Information Theory and Intelligent Design.

I personally prefer Phillip Johnson's definition of information.I wish to offer it, and then give some other quotes to add context. I offer all of these FYI.Phillip Johnson - author ”Darwin on trial’ / Professor of law (emeritus) University of California at Berkeley-

​

...on the question: ”What is information?’ Scott A. Minnich Ph.D., Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of Idaho. He was an assistant professor at Tulane University, and did postdoctoral research with Austin Newton at Princeton University and Arthur Aronson at Purdue University.

​

Minnich’s research interests are temperature regulation of Y. enterocolita gene expression and coordinate reciprocal expression of flagellar and virulence genes. He is widely published in technical journals, including the ”Journal of Bacteriology’, ”Molecular Microbiology’, ”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’, and the ”Journal of Microbiological Methods’.

​

Minnich on the question: ”What is the most remarkable aspect of the bacterial flagellum?’ William Dembski, Mathematician, Baylor University- has earned Ph.D. degrees in mathematics (University of Chicago) and Philosophy (University of Illinois, Chicago) and a M. Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. He has also received two NSF fellowships and has conducted postdoctoral work at M.I.T., the University of Chicago and Princeton.

​

Dembski has published articles in journals of mathematics, philosophy, and theology. He has also written and edited several books including; ”The Design Inference’, ”Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology’, ”Signs of Intelligence’, and ”No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence’.

​

Dembski on the question: ”What is the probability that a cell could have formed by chance alone’? Jonathan Wells has received Ph.D. degrees in Molecular and Cell Biology (University of California at Berkeley) and religious studies (Yale University) He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and has taught biology at the University of California at Hayward. Wells has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American biology Teacher. He has also authored two books, ”Charles Hodge’s Critique of Darwinism’, and ”Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong’.

​

Wells on the question: ”What potential benefits does Intelligent Design Theory hold for science’? All quotes from the Q&A section of the DVD documentary, 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life'

My apologies DarkEnergon... I left out the best quote of all...Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously, Meyer worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company, after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology. He has recently co-written or edited two books ”Darwinsim, Design and Public Education’ (2003 Michigan State University Press) and ”Science and Evidence for design in the Universe’.

​

Meyer on the question - ”Why can’t biological information originate through a materialistic process’?

Razd;That's like Subbie's argument that you start with DNA and then add mutation.So what... how do you get a DNA molecule to begin with?Abiogenesis inevitably boils down to chemical evolution within the natural laws; the very 'Biochemical Predestination' concept that Dean Kenyon describes in detail.Dean Kenyon - coauthor of textbook on theory of biochemical evolution ”biochemical predestination’ 1969 / professor of biology (emeritus) San Fransisco State university-

​

Kenyon on ”describing the complexity of a living cell’. You can still believe in evolution Razd... you can use you imagination to concoct all variety of Theories. All it takes is a little faith and a motive.Just ask Aldous Huxley...Aldous Huxley: --Aldous Huxley, Ends and MeansWhat do you think???Case closed?Nah...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

sorry... e=mc2photons have massAnd I don't mean the Catholic thing... Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

deleteEdited by Rob, : No reason given.

Dr. Jones:No... Unless you want quotes from Jesus saying 'I am the light of the world'... From Wikipedia footnote 10: Photon - Wikipedia Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

---

Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

Doddy:First off, it is ideational, or conceptual. Secondly, we discovered it, we did not invent it. And... it is universal. The characters assigned to the concept may differ, but the point is... that conceptually it is the same.And, it is real. If it is not, then you can throw out physics as meaningless and unscientific.Doddy:Now that is a good question...It picks up the pattern. The complex, specified, non-repeating pattern. And this pattern serves to operate the system. Just as the DNA operates the living system. The living system that (technologically speaking), puts our computers to shame.And the DNA is unique to each system. It is specified to operate that system and that system only.Look at it this way... our computers use a binary system (two digits) of 1's and 0's, and the complexity baffles most of us.Now look at DNA which uses four digits A C T G... It's not twice as complex, it is exponentially more complex. Perhaps one of our math geniuses here could specify exactly how much more the complexity potential is relative to a binary system.Not to mention the superior efficiancy of the storage capacity. (Dean Kenyon - coauthor of textbook on theory of biochemical evolution ”Biochemical Predestination’ 1969 / professor of biology (emeritus) San Fransisco State university-)So when I here arguments which just assume the existence of DNA and it's complementary organelles and unimaginably interdependant complex features, which in combination do allow for the occasional mutation that is a net gain in information, I am forced to say wati just a minute...Your assuming an awful lot!We've been sold evolution as an explanation over time that starts simple and adds complexity, because it is plainly unreasonable to think that a fully functioning organism could just 'appear' miraculously from nothing!But now, in light of modern biochemistry and molecular biology, I am expected to believe just that! That we start with a whole organsim. Because DNA alone will not cut it. In fact DNA + A Cell membrane won't cut it.If you want life even on a single celled level... you must have thousands of submicroscopic proteins all assembled in a precise order... that just so happen to match the sequencing instructions of the DNA molecule that it must contain in it's nucleus in order to reproduce.I believe that is why Francis Crick the Nobel Laureate believed in "Directed Panspermia"; that life on earth was seeded by an alien civilization.And depending on how you interpret creation, I think he is right!The complexities are simply astounding and truely a monumentous scientific discovery.If you don't belive a computer could spontaniously arise without intelligent guidance, then how do you explain life? which is by many orders of magnitude greater and more complex?We are living, breathing, and self replicating machines.We are the androids of science fiction fame, but far more sophisticated and complex; mechanically, emotionally, spiritually, and dependantly.And we keep rejecting the only program that will sustain us. All for short term satisfaction. So narrow minded we are, by trying to open our minds to fiction and fantasy! but how mcuh faith we have in ourselves.We are encouraged to believe we are masters of the universe. But we are utterly dependant. Upon air, and water, and gravity, and heat, and pressure, and chemicals, and time, and patience, and love, and mercy, and forgiveness.We epitomize irreducible complexity. Life is not only irreducibly complex in and of itself, but we are dependant upon an earth which is in turn dependant upon a sun, and that solar system is dependant upon the laws of physics and chemistry and on and on unto the infinite and unknown.So many of these arguments you guys project, are frankly massless and baseless.Why?What do you want?All the evidence has been there the whole time... All you have to do is want to believe. And that is where the motive is exposed. By what you want to believe.Thanks again to Huxley. At least he could be honest with himself and others. (Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)

Iceage:I shouldn't even answer this...Yes, I believe that ultimately... everything has a non-material origin. In fact, at the quantum dimension, it appears that 'material' is not even material. This whole existence is kind of suspended in a mind-machine as Einstein or Hawking might imply.Information is just an excellent example of something non-material. So the materialist has a problem. And I suppose that color and shape are both conceptual (or ideational) in terms of understanding and order. They are only color in terms of information used by intelligence... So... yes.But that was not the point. I wasn't trying to switch dimensions like that. Computers don't care what color the CD is. The Drive in your computer can only read a computer language. And that language is not material. Just as the concepts we are expressing are not material. We only manipulate matter as a means of conveying them.Btw, the only thing out of control in my opinion, is the basis of your questioning as a means of evading the issues.

The argument Archer... your supposed to refute the argument...But I see your point... It's only the 'Christian lawyers' that are evil...By the way, he became a Christian in his forties. He converted from his native religion of evolutionary indoctrination.Those of us who do, make the best witnesses. It's kinda like being a rat to The Mob.And oh are we hated for it... But we have an excellent witness protection program. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Tom Curtis:Now that is quite a line Tom Curtis... almost a parable if you will.Don't know who you are, or how you'll take this, but it reminds me that all things give us information by the very fact of their being.The fact that they are a reality is itself information, yet the information is itself only ideational (or spiritual as I prefer).I don't think it can be adequately comprehended other than in metaphysical terms... hence the parablic quality. Such is the nature of quantum language and this strange Jesus fellow who claimed to be light.Thus, Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.Even as a believer, it almost scares me!

Matter is only manipulated by intelligent agents (the computer programmers) to impose a pattern that is recognizable to the system.It is mind over matter to put it that way. I don't understand the difficulty.

ID is indeed 'theo'. Theos comes from the Greek, meaning God.What is not a scientific theory is science itself when it moves beyond the facts. Rather, it is Theos, which comes from the Greek etc...The scientific hijack of monotheism was the legal strategy you've inverted and projected. And it's lawyers did a brilliant job in their day. I only help uncover the fraud. And you fight me for political reasons, not scientific ones.Your disagreement is philosophical and therefore religious in context. You desire to find no meaning, which is by it's nature a philosophical means to an end, and imparts meaning. Very contradictory and convoluted psychologically, emotionaly, and Spiritually.That is how 'fallen' man behaves 'naturally'.Paul Davies, theoretical physicist / Australian Centre for Astrobiology:

​

Davies on the question: ”Does the monotheistic tradition of an intelligible universe have any impact on modern science?’ Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Percy:[qs]The common claim that information can only be created by an intelligence usually stems from a confusion of information with meaning. Information is mere bits. In fact, information is measured in terms of bits. Meaning is a human artifact and has nothing to do with information theory.Yes meaning is a component of reality... Thank you for that. The mistake in your philosophy is privatization. You are seperating relative parts of the whole. Trying to seperate disciplines and put them in isolation. And by doing so, you cannot see the effect on the counterparts within the relational structure of the Cosmos.So when a materialist (who by definition is biased) imparts meaning to bits of fact, he is attemting a leap of faith. He has moved into theos.And it doesn't hold water intellectually for it is divided against itself. Meaning exists. To say otherwise is a logical contradiction. You can't say there is no meaning, because you actully believe such a statement is meaningful. And it's meaning is proportional to the purpose (intent) of arriving at such an extrapolation from the bits (facts).Percy:Is it not telling that those lights were designed by intelligent agents to serve a purpose and add some measure of meaning (in this case security or convenience) for the intelligent agent?So many of these arguments are flawed in this way. The intelligent guidance is just missed completely.It's like Dean Kenyon doing his research on Abiogenesis (Biochemical Predestination) at Nasa Ames Reasearch Center. It didn't dawn on him until much later, that he was an intelligent agent, manipulating evidence in the courtroom, so as to show that the result could be established without the need of intelligent guidance. What is the meaning behind that? What is the motivation?And not only was his consciousness of this lacking at the time, but in his own words, "we found that these amino acids did not have the ability... to order themselves, into any significant or meaningful biological sequences."Percy, the rest of your arguments assume that information is present without intelligent agents. Like the tree ring example.But the fact that an intelligent agent can come later and use that information, means that he is imparting meaning by acknowledging that it is useful as information (means to an end).My only point is that the information itself is evidence of intelligence beforehand. Because the only thing that doesn't have meaning is 'nothing'. And as Aristotle said, 'Nothing is what rocks dream about.'And that is essentially the position you are trying to capture...Everything has a cause and therefore purpose. And that includes any attempt to dissolve entities unto meaninglessness.You'd do better to admit why you don't want there to be meaning. Because when you interpret scientific facts beyond the scope that a rock would do so, then you have a motive.And if the motive is to find the truth, there is good news. If the motive is to not find the truth, then the motive itself is untrue necessarily and implicitely.

He did not say that there is anything non-material about the disk. It's not about the disk... He asks what the differnce in mass is, between a disk with information added(by intelligence) and a disk that is blank. The answer is zero. The addition of information adds no mass. Meyers is correct!You're assuming that mind is the same thing as matter. But that is not a scientific problem or belief. It is a metaphysical one. You are invoking meaning.You can't prove that all is material. You can only have faith that it is...

No, I am actually giving up EVC very soon. It's an unhealthy addiction to conflict. It feeds and satisfies a power craving in me.You guys are determined to impart the meaning that fits your agendas.I can't reason with you, because you reject reason. And I know that you will completely disagree with that. So what's the point?It not worth arguing. I only put it out there so that those who have eyes will see. But those with eye's likely won't come to EVC for answers, because you guys are so brutal.I hate to see the bullying going unpunished. And I forget that vengeance is not mine to minister.My apologies.You guys go ahead and comfort yourselves. This is your church not mine...