Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, February 20, 2010, 12:38 (5200 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Those that would assert life is designed now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one.-DHW: Fortunately I don't make any such assertions, but unfortunately I'm out of my depth in such discussions. This need not deter me, however, from asking a naïve question: Where does the information come from in the first place?-Matt: A very valid question, but it doesn't impact the scenario I'm discussing here. This isn't abiogenesis I'm talking about. David uses Dembski regularly, and Dembski uses arguments based (poorly) on information theory to try and argue that life processes aren't random.-It seems you're not going to get a reply, even from Dembski! I fully appreciate that abiogenesis is not the line you want to follow, but I do feel that your statement runs the risk of so many anti-design arguments: namely, that they begin at Chapter 2 and try to ignore Chapter 1. The problem for most of us is that we rely on experts to enlighten us. Information theory is a foreign field for me, but I suspect that your original statement, made with authority, might be misleading. Fortunately in this case I can ask the expert, so regardless of Dembski, here's the question:-If I argue (playing God's advocate) that life was designed in such a way that all the necessary information could be effectively transmitted by random procedures, would I have to mathematically justify how to tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one?-Please don't take this question as anything but an attempt to get clarification. (You know what a stickler I am for clarity!) Whatever information theory can tell us about the evolutionary process itself will be of immense value. It's just the impact on the design theory that I'm querying, and so if my doubts are justified, how would you rephrase your original statement?