Information - Part 3
- From Will Brooks Thursday 29th August 8.59 AM GMT
I recently posted certain extracts from Without Excuse by Werner Gitt which challenges Darwinism and provides honest hearted, open minded persons a different perspective through the lens of Information.
Werner Gitt, in the early chapters in his book, gave a very precise scientific definition for Information and he uses the term Universal Information to make clear that he is talking about something much more complex than mere statistics as in Shannon's Information.
There is an old saying that facts speak for themselves but this is quite untrue. Facts are interpreted and each of us has a worldview that influences our interpretation of information. Nonetheless, Werner has set out certain facts that are very possibly hitherto unknown to many and I leave it to each of you to make up your own mind.
Ch. 8: Eight far-reaching deductions
Universal Information (Ul) can be created only by an intelligent sender.
The information conveyed by the DNA/RNA Protein Synthesizing System (DRPSS) is Universal Information since it is clearly within the UI definition domain (Section 7.4).
Therefore, the UI in the DRPSS must have been created by an intelligent sender.
Deduction 1 precisely obeys the following well-known logical syllogism Modus Ponens, or Affirming the Antecedent (A below) and is therefore logically valid:
A to B The presence of Ul requires the existence of an intelligent sender
A UI is present in the DRPSS
B Conclusion: an intelligent sender of UI in the DRPSS exists
Clearly, the proponents of the evolutionary doctrine are confronted with an insoluble problem. They accept that the processes in the cells of living organisms are controlled by information stored in DNA molecules. But this raises the question : where did this information come from?
To avoid this fundamental question evolutionary proponents resort to focusing on subsequent questions rather than first addressing the origin of information. They are faced with a dilemma : any claimed increase in information within an organism is possible only if there already exists a large amount of information. This already existing information is an essential foundational framework for any claimed increase to occur. Stated differently, the problem of information increase is miniscule when compared to the problem of information Origin.
For materialists, the former is an exceedingly difficult, as yet unsolved problem; the latter problem is wholly impenetrable to them. On the other hand, the origin of increased UI in the DRPSS is the same problem as the origin of the UI in the original DRPSS.
No one would disagree that to evolve from a single celled organism to an organism composed of trillions of cells of several hundred different cell types would require adding huge amounts of information to the original organism. Evolutionary proponents have focused on how to increase the original information to go from the original simple organism to the complex organisms we have today. Yet, without a single exception, every mechanism that evolutionists propose as a candidate to bring about an information increase in the DRPSS works with already existing information. Examples of these mutations are: point mutations, deletions, insertions and replication errors. In all known cases these proposed mechanisms do not add Universal Information. More importantly, perhaps, they leave unanswered the question : what is the source of the original information?
When proponents of Materialism address the question of the origin of information, they invariably do so by invoking mechanisms that have no observable scientific basis. For example, Bernd Olaf Kuppers lists materialistic answers to the question [K4, p. 57]:
A. The random hypothesis: the original biological information emerged purely by chance through the spontaneous, undirected synthesis of biological macromolecules.
B. The teleological approach: the original biological information must be seen as the result of life specific, purpose oriented natural laws operating on the level of biological macromolecules.
C. The molecular Darwinist approach: the original biological information arose through the selective self organization and evolution of biological macromolecules.
In all three of these cases, they claim that pure matter alone is capable of originating Universal Information. However, the fact is that no empirical research has ever shown that matter, left to itself, is capable of creating Universal Information. The three possibilities above are merely speculations based on their philosophical assumption of materialism, not observed facts of the real world.
Since there is no process that is evident in the material world, by observation or experimentation, whereby Universal Information has emerged solely via natural, unguided material processes, this must also be true of the UI that is found in living organisms.
8.3 Deduction 2: The Sender must be Highly Intelligent
Universal Information UI for machine technology is impossible without an intelligent sender
The density and complexity of the UI in the DNNRNA Protein Synthesizing System DRPSS are orders of magnitude greater than present human UI for machine technology.
Therefore, the sender of the UI conveyed In the DRPSS must be Highly Intelligent.
Deduction 2 may be expressed with the following logical syllogism Modus
A to B UI for machine technology absolutely requires an intelligent sender (source)
A The DRPSS contains UI far exceeding man's intellectual capacity
B Conclusion: the UI in the DRPSS must have a highly intelligent sender
According to SLI4b Chapter 5; `There can be no new Universal Information without an intelligent source , an intelligent sender (source) necessarily stands at the start of every UI transmission chain. Applying this law consistently implies that an intelligent sender must exist to account for biological UI as well.
Man cannot be this intelligent sender since the Universal Information in the DNA/RNA Protein Synthesizing System precedes mankind. Whether one approaches the question from the evolutionary point of view or the biblical point of view, at least plants and sea and air animals were created before humans. This is one of the reasons why certain materialists have invoked intelligent aliens as the senders of the information that is found in all life. Their desperation to remain materialists ie., operating strictly within the material domain causes them to invoke imaginary beings totally devoid of empirical support. However, even if such aliens existed and did supply the UI in the human protein synthesizing system, a logical question is: how did the information get into Their bodies?
Thus the alien hypothesis only delays the inevitable question: whence the original UI? Nevertheless, let us explore the alien hypothesis further.
Suppose that we allow a purely material, evolutionary universe while seeking for the source of the DNA/RNA Protein Synthesizing System (DRPSS). We may then posit a creator in the form of a highly intelligent, but purely material, entity.
For instance, we may posit a super advanced race of aliens as being the creator of the UI in the DRPSS. This is precisely what certain people, most notably, the late Francis Crick, did in response to the materialist's unsolvable problem of explaining the origin of the DRPSS. In short, Crick et al proposed the notion of Directed Panspermia, the idea that a technologically advanced alien race seeded the universe with life or at least with the essential components for life to emerge.
There is just one problem, as mentioned before: how did these aliens get the Universal Information of any sort, let alone a protein synthesizing system for Their bodies? That's easy: there was another alien race that preceded that one, and ..
..In short, remaining within a purely material evolutionary universe leads to problems that are only being solved via over extended imaginations which are disconnected from the real world we know.
End of Extracts.
Chapter 8 of Werner Gitt's Without Excuse is titled : Eight Far Reaching Deductions. I have posted only two deductions.
Darwinists who dispute the findings thus far must be able to A. give specific reasons for doing so; B. explain the Origin of Information; C. explain why Intelligence is not necessary for creating Information; D. give verifiable testable evidence that matter is the Origin of Information; E. give verifiable testable evidence that new gains/increases in Information is the product of unguided, purely physical chemical processes.
In the event that Darwinists cannot answer those points they do well to ask themselves: what is my basis for believing in Darwinism when I cannot answer those points?