AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

An excellent article in today's Guardian by one of David's favourite writers, Paul Davies. By the way, he is an agnostic.-â¢	The secret of life won't be cooked up in a chemistry lab | Paul ...-www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/secret-life-unveil...18 hours ago
Paul Davies: Life's origins may only be explained through a study of its ... appeared on p26 of the Main section section of the Guardian on Monday 14 January 2013-Sorry about the copied-and-pasted mess! Thanks to my technical incompetence, I can't get a direct link, but if you google Guardian 14 January Paul Davies, as I did, you will get the above, and then it's easy.

1530 views

dhw: An excellent article in today's Guardian by one of David's favourite writers, Paul Davies. By the way, he is an agnostic.-> 
> Sorry about the copied-and-pasted mess! Thanks to my technical incompetence, I can't get a direct link, but if you google Guardian 14 January Paul Davies, as I did, you will get the above, and then it's easy.-Always happy to help:-"Most research into life's murky origin has been carried out by chemists. They've tried a variety of approaches in their attempts to recreate the first steps on the road to life, but little progress has been made. Perhaps that is no surprise, given life's stupendous complexity. Even the simplest bacterium is incomparably more complicated than any chemical brew ever studied."-"The way life manages information involves a logical structure that differs fundamentally from mere complex chemistry. Therefore chemistry alone will not explain life's origin, any more than a study of silicon, copper and plastic will explain how a computer can execute a program. Our work suggests that the answer will come from taking information seriously as a physical agency, with its own dynamics and causal relationships existing alongside those of the matter that embodies it ... and that life's origin can ultimately be explained by importing the language and concepts of biology into physics and chemistry, rather than the other way round."-http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/secret-life-unveiled-chemistry-lab?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fcommentisfree%2Frss+(Comment+is+free)-Davies, the agnostic, admits information came first. Tony, take note! That is as much as admitting there has to be a super intelligence first. Thank you dhw. Wonderful article

1475 views

Davies has pointedly shown that he thinks must use information to be formed and continue to function. What is presnted here is a review of his book:

https://www.amazon.com/Demon-Machine-Information-Solving-Mystery/dp/022666970X

The review: https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/hey-paul-davies-your-id-is-showing/

"Davies argues that the gulf between physics and biology is completely unbridgeable without some fundamentally new concept. Since living organisms consistently resist the ravages of entropy that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, there must be some non-physical principle allowing living matter to consistently defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And for Davies there is; the demon in the machine turns out to be information.

"Throughout the book, Davies marvels at the stunning complexity of life, especially at the cellular and molecular levels. He wonders at the existence of molecular machines like motors, pumps, tubes, shears, and rotors — paraphernalia familiar to human engineers — and their ability to manipulate information in clear and super-efficient ways, in Davies’s words “conjuring order out of chaos.” In fact, he calls the cell “a vast web of information management,” observing that while molecules are physical structures, information is an abstract concept deriving from the world of human communication.

***

"Davies quote: "Life’s ability to construct an internal representation of the world and itself — to act as an agent, manipulate its environment and harness energy — reflects its foundation in the rules of logic. It is also the logic of life that permits biology to explore a boundless universe of novelty."

"Logic, of course, is a product of mental activity. So is Davies implying an active intelligence working at the cellular and molecular level? It appears so even if he would never admit it. Yet he does practically admit it when he throws up his hands and declares, “Indeed, life’s complexity is so daunting that it is tempting to give up trying to understand it in physical terms.”

***

"...he is equally astounded by the field of epigenetics: “In the magic puzzle box of life, epigenetic inheritance is one of the more puzzling bits of magic.” He discusses the research on directed mutation by John Cairns in the 1980s, more recent work on epigenetics by Eva Jablonka, and the early work on transposition by Barbara McClintock and its flourishing in James Shapiro’s Natural Genetic Engineering and concludes: “…it’s tempting to imagine that biologists are glimpsing an entire shadow information-processing system at work at the epigenetic level.” Tempting indeed! And lest we forget, information processing derives from and is a property of intelligence.

"Finally, Davies turns to the origin of life question which he brands as “almost a miracle.” He agrees that chemistry alone cannot explain the origin of life because one also needs to account for the origin of information. For Davies:
"Semantic information is a higher-level concept that is simply meaningless at the level of molecules. Chemistry alone, however complex, can never produce the genetic code or contextual instructions. Asking chemistry to explain coded information is like expecting computer hardware to write its own software." (my bold)

"The origin of coded information is, according to Davies, the toughest problem in evolutionary biology. But, of course, it is only a tough problem for those who have excluded intelligence from the equation a priori. From an ID perspective, the origin of information is no mystery at all. It is always the creation of intelligent minds, a point made consistently by Stephen Meyer.

"To explain all this, Davies can do no better than to speculate that somehow new laws and principles emerge from information processing systems of sufficiently great complexity. But he entirely ignores the question of the origin of the information processing system itself, which he has already pronounced as beyond the ability of chemistry alone to explain.

"It is likely that Davies would never want to align himself with the ID community. He might believe that the professional cost is just too great. But if I didn’t know any better, I would swear that The Demon in the Machine had rolled right off the presses of Discovery Institute. If abstract information is truly at the root of life, then intelligence has to be factored into the equation. Davies has made a compelling case for the former, so by extension — and much to his chagrin — he seems to be making a compelling case for the latter.

Comment: you know I like Davies' thinking. this shows you why. And it reminds me as to why you are always so uncomfortable with the concept of information as the absolute underpinning of the processes of life. Note my bold. I cannot think of a better comment on the need for a thinking mind as the source of the miracle of life. If molecules act as if they are thinking, the underlying process must be exquisitely designed.

1132 views

QUOTE: (dhw’s bolds): "Throughout the book, Davies marvels at the stunning complexity of life, especially at the cellular and molecular levels. He wonders at the existence of molecular machines like motors, pumps, tubes, shears, and rotors — paraphernalia familiar to human engineers — and their ability to manipulate information in clear and super-efficient ways, in Davies’s words “conjuring order out of chaos.” In fact, he calls the cell “a vast web of information management,” …

"Logic, of course, is a product of mental activity So is Davies implying an active intelligence working at the cellular and molecular level? It appears so even if he would never admit it.

"To explain all this, Davies can do no better than to speculate that somehow new laws and principles emerge from information processing systems of sufficiently great complexity. But he entirely ignores the question of the origin of the information processing system itself, which he has already pronounced as beyond the ability of chemistry alone to explain.
“If abstract information is truly at the root of life, then intelligence has to be factored into the equation. Davies has made a compelling case for the former, so by extension — and much to his chagrin — he seems to be making a compelling case for the latter.

DAVID: : you know I like Davies' thinking. this shows you why. And it reminds me as to why you are always so uncomfortable with the concept of information as the absolute underpinning of the processes of life. Note my bold. I cannot think of a better comment on the need for a thinking mind as the source of the miracle of life. If molecules act as if they are thinking, the underlying process must be exquisitely designed.

I am not going to reopen the discussion on information. We have already agreed in two previous discussions that information is passive and non-creative. It requires intelligent processing to produce anything. Now please note my bolds. It could hardly be clearer that Davies is espousing the theory of cellular intelligence. Clearly the author realizes this, and wants to take it one step further. The “information processing system” is the intelligent cell, and he wants to know the origin of the intelligent cell. If Davies doesn’t wish to tackle the problem of the origin, so be it. That is not his concern. I am more than happy to say that the origin of the mechanism may be your God. Complexity of design for me is a good reason not to espouse atheism, and even to espouse theism. There are plenty of other good reasons why I cannot espouse theism either. Maybe Davies is in the same position.

1101 views

QUOTE: (dhw’s bolds): "Throughout the book, Davies marvels at the stunning complexity of life, especially at the cellular and molecular levels. He wonders at the existence of molecular machines like motors, pumps, tubes, shears, and rotors — paraphernalia familiar to human engineers — and their ability to manipulate information in clear and super-efficient ways, in Davies’s words “conjuring order out of chaos.” In fact, he calls the cell “a vast web of information management,” …

"Logic, of course, is a product of mental activity So is Davies implying an active intelligence working at the cellular and molecular level? It appears so even if he would never admit it.

"To explain all this, Davies can do no better than to speculate that somehow new laws and principles emerge from information processing systems of sufficiently great complexity. But he entirely ignores the question of the origin of the information processing system itself, which he has already pronounced as beyond the ability of chemistry alone to explain.
“If abstract information is truly at the root of life, then intelligence has to be factored into the equation. Davies has made a compelling case for the former, so by extension — and much to his chagrin — he seems to be making a compelling case for the latter.

DAVID: : you know I like Davies' thinking. this shows you why. And it reminds me as to why you are always so uncomfortable with the concept of information as the absolute underpinning of the processes of life. Note my bold. I cannot think of a better comment on the need for a thinking mind as the source of the miracle of life. If molecules act as if they are thinking, the underlying process must be exquisitely designed.

dhw:I am not going to reopen the discussion on information. We have already agreed in two previous discussions that information is passive and non-creative. It requires intelligent processing to produce anything. Now please note my bolds. It could hardly be clearer that Davies is espousing the theory of cellular intelligence. Clearly the author realizes this, and wants to take it one step further. The “information processing system” is the intelligent cell, and he wants to know the origin of the intelligent cell. If Davies doesn’t wish to tackle the problem of the origin, so be it. That is not his concern. I am more than happy to say that the origin of the mechanism may be your God. Complexity of design for me is a good reason not to espouse atheism, and even to espouse theism. There are plenty of other good reasons why I cannot espouse theism either. Maybe Davies is in the same position.

I've always appreciated Davies clear thinking, but he is trapped by having to protect his scientific career as a materialist. The point you always like to skip is is really where did the operational information come from? If the cells make up their own instructional information and act on it, how did that happen naturally. A designing mind is required to exist. I agree with the bolded statement, but something has to have the ability to translate it into understandable instructions and act on it. How did activity appear naturally? It couldn't have, based on our own mental experience.

1095 views

dhw:I am not going to reopen the discussion on information. We have already agreed in two previous discussions that information is passive and non-creative. It requires intelligent processing to produce anything. Now please note my bolds. It could hardly be clearer that Davies is espousing the theory of cellular intelligence. Clearly the author realizes this, and wants to take it one step further. The “information processing system” is the intelligent cell, and he wants to know the origin of the intelligent cell. If Davies doesn’t wish to tackle the problem of the origin, so be it. That is not his concern. I am more than happy to say that the origin of the mechanism may be your God. Complexity of design for me is a good reason not to espouse atheism, and even to espouse theism. There are plenty of other good reasons why I cannot espouse theism either. Maybe Davies is in the same position.

DAVID: I've always appreciated Davies clear thinking, but he is trapped by having to protect his scientific career as a materialist. The point you always like to skip is is really where did the operational information come from? If the cells make up their own instructional information and act on it, how did that happen naturally. A designing mind is required to exist. I agree with the bolded statement, but something has to have the ability to translate it into understandable instructions and act on it. How did activity appear naturally? It couldn't have, based on our own mental experience.

I have not skipped anything, but I reject the term “operational information”, which is what causes half the confusion whenever you talk of information. My name for that is intelligence. There are three factors: 1) information, which is passive and non-creative; 2) the intelligence that uses information; 3) the source of the intelligence that uses the information, or in your terms the something that created the ability to translate information into understandable instructions and act on it. The source may be your God, and I suspect that is what Davies is reluctant to put in writing.

1095 views

dhw:I am not going to reopen the discussion on information. We have already agreed in two previous discussions that information is passive and non-creative. It requires intelligent processing to produce anything. Now please note my bolds. It could hardly be clearer that Davies is espousing the theory of cellular intelligence. Clearly the author realizes this, and wants to take it one step further. The “information processing system” is the intelligent cell, and he wants to know the origin of the intelligent cell. If Davies doesn’t wish to tackle the problem of the origin, so be it. That is not his concern. I am more than happy to say that the origin of the mechanism may be your God. Complexity of design for me is a good reason not to espouse atheism, and even to espouse theism. There are plenty of other good reasons why I cannot espouse theism either. Maybe Davies is in the same position.

DAVID: I've always appreciated Davies clear thinking, but he is trapped by having to protect his scientific career as a materialist. The point you always like to skip is is really where did the operational information come from? If the cells make up their own instructional information and act on it, how did that happen naturally. A designing mind is required to exist. I agree with the bolded statement, but something has to have the ability to translate it into understandable instructions and act on it. How did activity appear naturally? It couldn't have, based on our own mental experience.

dhw: I have not skipped anything, but I reject the term “operational information”, which is what causes half the confusion whenever you talk of information. My name for that is intelligence. There are three factors: 1) information, which is passive and non-creative; 2) the intelligence that uses information; 3) the source of the intelligence that uses the information, or in your terms the something that created the ability to translate information into understandable instructions and act on it. The source may be your God, and I suspect that is what Davies is reluctant to put in writing.

I know you don't like the term 'operational information' because our views of how a cell works are totally different. For me the cell is automatic, no intelligence involved and follows onboard instructions to do its work. You have this idea that cells have intelligence and do some sort of thinking or planning without underlying instructions. Your number 3 concedes my approach might exist. As usual we disagree.

1112 views

DAVID: I've always appreciated Davies clear thinking, but he is trapped by having to protect his scientific career as a materialist. The point you always like to skip is is really where did the operational information come from? If the cells make up their own instructional information and act on it, how did that happen naturally. A designing mind is required to exist. I agree with the bolded statement, but something has to have the ability to translate it into understandable instructions and act on it. How did activity appear naturally? It couldn't have, based on our own mental experience.

dhw: I have not skipped anything, but I reject the term “operational information”, which is what causes half the confusion whenever you talk of information. My name for that is intelligence. There are three factors: 1) information, which is passive and non-creative; 2) the intelligence that uses information; 3) the source of the intelligence that uses the information, or in your terms the something that created the ability to translate information into understandable instructions and act on it. The source may be your God, and I suspect that is what Davies is reluctant to put in writing.

DAVID: I know you don't like the term 'operational information' because our views of how a cell works are totally different. For me the cell is automatic, no intelligence involved and follows onboard instructions to do its work. You have this idea that cells have intelligence and do some sort of thinking or planning without underlying instructions. Your number 3 concedes my approach might exist. As usual we disagree.

That is not what I meant, but I should have made it clearer. Your “onboard instructions” (which I believe you’ve sometimes called “intelligent information”), or what Davies calls the “information processing system”, ARE intelligence. According to you, the intelligent behaviour of cells in “translating information into understandable instructions and action” is God’s intelligence automatically expressed either through preprogramming or through dabbling. According to Shapiro and others (probably including Davies), it is autonomous, not automatic. The point of my terminology is to put an end to the confusion caused by using the term “information” for active and creative functions, whereas it is passive and non-creative. Otherwise, you have information using information.

1092 views

DAVID: I've always appreciated Davies clear thinking, but he is trapped by having to protect his scientific career as a materialist. The point you always like to skip is is really where did the operational information come from? If the cells make up their own instructional information and act on it, how did that happen naturally. A designing mind is required to exist. I agree with the bolded statement, but something has to have the ability to translate it into understandable instructions and act on it. How did activity appear naturally? It couldn't have, based on our own mental experience.

dhw: I have not skipped anything, but I reject the term “operational information”, which is what causes half the confusion whenever you talk of information. My name for that is intelligence. There are three factors: 1) information, which is passive and non-creative; 2) the intelligence that uses information; 3) the source of the intelligence that uses the information, or in your terms the something that created the ability to translate information into understandable instructions and act on it. The source may be your God, and I suspect that is what Davies is reluctant to put in writing.

DAVID: I know you don't like the term 'operational information' because our views of how a cell works are totally different. For me the cell is automatic, no intelligence involved and follows onboard instructions to do its work. You have this idea that cells have intelligence and do some sort of thinking or planning without underlying instructions. Your number 3 concedes my approach might exist. As usual we disagree.

dhw: That is not what I meant, but I should have made it clearer. Your “onboard instructions” (which I believe you’ve sometimes called “intelligent information”), or what Davies calls the “information processing system”, ARE intelligence. According to you, the intelligent behaviour of cells in “translating information into understandable instructions and action” is God’s intelligence automatically expressed either through preprogramming or through dabbling. According to Shapiro and others (probably including Davies), it is autonomous, not automatic. The point of my terminology is to put an end to the confusion caused by using the term “information” for active and creative functions, whereas it is passive and non-creative. Otherwise, you have information using information.

You have clearly defined the difference in interpretations. Shapiro, Davies and you are following your preferred belief systems that cells can be in and of themselves intelligent. Remember my admonition, only one side is correct. From my point of view that life started miraculously, it was designed,, and the cells are designed to act automatically. Your view requires that the cellular intelligence developed naturally. It has to be either or. There is no third way as I have stated a long time ago,.

1102 views

dhw: That is not what I meant, but I should have made it clearer. Your “onboard instructions” (which I believe you’ve sometimes called “intelligent information”), or what Davies calls the “information processing system”, ARE intelligence. According to you, the intelligent behaviour of cells in “translating information into understandable instructions and action” is God’s intelligence automatically expressed either through preprogramming or through dabbling. According to Shapiro and others (probably including Davies), it is autonomous, not automatic. The point of my terminology is to put an end to the confusion caused by using the term “information” for active and creative functions, whereas it is passive and non-creative. Otherwise, you have information using information.

DAVID: You have clearly defined the difference in interpretations. Shapiro, Davies and you are following your preferred belief systems that cells can be in and of themselves intelligent. Remember my admonition, only one side is correct. From my point of view that life started miraculously, it was designed,, and the cells are designed to act automatically. Your view requires that the cellular intelligence developed naturally. It has to be either or. There is no third way as I have stated a long time ago.

Of course only one side is correct as regards the autonomous vs automatic intelligence of cells, but for the thousandth time, my view does not require that cellular intelligence developed naturally. In my previous post I wrote: The “information processing system” is the intelligent cell, and he wants to know the origin of the intelligent cell. If Davies doesn’t wish to tackle the problem of the origin, so be it. That is not his concern. I am more than happy to say that the origin of the mechanism may be your God." I have probably said this a thousand times by now.
Meanwhile, the point of this particular post was to put a stop to all the confusing uses of the word “information”. Thank you for acknowledging my clear definition, which I hope will put an end to your confusing efforts to make information use information.

1108 views

dhw: That is not what I meant, but I should have made it clearer. Your “onboard instructions” (which I believe you’ve sometimes called “intelligent information”), or what Davies calls the “information processing system”, ARE intelligence. According to you, the intelligent behaviour of cells in “translating information into understandable instructions and action” is God’s intelligence automatically expressed either through preprogramming or through dabbling. According to Shapiro and others (probably including Davies), it is autonomous, not automatic. The point of my terminology is to put an end to the confusion caused by using the term “information” for active and creative functions, whereas it is passive and non-creative. Otherwise, you have information using information.

DAVID: You have clearly defined the difference in interpretations. Shapiro, Davies and you are following your preferred belief systems that cells can be in and of themselves intelligent. Remember my admonition, only one side is correct. From my point of view that life started miraculously, it was designed,, and the cells are designed to act automatically. Your view requires that the cellular intelligence developed naturally. It has to be either or. There is no third way as I have stated a long time ago.

dhw: Of course only one side is correct as regards the autonomous vs automatic intelligence of cells, but for the thousandth time, my view does not require that cellular intelligence developed naturally. In my previous post I wrote: The “information processing system” is the intelligent cell, and he wants to know the origin of the intelligent cell. If Davies doesn’t wish to tackle the problem of the origin, so be it. That is not his concern. I am more than happy to say that the origin of the mechanism may be your God." I have probably said this a thousand times by now.
Meanwhile, the point of this particular post was to put a stop to all the confusing uses of the word “information”. Thank you for acknowledging my clear definition, which I hope will put an end to your confusing efforts to make information use information.

I've never said your words I bolded. You have returned to the same confusion about information in life. Cells contain information that is passive and also contains other information that allows cells to use it actively in performing cell processes. All automatic. Introducing cell intelligence is your problem. I view it as provided intelligently by a designer in sets of instructions the cell is fully enabled to follow.

1092 views

dhw: Meanwhile, the point of this particular post was to put a stop to all the confusing uses of the word “information”. Thank you for acknowledging my clear definition, which I hope will put an end to your confusing efforts to make information use information.

DAVID: I've never said your words I bolded.

You wrote: “The point you always like to skip is really where did the operational information come from? If the cells make up their own instructional information and act on it, how did that happen naturally?” According to you, operational or instructional information uses passive and non-creative information, as below, now bolded:

DAVID: You have returned to the same confusion about information in life. Cells contain information that is passive and also contains other information that allows cells to use it actively in performing cell processes.

I objected to the term “operational information” (and I also object to “instructional information”) which is the “other” information that uses the passive information. This sort of terminology seems to me to cause unnecessary confusion in some of the articles you post. I have explained that the former (operational) is what I call intelligence – whether autonomous (cellular intelligence) or automatic (your God’s preprogramnmed instructions or direct dabblings). The third question – the one you say I always like to skip – is the origin of this intelligence. I have always agreed that this may be your God.

DAVID: All automatic. Introducing cell intelligence is your problem. I view it as provided intelligently by a designer in sets of instructions the cell is fully enabled to follow.

I know you do. That is not the problem here. We are not arguing about the possible origin but about the widespread but in my view unnecessarily confusing use of the word “information”.

1089 views

dhw: Meanwhile, the point of this particular post was to put a stop to all the confusing uses of the word “information”. Thank you for acknowledging my clear definition, which I hope will put an end to your confusing efforts to make information use information.

DAVID: I've never said your words I bolded.

You wrote: “The point you always like to skip is really where did the operational information come from? If the cells make up their own instructional information and act on it, how did that happen naturally?” According to you, operational or instructional information uses passive and non-creative information, as below, now bolded:

DAVID: You have returned to the same confusion about information in life. Cells contain information that is passive and also contains other information that allows cells to use it actively in performing cell processes.

dhw: I objected to the term “operational information” (and I also object to “instructional information”) which is the “other” information that uses the passive information. This sort of terminology seems to me to cause unnecessary confusion in some of the articles you post. I have explained that the former (operational) is what I call intelligence – whether autonomous (cellular intelligence) or automatic (your God’s preprogramnmed instructions or direct dabblings). The third question – the one you say I always like to skip – is the origin of this intelligence. I have always agreed that this may be your God.

I know you give lip service to a possible role by God. ID folks constantly use the concept of biological information embedded in living organisms as a strong proof of a designer.

DAVID: All automatic. Introducing cell intelligence is your problem. I view it as provided intelligently by a designer in sets of instructions the cell is fully enabled to follow.

dhw: I know you do. That is not the problem here. We are not arguing about the possible origin but about the widespread but in my view unnecessarily confusing use of the word “information”.

It is not confusing to most discussers of the issue who view it as I describe it above.

1112 views

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging my clear definition, which I hope will put an end to your confusing efforts to make information use information.

DAVID: I've never said your words I bolded.

dhw: According to you, operational or instructional information uses passive and non-creative information, as below, now bolded:

DAVID: You have returned to the same confusion about information in life. Cells contain information that is passive and also contains other information that allows cells to use it actively in performing cell processes.

dhw: I objected to the term “operational information” (and I also object to “instructional information”) which is the “other” information that uses the passive information. This sort of terminology seems to me to cause unnecessary confusion in some of the articles you post. I have explained that the former (operational) is what I call intelligence – whether autonomous (cellular intelligence) or automatic (your God’s preprogramnmed instructions or direct dabblings). The third question – the one you say I always like to skip – is the origin of this intelligence. I have always agreed that this may be your God.

DAVID: I know you give lip service to a possible role by God. ID folks constantly use the concept of biological information embedded in living organisms as a strong proof of a designer.

I have just explained as clearly as possible why I object to terminology which has information using information, and you zoom off at a tangent. No, I do not pay lip service to a possible role. I am an agnostic, which means that all my arguments must allow for the possibility of God’s existence. And 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”! ID-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. Why must we have information that uses information and now we have information as proof of a designer?

1093 views

The author of the original article criticizing Davies writes about his conversion, He is a professor in a religious college:

https://luthscitech.org/evolution-and-mystery-confessions-of-a-darwinian-skeptic/

"For fifty-three of my sixty years on this planet, I accepted the truth of modern evolutionary theory without question and saw no incompatibility between it and my own admittedly liberal Christian faith. But in 2013, a senior colleague at Luther College who had taught a science and religion course for many years retired and knowing of my undergraduate degree in science and engineering, he asked me to continue teaching this course. I did so gladly, anxious to help my students see that evolutionary theory need not be an impediment to their religious faith. But then I did something very dangerous – I read!

"To help students understand the conflict between religious creationists and advocates of evolution, I knew I needed to fully understand it myself. So, I decided to read books by advocates of intelligent design, expecting to find such books of little scientific merit and filled with tendentious religious arguments “proving” a divinely ordained six-day creation. I was thus greatly surprised to find these books to be scientifically substantive, highly technical, and completely lacking in religious argumentation. Their criticisms of Darwinian evolution seemed scientifically justified, and my interest was piqued. (my bold)

***

That organisms evolved over enormous spans of time I have little doubt. But the Darwinian mechanism driving this evolution — natural selection acting on randomly produced variation in populations of organisms — I no longer accept. I do not think the evolutionary process can be understood without appeal to some kind of intelligent agency.

***

"The key idea expressed by Darwinian natural selection is its undirected nature. That is, the evolutionary process has no overarching goal or cosmic purpose. What evolves is just what evolves, and no organism — humans included — can lay claim to any kind of special status. Stephen Jay Gould has even argued that if the evolutionary tape could be rewound and played again, nothing like humans would likely evolve. By emphasizing the undirected and contingent nature of the evolutionary process, natural selection acts to secure the foundations of biology as a purely naturalistic science. Any understanding of evolution that even entertains the notion of directedness or intelligence begins to look more like religion than science, and so these ideas are rejected in the interest of maintaining Darwinian orthodoxy. But defending biology’s status as a naturalistic science is irrelevant to the question of the origin of species. And there is increasingly good evidence to question the idea of a purely undirected evolution.

"From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

Comment: Note the bold above. It encompasses my view of Shapiro. One can not get rid of the impression a mind is at work. The earlier bold is a description of my reason to covert to a belief in God. Try to resist the I D arguments if you read their books. No reason to.

1080 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

DAVID: Note the bold above. It encompasses my view of Shapiro. One can not get rid of the impression a mind is at work. The earlier bold is a description of my reason to covert to a belief in God. Try to resist the I D arguments if you read their books. No reason to.

I note the bold with joy, and am grateful as always for your integrity in quoting someone who explicitly supports Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence virtually in the same words as I have used myself, and in complete opposition to your claim that cells are mere automatons. Darwinian theory depends on random mutations (he never dreamed of cellular intelligence) and we have agreed right from the start that we do not accept that part of his theory. I have also accepted the logic of the ID argument right from the start. Our professor makes a point of the fact that this is not in itself religious, but of course as I keep pointing out there is no reason why one should not combine the ID argument and the cellular intelligence argument as evidence for the existence of God.

Under "A fish with early fingers"
QUOTE: It lived during the Late Devonian period, 393 million to 359 million years ago, when fish like this one began wading out of shallow water onto land.

DAVID: This form had to exist if we accept common descent. But why this advanced skeletal state when not needed? God's advanced planning is my answer.

I would say the answer lies in the above quote. Once fish began to wade out onto land, their intelligent cell communities began to look for ways to improve their adaptation to a new environment.

Under "Manta rays":
QUOTE: Most of the deepest dives occurred during nighttime, possibly to access important food resources.

DAVID: Those enormous pressures would crush maladapted organisms.

If we accept the reason (to access food supplies), we have another example of how intelligent cell communities change themselves in response to requirements as organisms look to use the conditions in order to improve their chances of survival.

1062 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

DAVID: Note the bold above. It encompasses my view of Shapiro. One can not get rid of the impression a mind is at work. The earlier bold is a description of my reason to covert to a belief in God. Try to resist the I D arguments if you read their books. No reason to.

dhw: I note the bold with joy, and am grateful as always for your integrity in quoting someone who explicitly supports Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence virtually in the same words as I have used myself, and in complete opposition to your claim that cells are mere automatons. Darwinian theory depends on random mutations (he never dreamed of cellular intelligence) and we have agreed right from the start that we do not accept that part of his theory. I have also accepted the logic of the ID argument right from the start. Our professor makes a point of the fact that this is not in itself religious, but of course as I keep pointing out there is no reason why one should not combine the ID argument and the cellular intelligence argument as evidence for the existence of God.

Our difference in looking at the bolded proof is I see the words 'mind at work', as the key part of the quote, indicating God designed everything and is still at work.

Under "A fish with early fingers"
QUOTE: It lived during the Late Devonian period, 393 million to 359 million years ago, when fish like this one began wading out of shallow water onto land.

DAVID: This form had to exist if we accept common descent. But why this advanced skeletal state when not needed? God's advanced planning is my answer.

dhw: I would say the answer lies in the above quote. Once fish began to wade out onto land, their intelligent cell communities began to look for ways to improve their adaptation to a new environment.

'
And I would ask, how did an ancient fish mind know to grow fingers many centuries in advance. Only a planning mind knows that point

Under "Manta rays":
QUOTE: Most of the deepest dives occurred during nighttime, possibly to access important food resources.

DAVID: Those enormous pressures would crush maladapted organisms.

dhw: If we accept the reason (to access food supplies), we have another example of how intelligent cell communities change themselves in response to requirements as organisms look to use the conditions in order to improve their chances of survival.

The rays will follow the food supply and will epigenetically modify to keep eating. All mechanisms provided by God. Just methylate!

1079 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

DAVID: Note the bold above. It encompasses my view of Shapiro. One can not get rid of the impression a mind is at work. The earlier bold is a description of my reason to covert to a belief in God. Try to resist the I D arguments if you read their books. No reason to.

dhw: I note the bold with joy, and am grateful as always for your integrity in quoting someone who explicitly supports Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence virtually in the same words as I have used myself, and in complete opposition to your claim that cells are mere automatons. Darwinian theory depends on random mutations (he never dreamed of cellular intelligence) and we have agreed right from the start that we do not accept that part of his theory. I have also accepted the logic of the ID argument right from the start. Our professor makes a point of the fact that this is not in itself religious, but of course as I keep pointing out there is no reason why one should not combine the ID argument and the cellular intelligence argument as evidence for the existence of God.

DAVID: Our difference in looking at the bolded proof is I see the words 'mind at work', as the key part of the quote, indicating God designed everything and is still at work.

I have no problem accepting the logic of the design argument. Now please take off your blinkers and look at the whole paragraph you have just quoted.

1089 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

DAVID: Note the bold above. It encompasses my view of Shapiro. One can not get rid of the impression a mind is at work. The earlier bold is a description of my reason to covert to a belief in God. Try to resist the I D arguments if you read their books. No reason to.

dhw: I note the bold with joy, and am grateful as always for your integrity in quoting someone who explicitly supports Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence virtually in the same words as I have used myself, and in complete opposition to your claim that cells are mere automatons. Darwinian theory depends on random mutations (he never dreamed of cellular intelligence) and we have agreed right from the start that we do not accept that part of his theory. I have also accepted the logic of the ID argument right from the start. Our professor makes a point of the fact that this is not in itself religious, but of course as I keep pointing out there is no reason why one should not combine the ID argument and the cellular intelligence argument as evidence for the existence of God.

DAVID: Our difference in looking at the bolded proof is I see the words 'mind at work', as the key part of the quote, indicating God designed everything and is still at work.

dhw: I have no problem accepting the logic of the design argument. Now please take off your blinkers and look at the whole paragraph you have just quoted.

I know the entire quote and what possibility is raised is that a mind is at work as a result of the discussion. The obvious odds are 50/50, but only one possibility is correct. I've made my choice. And the author says: 'if true Darwin is gone". He's on my side, and he was quoted by the ID website with enthusiasm. All depends on your mindset how he is interpreted! Your blinkers are showing! One final point: McClintock and Shapiro were not allowed to keep their careers if God comes into view.

1098 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

DAVID: Our difference in looking at the bolded proof is I see the words 'mind at work', as the key part of the quote, indicating God designed everything and is still at work.

dhw: I have no problem accepting the logic of the design argument. Now please take off your blinkers and look at the whole paragraph you have just quoted.

DAVID: I know the entire quote and what possibility is raised is that a mind is at work as a result of the discussion. The obvious odds are 50/50, but only one possibility is correct. I've made my choice. And the author says: 'if true Darwin is gone". He's on my side, and he was quoted by the ID website with enthusiasm. All depends on your mindset how he is interpreted! Your blinkers are showing! One final point: McClintock and Shapiro were not allowed to keep their careers if God comes into view.

Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

1115 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

DAVID: Our difference in looking at the bolded proof is I see the words 'mind at work', as the key part of the quote, indicating God designed everything and is still at work.

dhw: I have no problem accepting the logic of the design argument. Now please take off your blinkers and look at the whole paragraph you have just quoted.

DAVID: I know the entire quote and what possibility is raised is that a mind is at work as a result of the discussion. The obvious odds are 50/50, but only one possibility is correct. I've made my choice. And the author says: 'if true Darwin is gone". He's on my side, and he was quoted by the ID website with enthusiasm. All depends on your mindset how he is interpreted! Your blinkers are showing! One final point: McClintock and Shapiro were not allowed to keep their careers if God comes into view.

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

1125 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

DAVID: I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

Yes, he does indeed suggest this. And he supports the theory of cellular intelligence, to which you are vehemently opposed and which you completely ignored in your comments. So on the one hand he supports your theory, and on the other he also supports Shapiro’s. Yes or no?

1112 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

DAVID: I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

dhw: Yes, he does indeed suggest this. And he supports the theory of cellular intelligence, to which you are vehemently opposed and which you completely ignored in your comments. So on the one hand he supports your theory, and on the other he also supports Shapiro’s. Yes or no?

Remember he was asked to take over a Darwin evolution course, and after reading ID literature he became a total Darwin skeptic due to the issue of mind presenting itself. He takes proper notice of Shapiro as ID does. Interpretation is based on the bias of the viewer on all sides. I recognize your hopeful bias. I have mine.

1107 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

DAVID: I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

dhw: Yes, he does indeed suggest this. And he supports the theory of cellular intelligence, to which you are vehemently opposed and which you completely ignored in your comments. So on the one hand he supports your theory, and on the other he also supports Shapiro’s. Yes or no?

DAVID: Remember he was asked to take over a Darwin evolution course, and after reading ID literature he became a total Darwin skeptic due to the issue of mind presenting itself. He takes proper notice of Shapiro as ID does. Interpretation is based on the bias of the viewer on all sides. I recognize your hopeful bias. I have mine.

If cells are intelligent, then “mind at work” can refer to their minds. That puts paid to Darwin’s random mutations. But we are not arguing about belief and bias. I am merely stating that the above paragraph favours Shapiro’s theory (for which there is “mounting evidence”), to which you are opposed. If you can’t see that, so be it.

1123 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

DAVID: I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

dhw: Yes, he does indeed suggest this. And he supports the theory of cellular intelligence, to which you are vehemently opposed and which you completely ignored in your comments. So on the one hand he supports your theory, and on the other he also supports Shapiro’s. Yes or no?

DAVID: Remember he was asked to take over a Darwin evolution course, and after reading ID literature he became a total Darwin skeptic due to the issue of mind presenting itself. He takes proper notice of Shapiro as ID does. Interpretation is based on the bias of the viewer on all sides. I recognize your hopeful bias. I have mine.

dhw: If cells are intelligent, then “mind at work” can refer to their minds. That puts paid to Darwin’s random mutations. But we are not arguing about belief and bias. I am merely stating that the above paragraph favours Shapiro’s theory (for which there is “mounting evidence”), to which you are opposed. If you can’t see that, so be it.

I am not opposed, nor is ID from a mind-supplied set of instructions making the cell acting intelligently. Shapiro showed bacteria can modify their DNA, nothing more and we all accept it as a great contribution to evolutionary research. You use your individual bias to stretch the concept to suit what you would like to believe. Still 50/50 odds.

1107 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

dhw: If cells are intelligent, then “mind at work” can refer to their minds. That puts paid to Darwin’s random mutations. But we are not arguing about belief and bias. I am merely stating that the above paragraph favours Shapiro’s theory (for which there is “mounting evidence”), to which you are opposed. If you can’t see that, so be it.

DAVID: I am not opposed, nor is ID from a mind-supplied set of instructions making the cell acting intelligently.

You are not opposed to your totally fudged version of Shapiro’s theory, as correctly summarized in the quote above. There is no mention of a “mind-supplied set of instructions”. The theory is categorically that cells have an autonomous intelligence of their own. I have previously repeated the relevant quotes from your excellent book The Atheist Delusion, (pages 142-143).

DAVID: Shapiro showed bacteria can modify their DNA, nothing more and we all accept it as a great contribution to evolutionary research. You use your individual bias to stretch the concept to suit what you would like to believe. Still 50/50 odds.

“You use your individual bias” to pretend that I am stretching Shapiro’s theory. You force me to quote what you quoted in your book: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities….Evolutionary innovation arises from the production of new cells and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” (James A Shapiro). Now please tell me how I have stretched his concept. And if the odds are 50/50, it would be totally irrational to reject the theory.

1111 views

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

dhw: If cells are intelligent, then “mind at work” can refer to their minds. That puts paid to Darwin’s random mutations. But we are not arguing about belief and bias. I am merely stating that the above paragraph favours Shapiro’s theory (for which there is “mounting evidence”), to which you are opposed. If you can’t see that, so be it.

DAVID: I am not opposed, nor is ID from a mind-supplied set of instructions making the cell acting intelligently.

dhw: You are not opposed to your totally fudged version of Shapiro’s theory, as correctly summarized in the quote above. There is no mention of a “mind-supplied set of instructions”. The theory is categorically that cells have an autonomous intelligence of their own. I have previously repeated the relevant quotes from your excellent book The Atheist Delusion, (pages 142-143).

DAVID: Shapiro showed bacteria can modify their DNA, nothing more and we all accept it as a great contribution to evolutionary research. You use your individual bias to stretch the concept to suit what you would like to believe. Still 50/50 odds.

dhw: “You use your individual bias” to pretend that I am stretching Shapiro’s theory. You force me to quote what you quoted in your book: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities….Evolutionary innovation arises from the production of new cells and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” (James A Shapiro). Now please tell me how I have stretched his concept. And if the odds are 50/50, it would be totally irrational to reject the theory.

I don't reject his theory but his interpretation of what he observed. All he saw could just as easily be intelligent instructions onboard, provided by God. That is the ID view of him. And I would note my books never rejected God on the basis of quoting Shapiro, whom I admire.

Please reread Shapiro from 2017 at Royal Society:

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view 2017 (Evolution)
by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 07, 2020, 20:31 (77 days ago) @ David Turell

Not exactly what you think about him. His book has hyperbole which sells books, not his scientific thoughtful presentation.

1121 views

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging my clear definition, which I hope will put an end to your confusing efforts to make information use information.

DAVID: I've never said your words I bolded.

dhw: According to you, operational or instructional information uses passive and non-creative information, as below, now bolded:

DAVID: You have returned to the same confusion about information in life. Cells contain information that is passive and also contains other information that allows cells to use it actively in performing cell processes.

dhw: I objected to the term “operational information” (and I also object to “instructional information”) which is the “other” information that uses the passive information. This sort of terminology seems to me to cause unnecessary confusion in some of the articles you post. I have explained that the former (operational) is what I call intelligence – whether autonomous (cellular intelligence) or automatic (your God’s preprogramnmed instructions or direct dabblings). The third question – the one you say I always like to skip – is the origin of this intelligence. I have always agreed that this may be your God.

DAVID: I know you give lip service to a possible role by God. ID folks constantly use the concept of biological information embedded in living organisms as a strong proof of a designer.

dhw: I have just explained as clearly as possible why I object to terminology which has information using information, and you zoom off at a tangent. No, I do not pay lip service to a possible role. I am an agnostic, which means that all my arguments must allow for the possibility of God’s existence. And 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”! ID-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. Why must we have information that uses information and now we have information as proof of a designer?

The entry from the 'skeptic of Darwin' shows his thoughts about information. ID folks believe there is more than one type of information in the cell and it empowers the cell to take form and also function automatically . Its existence requires a mind as the source. I'm surprised at your final bolded statement by me. That has been the point all along. The source of the information must be mental. Remember? Chance or design is all there is to choose between.

1088 views

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”! ID-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. (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.

He does not even mention it!

DAVID: ID folks believe there is more than one type of information in the cell and it empowers the cell to take form and also function automatically . Its existence requires a mind as the source. I'm surprised at your final bolded statement by me. That has been the point all along. The source of the information must be mental. Remember? Chance or design is all there is to choose between.

You resolutely avoid the subject of my complaint, which is not the argument for design but the confusing use of the term “information”. You denied that you had information using information, but you had “operational” and “instructional” information using “passive” information, and now you have “biological” information as proof of God’s existence. I don’t know why you think this clarifies your arguments. Please reread my own bold above. Why on earth do you have to call intelligence “operational information”? Why on earth do you have call the complexities of design “biological information”? Of course it’s the “in” word, and it causes such absurd headings as “Information as the source of life”. Remember that one?

1066 views

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”! ID-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. (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!

It is all implied in his article. He has read ID works and they all discuss information, both active and passive: "Wanting to know more, I used a sabbatical break from teaching to immerse myself in the literature of evolutionary theory. Beginning, of course, with Darwin’s Origin of Species, I read through many of the seminal books and monographs documenting the history of evolutionary theory, only to come to the unexpected conclusion that no one knows, one hundred and sixty years after Darwin, how the evolutionary process actually works.
That organisms evolved over enormous spans of time I have little doubt. But the Darwinian mechanism driving this evolution — natural selection acting on randomly produced variation in populations of organisms — I no longer accept. 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" (my bold)

DAVID: ID folks believe there is more than one type of information in the cell and it empowers the cell to take form and also function automatically . Its existence requires a mind as the source. I'm surprised at your final bolded statement by me. That has been the point all along. The source of the information must be mental. Remember? Chance or design is all there is to choose between.

dhw: You resolutely avoid the subject of my complaint, which is not the argument for design but the confusing use of the term “information”. You denied that you had information using information, but you had “operational” and “instructional” information using “passive” information, and now you have “biological” information as proof of God’s existence. I don’t know why you think this clarifies your arguments. Please reread my own bold above. Why on earth do you have to call intelligence “operational information”? Why on earth do you have call the complexities of design “biological information”? Of course it’s the “in” word, and it causes such absurd headings as “Information as the source of life”. Remember that one?

You protest overly. Both kinds of information have to be there for life to function. Who cares about the other attempted definitions to try and enter your mind about information's existence. His reading about information from the ID folks gives this comment: " Any understanding of evolution that even entertains the notion of directedness or intelligence begins to look more like religion than science, and so these ideas are rejected in the interest of maintaining Darwinian orthodoxy. But defending biology’s status as a naturalistic science is irrelevant to the question of the origin of species. And there is increasingly good evidence to question the idea of a purely undirected evolution."

And: " From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur. "

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. iMnd has to create it

1067 views

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.

1101 views

dhw: 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.")

dhw: 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.

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.

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.

1081 views

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.

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?

1118 views

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.

1135 views

dhw: 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?

DAVID: 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.

I’m glad you’ve now dropped your claim that Shedinger uses the information argument in his excellent article. So let’s look at the current state of your argument. We now have descriptive or passive information, information that shows life how to function, and information that allows translation of the instructions…..Hold on, I thought the instructions were what you called “instructional” or “operative information”, so what do you call the information that translates “instructional” or “operative information”, and what does this translate the instructional information into? Ah, was that the “biological” information you mentioned the other day, or was biological information the complete collection of descriptive or passive information, instructional or operative information, and unnamed information that translates the operative information into biological information? I’m surprised that you are surprised that I find all this disturbing. And how do all these forms of information support the idea that a designing mind exists? Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

1128 views

dhw: 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?

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I’m glad you’ve now dropped your claim that Shedinger uses the information argument in his excellent article. So let’s look at the current state of your argument. We now have descriptive or passive information, information that shows life how to function, and information that allows translation of the instructions…..Hold on, I thought the instructions were what you called “instructional” or “operative information”, so what do you call the information that translates “instructional” or “operative information”, and what does this translate the instructional information into? Ah, was that the “biological” information you mentioned the other day, or was biological information the complete collection of descriptive or passive information, instructional or operative information, and unnamed information that translates the operative information into biological information? I’m surprised that you are surprised that I find all this disturbing. And how do all these forms of information support the idea that a designing mind exists? Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

I see you recognize the varying aspects of the information life contains, no matter how they are given descriptive terms. For life to emerge as life, many millions of amino acid molecules make huge protein molecules which run coordinated reactions, so all the reactions work in concert with each other. The largest molecules of all are the enzymes, many many, many thousand amino acids put together with areas that hold two different molecules in close proximity to force them to react making a new protein product. Without the enzymes a reaction could take thousands of years, instead of milliseconds. All of this, the manufacture of the proteins, the reactions themselves and the coordination of all reactions is the result of instructions. Only a designing mind can provide this.

1116 views

dhw: 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?
And
dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

DAVID: I see you recognize the varying aspects of the information life contains, no matter how they are given descriptive terms. For life to emerge as life, many millions of amino acid molecules make huge protein molecules which run coordinated reactions, so all the reactions work in concert with each other. The largest molecules of all are the enzymes, many many, many thousand amino acids put together with areas that hold two different molecules in close proximity to force them to react making a new protein product. Without the enzymes a reaction could take thousands of years, instead of milliseconds. All of this, the manufacture of the proteins, the reactions themselves and the coordination of all reactions is the result of instructions. Only a designing mind can provide this.

Your conclusion shows that you have totally lost sight of the subject, which is the confusion created by your use of the word “information”, in which we have passive or descriptive information, instructional or operative information, information which translates the instructional information into something or the other which ends up as biological information. I can only repeat the request I made above, since you have forgotten what we are arguing about:

dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

1116 views

dhw: 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?
And
dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

DAVID: I see you recognize the varying aspects of the information life contains, no matter how they are given descriptive terms. For life to emerge as life, many millions of amino acid molecules make huge protein molecules which run coordinated reactions, so all the reactions work in concert with each other. The largest molecules of all are the enzymes, many many, many thousand amino acids put together with areas that hold two different molecules in close proximity to force them to react making a new protein product. Without the enzymes a reaction could take thousands of years, instead of milliseconds. All of this, the manufacture of the proteins, the reactions themselves and the coordination of all reactions is the result of instructions. Only a designing mind can provide this.

dhw: Your conclusion shows that you have totally lost sight of the subject, which is the confusion created by your use of the word “information”, in which we have passive or descriptive information, instructional or operative information, information which translates the instructional information into something or the other which ends up as biological information. I can only repeat the request I made above, since you have forgotten what we are arguing about:

dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

Your three items are correct as far as they go. Life makes cells from information it contains, and it has translating information that allows it to do that manufacturing. Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this. This is a point of view ID presses all the time. For some reason pointing out the need for underlying information bothers you. Why? It doesn't complicate the discussion. It is just another way of looking at the complexity.

1127 views

dhw: 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?

DAVID: All of this, the manufacture of the proteins, the reactions themselves and the coordination of all reactions is the result of instructions. Only a designing mind can provide this.

dhw: Your conclusion shows that you have totally lost sight of the subject, which is the confusion created by your use of the word “information”, in which we have passive or descriptive information, instructional or operative information, information which translates the instructional information into something or the other which ends up as biological information. I can only repeat the request I made above, since you have forgotten what we are arguing about:

dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

DAVID: Your three items are correct as far as they go. Life makes cells from information it contains, and it has translating information that allows it to do that manufacturing.

Life doesn’t make cells! Life IS cells, and the question is how inanimate matter comes to life. You say information did it. So is information meant to be another name for your God?

DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

DAVID: This is a point of view ID presses all the time. For some reason pointing out the need for underlying information bothers you. Why? It doesn't complicate the discussion. It is just another way of looking at the complexity.

It is the need (frequently not met) to distinguish between multiple forms of information that bothers me, especially when they make a complicated mess out of a simple argument. Meanwhile, as far as I can see from your response, the only thing missing from my summary is bias in favour of theism over atheism.

1126 views

dhw: 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?

DAVID: All of this, the manufacture of the proteins, the reactions themselves and the coordination of all reactions is the result of instructions. Only a designing mind can provide this.

dhw: Your conclusion shows that you have totally lost sight of the subject, which is the confusion created by your use of the word “information”, in which we have passive or descriptive information, instructional or operative information, information which translates the instructional information into something or the other which ends up as biological information. I can only repeat the request I made above, since you have forgotten what we are arguing about:

dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

DAVID: Your three items are correct as far as they go. Life makes cells from information it contains, and it has translating information that allows it to do that manufacturing.

dhw: Life doesn’t make cells! Life IS cells, and the question is how inanimate matter comes to life. You say information did it. So is information meant to be another name for your God?

Life is constantly remaking and replacing cells in exact copies with exact functional information. God supplied all the information needed for life to be functional

DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

dhw: One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

It all comes because of the existence of the different forms of information present

DAVID: This is a point of view ID presses all the time. For some reason pointing out the need for underlying information bothers you. Why? It doesn't complicate the discussion. It is just another way of looking at the complexity.

dhw: It is the need (frequently not met) to distinguish between multiple forms of information that bothers me, especially when they make a complicated mess out of a simple argument. Meanwhile, as far as I can see from your response, the only thing missing from my summary is bias in favour of theism over atheism.

I fully expect you to stay on your picket fence.

1137 views

dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

DAVID: Your three items are correct as far as they go. Life makes cells from information it contains, and it has translating information that allows it to do that manufacturing.

dhw: Life doesn’t make cells! Life IS cells, and the question is how inanimate matter comes to life. You say information did it. So is information meant to be another name for your God?

DAVID: Life is constantly remaking and replacing cells in exact copies with exact functional information. God supplied all the information needed for life to be functional.

Cells make exact copies of themselves, and cells also form brand new structures (evolutionary innovation). You believe God designed the cells to do both, and he programmed or dabbled all the changes. Here is the continuation of the discussion:

DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

dhw: One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

DAVID: It all comes because of the existence of the different forms of information present.

I have listed them as you have presented them, in all their muddled confusion. Do you believe that information is the source of life?

1134 views

DAVID: Life is constantly remaking and replacing cells in exact copies with exact functional information. God supplied all the information needed for life to be functional.

dhw: Cells make exact copies of themselves, and cells also form brand new structures (evolutionary innovation). You believe God designed the cells to do both, and he programmed or dabbled all the changes. Here is the continuation of the discussion:

DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

dhw: One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

DAVID: It all comes because of the existence of the different forms of information present.

dhw: I have listed them as you have presented them, in all their muddled confusion. Do you believe that information is the source of life?

No, God is the source of life and supplied all the passive and active information to have life emerge and keep itself running.

1101 views

DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

dhw: One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

DAVID: It all comes because of the existence of the different forms of information present.

dhw: I have listed them as you have presented them, in all their muddled confusion. Do you believe that information is the source of life?

DAVID: No, God is the source of life and supplied all the passive and active information to have life emerge and keep itself running.

Then let’s drop this subject, at least until the next time you start telling us about information using information to translate information into information.

1118 views

DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

dhw: One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

DAVID: It all comes because of the existence of the different forms of information present.

dhw: I have listed them as you have presented them, in all their muddled confusion. Do you believe that information is the source of life?

DAVID: No, God is the source of life and supplied all the passive and active information to have life emerge and keep itself running.

dhw: Then let’s drop this subject, at least until the next time you start telling us about information using information to translate information into information.

It is there in life, no matter how it is described. Its source is the question at hand.

1092 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum