Sensible Information

Het hakd eicatfl.<k dk.


No, that's not a typo or fuke html error. Here's the question: Why does this question make sense, but the statement above makes none? The answer is information. Randomly generated letters can't possibly make sense, because they don't contain purposeful data.




Of course, you might get lucky and see the word "cat" in the midst of
the letters, and attempt to decipher things from there. But if there
was no author of the letters, then the letters "cat" don't refer to a
sneeze-inducing animal; they refer to nothing. And even that
assumes that the author speaks English, which is another impossiblity,
since there was no author, English or otherwise.



Random information doesn't mean anything, and in fact, it can't even accidentally mean something. The very fact that there was no "writer" means there is no message.



Enter evolution.



Those with a faith commitment to evolution ask us to believe that all
information in the universe -- from the complexities of human DNA to
the very ability we have to think and generate our own information --
is a result of chance. They postulate that given enough time and the
right conditions, anything (in fact everything) can happen.



In other words, information can organize itself without an
informant, develop the systems it needs to interpret itself and piece
together the materials and chemicals needed to bring its blueprint to
life.
Information that "works" is weeded out from among the
infinite possiblities that don't, until one day, "voila!", an eye, a
horse, a flower, or a tomato.



This is the "science" of natural selection, the theory of origins that
is so crucial to modern education that the government passes laws to
ensure no competing theories are taught in schools. So much for
survival of the fittest.  Apparently evolutionary theory gets a free pass from needing to "survive" the rigors of real discussion.  Thank God for the internet where we're still free to consider both sides of the evidence.


I'll leave you with this thought: Fheifl fkdie z< ":fei.

4 comments:

Casey Van Tieghem said...

After hours and hours of research on this topic, I'm coming close to a conclusion that the only reason evolution is still even considered as a theory today is because there is no other naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. What that means is that if life is created, science will never admit that, because rightfully so, science is based on natural laws. But it seems many creationists try to use science to dis-prove evolution. I think that creation science is valid, but it's not getting the clear message out that there are some things that science cannot explain. So what I'm trying to do is come up with a list of problems that science agrees with about evolution, then show how naturalism cannot answer the question of origins. If your philosophy is that there is no God, then creation science can disprove evolution. If you believe in theistic evolution, you need to understand the problems with evolution that show that evolution is at a logical dead end, because naturalism cannot explain it.
Does this make sense?

Daniel Jarvis said...

Sure Casey that approach is sensible. One of the problems that both intelligent design scientists and creationists face is that secular science seeks to define God out of its reach - thus eliminating their responsibility to report on evidence they find for a Designer. For example,you might hear a scientist say that they don't oppose religion, but that the supernatural is outside the realm of science - ergo, they can't comment on it. That leaves them to look ONLY at evidence pointing to a NATURALISTIC beginning to life. Is a clever trick, to define-out the possibility of discussing a potential creator. Evolution, insane as it is, remains the only option left. Even if its wrong, they'd never know it - since they've put blinders on to any non-naturalistic explanation for life.

Clayton Hudiburg said...

Sorry about the typos. I really should proof read more:)

Clayton Hudiburg said...

I agree that science leaves-out certain explanations. I do not agree that they leave-out evidence.
The divergence occurs at the inferences drawn from the same pieces of evidence. One person might say that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, therefore it must have been designed. Another person looks at the same evidence ans sees a puzzle or an unknown and seeks naturalistic explanations. There is no censoring of evidence. We all have the same evidence. It really comes down to a personal philosophy for how we seek truth. Science is limited in this regard to the latter philosophy.
Science cannot explain everything (at least not yet). But it is very good at doing things within its "narrow scope" of purpose. We should teach kids that "science" is an objective means to solve problems and understand the way the world works. But matters of the heart, morality, faith etc. are beyond the scope and purpose of science. It does not make them any less real, just a different way of seeking truth.
If we can avoid teachers who promote ontological materialism, then there should be able to be rid of all controversy surrounding evolution as a scientific (not necessarily holistic) explanation for the diversity of life.
Please understand that God is outside the realm of science. It is true that scientists define-out God, but it is necessary for objectivity.
I heartily disagree that they only look at evidence that points to a naturalistic origin. Again, evidence is not ignore or left-out. It is easy to look up all of the "intelligent design" evidence on scientific websites. The difference you will find is the types of conclusions drawn from the same evidence.

Post a Comment