> And some creationists (like me) who have no problem with common
> ancestry but believe that known natural processes cannot generate new
> information and therefore increases in information (eg. new designs)
> were by *non-*random (ie. *directed*) mutation!
Stephen is of course welcome to his belief. Meanwhile, scientists and
information theorists will continue with their work in defiance of his
ignorance, constantly turning out new evidence and theories that demonstrate
precisely how "known natural processes" not only can but regularly do
"generate new information".
By the way, "*directed*" does not automatically mean supernatural
intelligence, no matter how emphatically the word is written. Many phenomena
are in fact directed by naturalistic mechanistic forces that are distinctly
non-random. Stephen is promoting a false dichotomy when he insists that our
only choice is between chance or supernatural intelligence.
Kevin L. O'Brien