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

by David Turell , Saturday, March 21, 2020, 21:58 (1709 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Your view of ID is on the surface. The books and articles are filled with references to the use of information. There are long articles on Shannon information theory analysis of information in DNA. I've mentioned that before. The author has read the material, I'm sure, based on his comments.

dhw: Information theory has been around for donkey’s years, but its application to religion and ID has resulted in confusion, both in articles you have quoted and especially in those you have written. No doubt Robert Shedinger has read the material, which is why I’m delighted that he has avoided using the terminology and has presented his case with such unencumbered clarity. I don’t know why you are so keen on having information using information, and on silly statements such as “Information as the source of life”, when distinctions can be drawn without any of these unnecessary pseudo-scientific linguistic contortions. There are three factors in the debate: 1) passive, non-creative information; 2) the intelligence that uses it, either autonomously (cellular) or automatically (your God’s instructions); 3) the source of that intelligence (atheistic chance or your God). What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?

All I can say is ID touts the presence of all types of information very strongly. Descriptive information is a minor part of their argument. It is the information that shows life how to function and the information that allows translation of the instructions, for them strongly supports their idea that a designing mind exists. I don't see all three in your discussion above. We all agree it the information exists, no matter how it is defined or described. It is your constant disturbance over it that surprises me.