created the computer program that allows the computer to create new information.

The information I talk about is the message LRRL. This information is derived from the input of the labyrinth data. The software programmer had no idea of how the specific labyrinth would look so the information can't possibly come from the programmer (via the code).

The programmer didn't know the specifics of the input, but the programmer did design a computer program with the ability to process various types of input. The ability of the program to process that input is a manifestation of the program algorithms that can ultimately be traced back (as Meyer correctly notes) to the intelligence of the programmer.

6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

"it" in this sentence clearly refers to "information"

In both sentences, at 6:32 and 6:52 Meyer talks about information. You prefer to talk about the design of the process but that's another thing.

Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:01 am 6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

"it" in this sentence clearly refers to "information"

Correct...
And in your example the information in question is
"new information created by computers"

So using the Meyer premise let's track the new information back to it's ultimate source.

Would you agree that the 'source' of the new information created by the computer is a computer program?
(The computer receives inputs, processes those inputs through a computer program, then the output of the computer program is 'new information')

Would you agree that the 'source' of the computer program is an intelligent programmer?

In your example we can take the new information created by a computer and trace it through algorithms in a computer program back to the source of those computer algorithms, which is an intelligent programmer.

Your example just validates Meyer's premise
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:32 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:01 am 6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

"it" in this sentence clearly refers to "information"

Correct...
And in your example the information in question is
"new information created by computers"

So using the Meyer premise let's track the new information back to it's ultimate source.

Would you agree that the 'source' of the new information created by the computer is a computer program?
(The computer receives inputs, processes those inputs through a computer program, then the output of the computer program is 'new information')

Would you agree that the 'source' of the computer program is an intelligent programmer?

In your example we can take the new information created by a computer and trace it through algorithms in a computer program back to the source of those computer algorithms, which is an intelligent programmer.

Your example just validates Meyer's premise
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

So you define "source" as also including "the source of the source" and consequently also "the source of the source of the source .... " back to the creator of the universe. This makes the word "source" useless

For example (from Oxford)
"The definition of source is where someone or something came from. An example of a source is solar energy coming from the sun. An example of a source is the person who inspires you. An example of a source is the person who gives a juicy story to a magazine reporter."

According to you this is wrong. The source of solar energy is the sun, and the source of the sun is interstellar gas, and the source of that is Big Bang and the source of that is God according to your world view. So using your terminologi, the source of solar energy is God. The same with "the person who inspires you". That source would be God etc. In this way the word "source" would mean God and that makes the word useless in most contexts.

Even the expression "ultimate source" would be meaningless.

Surely Meyer wouldn't agree with you definition.

Besides, did you read https://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.php which Paul referred to in #22 ? Even if I disagree to much of what is said, it discusses the issue that Meyer and I talk about.

Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:16 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:32 pm In your example we can take the new information created by a computer and trace it through algorithms in a computer program back to the source of those computer algorithms, which is an intelligent programmer.

Your example just validates Meyer's premise
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

So you define "source" as also including "the source of the source" and consequently also "the source of the source of the source ....

Correct...
I traced the source of the new information back to the intelligence of the computer programmer who developed the algorithms and programs that enabled the computer to generate new information.

" back to the creator of the universe.

I could have gone there (the creator of the universe is ultimately responsible for the intelligence of the programmer)
... but I didn't have to.
All I had to do was trace it back to the intelligence of the computer programmer to validate the accuracy of Meyer's point.

Surely Meyer wouldn't agree with you definition.

Actually he does...
That is precisely what he is referring to with the phrase
"trace it back to a source"

Meyer often uses the specific example of code in a computer program to make the point that the presence of code (a program) is evidence of a coder (a programmer).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10
So yes, my point is consistent with Meyer's position.

Besides, did you read https://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.php which Paul referred to in #22 ? Even if I disagree to much of what is said, it discusses the issue that Meyer and I talk about.

No I didn't ...
Did you have a specific quote in mind?

Nils: So you define "source" as also including "the source of the source" and consequently also "the source of the source of the source .... " back to the creator of the universe. This makes the word "source" useless.

No, there is only no ultimate source to people who believe the existing sources are somehow eternal, or the result of some mysterious, eternally existing materials and processes - meaning, ultimately such things require no source.

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:11 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:16 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:32 pm In your example we can take the new information created by a computer and trace it through algorithms in a computer program back to the source of those computer algorithms, which is an intelligent programmer.

Your example just validates Meyer's premise
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

So you define "source" as also including "the source of the source" and consequently also "the source of the source of the source ....

Correct...
I traced the source of the new information back to the intelligence of the computer programmer who developed the algorithms and programs that enabled the computer to generate new information.

" back to the creator of the universe.

I could have gone there (the creator of the universe is ultimately responsible for the intelligence of the programmer)
... but I didn't have to.
All I had to do was trace it back to the intelligence of the computer programmer to validate the accuracy of Meyer's point.

Surely Meyer wouldn't agree with you definition.

Actually he does...
That is precisely what he is referring to with the phrase
"trace it back to a source"

Meyer often uses the specific example of code in a computer program to make the point that the presence of code (a program) is evidence of a coder (a programmer).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10
So yes, my point is consistent with Meyer's position.

Besides, did you read https://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.php which Paul referred to in #22 ? Even if I disagree to much of what is said, it discusses the issue that Meyer and I talk about.

No I didn't ...
Did you have a specific quote in mind?

Please comment my discussion of the word "source" in #50. It seems impossible to discuss the source if we not even agree upon the meaning of the word "source".

Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:38 am Please comment my discussion of the word "source" in #50. It seems impossible to discuss the source if we not even agree upon the meaning of the word "source".

I have no disagreement with the definition of source that you posted

For example (from Oxford)
"The definition of source is where someone or something came from. An example of a source is solar energy coming from the sun. An example of a source is the person who inspires you. An example of a source is the person who gives a juicy story to a magazine reporter."

Based on that definition it is accurate to refer to any causal step in the cause/effect path for a specific effect as a 'source' for that effect.

The discussion of the semantics of "source" doesn't seem to lead anywhere so I return to #49 instead.

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:32 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:01 am 6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

"it" in this sentence clearly refers to "information"

Correct...
And in your example the information in question is
"new information created by computers"

So using the Meyer premise let's track the new information back to it's ultimate source.

Would you agree that the 'source' of the new information created by the computer is a computer program?
(The computer receives inputs, processes those inputs through a computer program, then the output of the computer program is 'new information')

YES, but see below.

Would you agree that the 'source' of the computer program is an intelligent programmer?

YES.

In your example we can take the new information created by a computer and trace it through algorithms in a computer program back to the source of those computer algorithms, which is an intelligent programmer.

NO

To be more specific, the new information is created as a result of the execution of the program code, so the source of the information is the program execution. The source of the program execution is the program code and the source of the code is the programmer, an intelligence. However, from that does NOT follow that the source of the information is an intelligence.

When you discuss information you have to be more exact than using the vague word "source". "Information" is a technical term related to for instance Shannons information theory. To explain this I referred to https://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.php which Paul referred to in #22. Even if I disagree to much of what is said, it discusses the issue of information theory.

If we take a piece of information created by the execution of the program, for instance "LRRL", this piece of information can not be found anywhere in the program code and is not known by the programmer. So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program execution.

So Meyers premise below is wrong.
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 12:42 am The discussion of the semantics of "source" doesn't seem to lead anywhere so I return to #49 instead.

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:32 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:01 am 6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

"it" in this sentence clearly refers to "information"

Correct...
And in your example the information in question is
"new information created by computers"

So using the Meyer premise let's track the new information back to it's ultimate source.

Would you agree that the 'source' of the new information created by the computer is a computer program?
(The computer receives inputs, processes those inputs through a computer program, then the output of the computer program is 'new information')

YES, but see below.

Would you agree that the 'source' of the computer program is an intelligent programmer?

YES.

In your example we can take the new information created by a computer and trace it through algorithms in a computer program back to the source of those computer algorithms, which is an intelligent programmer.

NO

To be more specific, the new information is created as a result of the execution of the program code, so the source of the information is the program execution.

YES

The source of the program execution is the program code and the source of the code is the programmer, an intelligence.

YES

However, from that does NOT follow that the source of the information is an intelligence.

NO

This is where you are factually incorrect and your argument falls apart.

The algorithms that make up the program executable are a representation of the intelligence of the programmer.
So it is the intelligence of the programmer as manifested in the program executable that enables the computer to create new information.

This is why your computer example validates Meyer's premise
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

Meyer specifically uses the example of computer code to make this point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:41 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 12:42 am The discussion of the semantics of "source" doesn't seem to lead anywhere so I return to #49 instead.

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:32 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:01 am 6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

"it" in this sentence clearly refers to "information"

Correct...
And in your example the information in question is
"new information created by computers"

So using the Meyer premise let's track the new information back to it's ultimate source.

Would you agree that the 'source' of the new information created by the computer is a computer program?
(The computer receives inputs, processes those inputs through a computer program, then the output of the computer program is 'new information')

YES, but see below.

Would you agree that the 'source' of the computer program is an intelligent programmer?

YES.

In your example we can take the new information created by a computer and trace it through algorithms in a computer program back to the source of those computer algorithms, which is an intelligent programmer.

NO

To be more specific, the new information is created as a result of the execution of the program code, so the source of the information is the program execution.

YES

The source of the program execution is the program code and the source of the code is the programmer, an intelligence.

YES

However, from that does NOT follow that the source of the information is an intelligence.

NO

This is where you are factually incorrect and your argument falls apart.

The algorithms that make up the program executable are a representation of the intelligence of the programmer.

YES, in some way-

So it is the intelligence of the programmer as manifested in the program executable that enables the computer to create new information.

YES, "enables to create". There are many things that enables the computer/software to create information, a power connection for instance. But there is only one thing that creates the information, and that is the execution of the software.

This is why your computer example validates Meyer's premise
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

It would simplify our dialogue if you comment all of what I write.
I wrote:
"If we take a piece of information created by the execution of the program, for instance "LRRL", this piece of information can not be found anywhere in the code and is not known by the programmer. So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program execution."

Meyer specifically uses the example of computer code to make this point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10

When we have finished the current discussion I can describe the mistakes Meyer makes in this video.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:52 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:41 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 12:42 am The discussion of the semantics of "source" doesn't seem to lead anywhere so I return to #49 instead.

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:32 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:01 am 6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

"it" in this sentence clearly refers to "information"

Correct...
And in your example the information in question is
"new information created by computers"

So using the Meyer premise let's track the new information back to it's ultimate source.

Would you agree that the 'source' of the new information created by the computer is a computer program?
(The computer receives inputs, processes those inputs through a computer program, then the output of the computer program is 'new information')

YES, but see below.

Would you agree that the 'source' of the computer program is an intelligent programmer?

YES.

In your example we can take the new information created by a computer and trace it through algorithms in a computer program back to the source of those computer algorithms, which is an intelligent programmer.

NO

To be more specific, the new information is created as a result of the execution of the program code, so the source of the information is the program execution.

YES

The source of the program execution is the program code and the source of the code is the programmer, an intelligence.

YES

However, from that does NOT follow that the source of the information is an intelligence.

NO

This is where you are factually incorrect and your argument falls apart.

The algorithms that make up the program executable are a representation of the intelligence of the programmer.

YES, in some way-

So it is the intelligence of the programmer as manifested in the program executable that enables the computer to create new information.

YES, "enables to create". There are many things that enables the computer/software to create information, a power connection for instance. But there is only one thing that creates the information, and that is the execution of the software.

This is why your computer example validates Meyer's premise
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

It would simplify our dialogue if you comment all of what I write.
I wrote:
"If we take a piece of information created by the execution of the program, for instance "LRRL", this piece of information can not be found anywhere in the code and is not known by the programmer. So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program
execution."

I did comment on it...

This is where you are factually incorrect and your argument falls apart.
The algorithms that make up the program executable are a representation of the intelligence of the programmer.
So it is the intelligence of the programmer as manifested in the program executable that enables the computer to create new information.


The intelligence of the program executable which creates the new information is a representation of the intelligence of the programmer who created the executable.

So as Meyer points out
When a program generates new information "we trace it back to a source" the program executable whose algorithms are a function of the intelligence of the programmer who designed the algorithms and created the program executable.

If you wish to demonstrate that Meyer is incorrect, you need to demonstrate how a program executable that is not a function of intelligence is able to create new information.

Until you do that, you continue to validate, over and over again, Meyer's premise that
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".

Re #58

Again:
If we take a piece of information created by the execution of the program, for instance "LRRL", this piece of information can not be found anywhere in the code and is not known by the programmer.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program execution.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

If we agree on this we can continue.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:19 am Re #58

Again:
If we take a piece of information created by the execution of the program, for instance "LRRL", this piece of information can not be found anywhere in the code and is not known by the programmer.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

So when you trace this piece of information back to a source you have to stop at the program execution.
Is this correct? Yes or No?

If we agree on this we can continue.
Nils

I'm not a computer programmer, and I'm trying to understand what you're saying.

Are you saying that a piece of information(LRRL) that was created by the program, was never actually programmed to be created?