>Group
>
>On Sun, 06 Oct 1996 14:44:29, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>GM>Which is a better design technique, rational design or random
>>evolution? Creationists often cite the supposed inability of random
>>mutation to create new information and its inability to perform
>>better than a human designer.
>
>Sorry, but one thing that "random mutation" cannot do is to "create
>new information":
>
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. BTW, have you read Yockey's book yet?
In particular the section in chapter 12 where Wilder-Smith is
hoist on his own petard?
>"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)
>
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?
>
>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:
>
Yes, and this is why "blind watchmaker" evolution is a metaphysical
belief, it cannot be supported by the methods of science. 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.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |