Paul Davies: new comments on Information and life (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, March 20, 2020, 10:26 (1710 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] the discussion concerns your attempt to make information use information (though for some reason you have denied this). We had operational information using passive information, and now you lump them together as “biological information”! bbbID-ers use the complexity of biological processes as proof of a designer. The passive information is used by intelligence (you say automatic through instructions, Shapiro says autonomous through cellular intelligence), and nobody knows the source of the intelligence that uses the information, but it might be God.bbb (dhw’s bold) Why must we have information that uses information and now we have information as proof of a designer?(David’s bold)

DAVID: The entry from the 'skeptic of Darwin' shows his thoughts about information.

dhw: He does not even mention it!
You go on to quote the article at length, and just like myself he does not use the term information even once. You finish the quote as follows:
DAVID: It is all implied in his article. He has read ID works and they all discuss information, both active and passive: [QUOTE;]"I do not think the evolutionary process can be understood without appeal to some kind of intelligent agency. My Darwinian skepticism is now detailed in my book" (David’s bold)

We are not discussing the case for design! We are discussing the confusing use of the term “information”, and he makes his case very clearly without any reference to that particular term! You then go on to quote him again – all beautifully written and argued, and not one mention of information.

DAVID: His reading about information from the ID folks gives this comment: (long quote ending: “And there is increasingly good evidence to question the idea of a purely undirected evolution.")

Why do you say his reading “about information”? He only mentions ID, and never ever uses the word information. Please stop inserting your silly terminology into an article that never uses it. Another quote, supporting McClintock and Shapiro, leads you to conclude:
DAVID: Unless you know the ID literature you can assume all you want about what he does not precisely mention. They are quoting him and loving it, So do I. Being 'confused' about information doesn't get rid of it. Mind has to create it.

Once more: Our author never once refers to information in his article, and it is the confusing use of this term which is the subject of our discussion. He is referring to the case for design, and the case against Darwinian evolution. Not the case for using the term which leads to information using information, and information being the source of life, and other linguistic tangles you keep getting yourself into.