Code, Information, and Design (Evolution)

by Matt , Monday, March 24, 2008, 17:41 (5870 days ago)

I find problems to exist not just in single explanations of each subject respectively, but in the combination of several elements. We know that information exists in atomic particles. But how an atom can "know" it's being observed by an outside source is amazing by itself. - The problems to consider, in my humble opinion, are how these pieces "know" to fit together. How does the information in DNA "know" to attach itself to the DNA strand? Why, when I look at a mountain in the distance; the information which is carried at the speed of light to register in my brain, does it not conflict with the other information coming from the mountain behind me? How does my eyeball "know" to pick up only the information I'm looking at? - Quantum theories have proven that science isn't really objective observance of natural phenomena after all. Observation can and does change the outcome of an otherwise "normal", repeatable occurrence. Therefore, science subjects, and is in itself subjective. This subjectivity IS the reality we live in...there is no such thing as the objective observer. - I agree that information is an issue. What carries the information isn't. Since we are all made of energy on an atomic level, we are all made of "information". The physical, observable part of that structure is what science studies; whether it be DNA, or atoms, or whatever. Science cannot study unobservable phenomena. However... everyone knows it's there. As technology develops and allows scientists to look further into what used to be considered unobservable, we are becoming even more baffled by what we're finding. It's as if the simplest of organisms and particles are capable of not only responding to stimuli, but are free thinking agents of which the observable world is the byproduct. - It could be said that the Intelligent Designer(s) are the building blocks themselves, creating what we see around us everyday. Just as a large city is the byproduct of little people running around with information, and the information stems from the architectural blueprints, and the blueprints a design approved by a panel of people, and so on. The idea of intelligent design then continues backwards, completely observable, until it hits the proverbial wall. - Where do we get it? We have identified a plethora of carriers, but have never given a reasonable explanation for the how or where information originates. - Dawkins' arguments of "who designed the designer?" are moot. The smartest people in the world can't even figure out how to put an energy efficient, cost effective vehicle on the road. However, they're smart enough to "know" that there is no God. The most basic, necessary, and applicable of inventions cannot be solved even with the materials and technology available...But the origin of the universe, life, and the endearing, quintessential question of "WHY"... Hey no problem. - It shows me the lack of respect people like Dawkins have, even for their own predecessors. It smacks more of building a religious following than science. I do find it all very interesting. - However, it begs the question from science... Why are we trying so hard to prove the non-existence of something that isn't there anyway? If an intelligent designer isn't there, we couldn't prove its non-existence. - It is the right of science in my opinion, to explain away the observable...to take all the mystery and "magic" out of life. If an Intelligent Designer does exist, it would certainly not reveal itself outright. We would just rationalize and explain it away. The fact that the "big questions" continue to elude us is a testimony in and of itself. Science keeps digging deeper, because every layer we uncover, we find more and more evidence of intelligent design. Therefore we must press on, in order to maintain the right to explain away the observable. Without that right, religious fanaticism would exercise its dogma upon the world... However science has taken it one step to far in that its position is to be the objective observer, not take up philosophical arguments based on perceived data. - Science has set a course for its own destruction when and if the empirical evidence finally suggests intelligent design. It's going to be much harder for the smartest people in the world to have to come to grips than the other way around. When and if the evidence suggests intelligent design, would science bend the knee while continuing its efforts to better humanity?