On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:23:55 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
[...]
SJ>Sorry, but one thing that "random mutation" cannot do is to "create
>new information":
BH>How would one define "information" in such a way that a random
>process would not result in an increase in information? The only
>objective definitions of information that I know of are those found
>in information theory. These information measures are maximal
>for random processes.
I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert in "information theory",
so I am unable to "define `information'" in such terms. I rely here on the
expertise of others:
"Grasse insisted that the defining quality of life is the
intelligence encoded in its biochemical systems, an intelligence that
cannot be understood solely in terms of its material embodiment. The
minerals that form a great cathedral do not differ essentially from
the same materials in the rocks and quarries of the world; the
difference is human intelligence, which adapted them for a given
purpose. Similarly,
`Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence,"
very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of
cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called information, but it
is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but
rather it is condensed on molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or
in that of eve] other organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is
the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from? ...This is a
problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at
present science seems incapable of solving it.... If to determine
the origin of information in a computer is not a false problem, why
should the search for the information contained in cellular nuclei be
one?' " (Grasse P.P., "The Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic
Press: NY, 1977, p2).
(Johnson P.E., "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning", in Buell J. &
Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation
for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, pp6-7)
But if Glenn or Brian has an example in the scientific literature of a
"random mutation" that has "created new information", they could
post a reference to it.
BH>BTW, have you read Yockey's book yet? In particular the section
>in chapter 12 where Wilder-Smith is hoist on his own petard?
No, I have a number of articles by Yockey, but not his book, which is
very expensive. I intend to by it eventually. however. But I would urge
Reflectorites to read Wilder-Smith's "The Creation of Life". It is IMHO a
great example of theistic science, in the tradition of Walter ReMine's "The
Biotic Message" and Mike Behe's, "Darwin's Black Box".
BH>"Darwinian transformism demands spontaneously increasing genetic
>information. The information on the chromosomes of the primitive
>cell must become greater for the primeval cell to become a human one.
>Just as mere molecular movements are incapable of producing
>information de novo (they can modify already existing information),
>neither can they produce new information, as will be shown in the
>text later. NeoDarwinian theory does not enlighten us as to how a
>primeval cell can energetically finance the production of new
>information, so that it becomes a higher plant or a higher animal
>cell. Transformism demands a very large increase in information, the
>principle behind which Neo-Darwinian thought is incapable of
>explaining." (Wilder-Smith, A.E., "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing
>of Evolution", T.W.F.T. Publishers: Costa Mesa CA, 1981, p.vi)
BH>egad man, I wish you wouldn't give quotes like this. They give me
>brain cramps. How much does it cost to "energetically finance
>the production of new information"? Would it be, say, 10 Joules
>per bit or what?
I note Brian picks on the minor point in Wilder-Smith's argument, and
parodies his terminology (not his content). I wonder if he has ever read
W-S's full argument in his books? :-) W-S's major point is "Transformism
demands a very large increase in information, the principle behind which
Neo-Darwinian thought is incapable of explaining."
SJ>This is (as usual) a play on the word "evolution". That a human
>intelligent designer (or a divine Intelligent Designer) could design
>"software" that could in turn produce "hardware" by an pre-programmed
>"genetic programming system" that might beat a human designer, is not
>controversial. What "blind watchmaker" evolution claims is that there
>is *no* intelligent design anywhere in the process:
BH>Yes, and this is why "blind watchmaker" evolution is a
>metaphysical belief, it cannot be supported by the methods of
>science.
Agreed, yet as Johnson points out it is the dominant view of evolution
today in the scientfic world and gained Dawkins the Oxford Chair of Public
Understanding of Science:
"Among modern Darwinists, Dawkins has achieved enormous acclaim for
presenting orthodox neo-Darwinism persuasively Francis Crick has
advised the public, `If you doubt the power of natural selection I
urge you, to save your soul, to read Dawkins' book.' In 1990 Dawkins
received the Michael Faraday Award from the British Royal Society as
`the scientist who has done the most to further the public
understanding of science'. In 1992 he gave the Royal Institution's
Christmas lectures for young people, televised by the BBC, arguing
the same naturalistic worldview that he presents in The Blind
Watchmaker. I mention these accolades to dispel any illusion that
Dawkins's explicitly naturalistic presentation of Darwinism amounts
to a mere personal philosophy. He certainly is promoting
metaphysical naturalism, but, like his American counterpart Carl
Sagan (who received the Public Welfare Medal in 1994 from the
National Academy of Sciences for his contributions to public
education), he does so with the wholehearted support of the
scientific establishment of his nation." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in
the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p76)
BH>Please note though that I can make this statement stick
>only by accepting methodologcal naturalism. Without it, the net is
>down (tennis metaphor) and anything goes.
This is too deep for my poor benighted creationist brain! :-)
Perhaps Brian could clarify if he thinks it important?
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------