Thanks for your reply to my earlier post. There is much to work out in this
arena of information, its various types, and the possibility of its
relevance to biotic evolution.
Whenever I see information theory applied to evolution to support the
conclusion, "It could not possibly have happened naturally but must have
been supplemented by the form-conferring infusion of information by some
non-natural agent," I am reminded of all of the attempts by special/episodic
creationists to use the second law of thermodynamics to reach a similar
conclusion. I am now in the midst or studying Dembski's No Free Lunch and
get exactly the same feeling -- lots of smoke (obfuscation by introducing
new and technical terminology ad infinitum; using familiar words in obscure
and rapidly changing ways) and mirrors (making things seem different from
what they are), making the conclusions highly incredible.
You and I have gone around on this several times before, both on this list
and in print. I'm sure there's room for more discussion, and I hope that I
will sometime find time to continue our exchange. Right now I just cannot
take the time to do it. I was gone for the past few days, only to find well
over a hundred postings. There's no way I can take the time now to engage
any of it, even though there are several topics that interest me (excluding
the endless arguments re various attempts at concordism). We have each had a
chance to state our positions; I'm content to leave it there for now.
Others are welcome to jump in and make their contribution.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 12:23:39 EDT