Creation: The Science of Information Part I
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
In the New Year
With these Sunday posts, my main intent is to demonstrate that Darwinism has much less substantial, reliable, and material basis than Christianity; relies on far more assumptions; is spiritually empty; and is generally less sound both logically and scientifically. What motivates me is a personal rather deep and abiding interest in the TRUTH, the fact that I resent being once personally fooled into believing that the secular account of origins had any validity, and a calling to bring others to a realization of the truth so that they may take those truths into account in their personal walk of faith.
That, in a nutshell, is a summary of the motivation behind what forms my proposed agenda for the first part of the new year. I state this here in black and white just in case anyone had any remaining doubts about my motivation or my personal agenda.
This year, I intend to begin my Sunday posts by exploring some of the scientific and observable LAWS that hold the universe together. Using Scientific Laws once defined and (to the best of my ability) explained as a springboard, I will move to what I am sure will be a lengthy and exhaustive discussion of Information and how critical that single non-material component truthfully is to prop up materialism’s secular guesses stated as tenets of faith in the religion of Darwinism.
Today’s post is intended to set the parameters for the coming discussions by offering definitions of terms that will come up in common use in the course of these discussions.
First things first. It will henceforth be essential to have authoritative definitions of the proposed terms that will likely come up in future discussions. Therefore, it is foundational to have a good and authoritative definition of what a definition is.
def·i·ni·tion [def-uh-nish-uhn] –noun
- a. :the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
b. :an act of specifically determining
c. : a product of defining
d. : a statement expressing the essential nature of something
- the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, word group, phrase, sign, or symbol, etc.
- a. :the condition of being definite, distinct, specific, or clearly outlined.
b. : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear
c. :clarity of visual presentation
So, for the purposes of the coming discussion, a good definition of a definition is a definite, distinct, and specific summary of a term in use. A good definition should state what something consists of and clearly eliminate what it does not consist of for clarity. Therefore, a good and authoritative definition of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich might be something like, “a sandwich consisting of bread, peanut butter, and jelly. The bread may be of nearly any type, either a single slice folded in half over the other ingredients or two or more slices of bread ‘sandwiching’ the ingredients, or unleavened bread containing the ingredients.”
This is very clear, specific, and distinct. Thus, if one were to bake peanut butter and jelly into a crust, it is understood that this cannot be properly defined as a PB&J, although it might be a pretty good tart. Likewise, adding or subtracting from the components — such as adding banana slices or taking away the jelly — would change the properties of what can properly be defined as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It might be, then, a peanut butter sandwich or a peanut butter, jelly, and banana sandwich — but it could not properly and without equivocation be defined as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Where Darwinists fail in this is by equivocating EVERYTHING to “evolution” just as, in recent comments, the phenomenon commonly recognized and accepted as speciation was equivocated to macro-evolution. Sorry, but fish changing into amphibians changing into land reptiles changing into mammals, etc. as described in the traditionally accepted definitions of macro-evolution — is VASTLY different than elephants changing into elephants and dogs changing into dogs.
And if dogs changing into dogs is the “best example” of macro-evolution that can be brought to the table in this discussion as evidence for neo-Darwinistic notions of punctuated equilibrium in the modern accepted fairytale version of Darwinistic evolution, then I assure you that Darwinism is in a very real crisis.
Regardless, now that we have a definition of a definition, I shall further define my terms.
DEFINITION: Theory and Scientific Theory
In common usage, a theory can describe a substantiated guess based on anything from intuition to observation. Thus, in everyday speech, a theory can consist of either an ideal OR a hypothetical set of facts, or principles, or circumstances and this is often stated like “Well, in theory, blah blah blah.” It can also be a pure assumption used as the basis for a hypothetical investigation or discussion. “Well, theoretically if that were the case, then, etc. etc.”
In science, a theory has more formal standing. Technically, to qualify as an actual Scientific Theory, it is conventional that the theory find some at least marginally unequivocal substantiation from empirical science and thus be supported with experimentation or observational evidence.
With respect to Darwinism, while there are those who continue to religiously maintain that such support exists, I am hard-pressed to find anyone who will publish or present any such support.
And even the amount of equivocal support has been greatly eroded in recent decades, as new knowledge has been gained in the actual applied sciences (genetics, biochemistry, microbiology…). So, with due respect, I am hard-pressed to concede and confer the status of “scientific theory” to Darwinian evolution.
Perhaps a concise definition of Darwinism would be “secular guesses [about origins]” or just a reference to the overarching umbrella of “Darwinism” (though that is a bit circular) might serve just as well from the perspective of defining the notion.
A proper, specific, clear, and complete definition of Darwnism might be something along the lines of “unsubstantiated conjecture or collection of interdependent unsubstantiated conjectures about unobserved events in the past based largely on unsupported assumptions mainly propped up by a philosophical bias.”
DEFINITION: Law and Scientific Law
In terms of common use, law is a body of conceptual notions and ideas that can also describe material things. In concept, a law is any rule or injunction that must be obeyed and, if disobeyed, often leads to [usually unfavorable] consequences. “Law” can also be applied to the specific written verbiage that describes a specific rule or injunction and possibly describes the consequences. “The President signed it into law.”
However, as a concept, law can be used to describe something that is instinctive and observed, such as the law of self-preservation or the fight/flight response. Law can further describe a principle based on the predictable consequences of an act or condition, etc. such as the law of supply and demand.
Rules described in a much larger body of work can be summarized using the word law coupled with the reference, such as the Law of Moses which refers to the entire body of Levitical laws. Contracts can often be written in accordance with the law of a specific state or political body. Our very language has laws, such as the laws of grammar.
A Scientific law is more formal and more specific. (In German, this is Naturgesetz. In England these are Laws of Nature. I am American. Deal with it.) Scientific laws are analytic statements, usually with an empirically determined constant, that is both invariable and universal. In general, a scientific (mathematical, physical, metaphysical) law is a statement of an observed principle that describes a relation or sequence of phenomena which is always invariable under identical conditions and never refuted by any empirical experiment or observed evidence.
In my view, it is safe to say that Scientific laws originated from God and are formulated by man. For example, man formulated the Scientific Laws of Gravity. This describes the principle created and originated by God that explains how He upholds all things in the universe by the power of His word (Hebrews 1:1-3).
There are two dominions that Scientific Laws cover and they are the MATERIAL and the NONMATERIAL.
A material Scientific Law might be any of Newton’s Laws of Motion, for example. They govern such things as the quantifiable mass, force, and energy that affect objects in motion. Nonmaterial Scientific laws govern such things as consciousness, information, intelligence, and so forth. A good example of a Nonmaterial Scientific law might be some of the laws of thought, such as the law of non-contradiction or the law of identity.
The Law of Non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time, e.g. the two propositions A is B while simultaneously A is not B are mutually exclusive. Simply put, A may be B at one time, and not at another; A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time; but it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, both the absence and the presence of a contradictory quality.
The Law of Noncontradiction can be described as a law because it is always true in every case. For example, the sky can be seen as blue. The sky can be seen as black. The sky cannot be seen as both blue and black at the same time. It is either one or the other. Some say specific portions of God’s word is open to man’s interpretation (exegesis). Some say specific portions of God’s word is literal and means what it says (eisegeses). One cannot apply both exegesis and eisegeses to specific portions of God’s word at the same time without contradiction.
The Law of Identity states that an object is always the same as itself. When discussing equality, the fact that “A is always A” is a tautology. Any reflexive relation always upholds the law of identity.
The Law of Identity can be described as a law because it is always true in every case. For example, the moon is always the moon, it is never anything else like a baseball or a slice of cheese. Thus it is also true that God is always God and describes Himself as “I Am that I Am” (Exodus 3:14, John 6:48) because it is not in God’s nature to be anything other than God.
Here is a point to ponder. The Scientific laws, the laws of nature, that all originated from God all likewise reflect His divine personality.
With respect to scientific laws, they are described as laws because they have repeatedly been shown to be true (they are always true), they have never been refuted nor contradicted, they are universal (true in Kentucky, Brazil, or on the moon), they do not vary in time, they are simple, and there are no exceptions. These are very important properties of Scientific laws.
In point of fact, Scientific laws are considered invariable facts of the universe. Thus the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of cause and effect, the laws of energy conservation, the laws of motion, the law of biogenesis (life from life), and so on — and to name only a few — are considered universal, always true, and invariable facts in this universe.
Scientific laws are the basis from which hypothesis, theories, models and so forth can grow. Thus, when a notion comes along that seems valid only if one is able to suspend one or more of the laws of science such that they do not apply (are ignored), science is obliged to hold such notions to a very high degree of skepticism and rightly subject said notion to exceedingly critical analysis.
- the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
- a. (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, language, code, or instruction
. .(2) : intelligence, news, wisdom, lore, knowledge
. .(3) : facts, data, intelligence
b. : the specific attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something as in a language, symbols, or code, (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce highly ordered and very specific effects.
So, a good definition of INFORMATION is that it does not include randomness, nor chaos, nor meaninglessness. Information is ordered, highly specific, and conveys meaning or instructions.
With respect to the Scientific laws, we know of several laws (and principles) that govern the physical universe and we know of one Scientific law pertaining to life, but LAWS governing INFORMATION and the empirical study of INFORMATION is fairly new and, as such, still a little bit radical. The data and conclusions that we are deriving is pretty amazing, as you will see in future posts.
“Because information is required for all life processes, it can be stated unequivocally that information is an essential characteristic of all life. All efforts to explain life processes in terms of physics and chemistry only will always be unsuccessful. This is the fundamental problem confronting present-day biology, which is based on [Darwinian] evolution.” Dr. Werner Gitt Ph. D., In the Beginning was Information, Preface.
Perhaps the most interesting point I would like to make about Scientific Laws is how they are called the Laws of Nature in England. Thus, anything that violates any of the Laws of Nature is called “supernatural” and should be seen as magical. A belief in the supernatural constitutes a religious belief. Thus, Darwinism, which relies on a deep and abiding faith in this definition of supernatural events that contradict or ignore the Laws of Nature, is a religion on that basis alone.
I am looking forward to diving in even more over the course of the coming months.
Everything in the universe, every plant and animal, every rock, every particle of matter or light wave, is bound by laws which it has no choice but to obey. The Bible tells us that there are laws of nature described as “ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.
God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is neither haphazard nor arbitrary. The universe obeys laws of chemistry which are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and mathematical laws. All of it is bound by information, which obeys additional fundamental laws.
The most fundamental laws of nature only exist because God wills them to exist. They are the logical, orderly way by which the Creator upholds and sustains the universe that He created. Darwinists are unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe since Darwinism must ignore many Scientific Laws to even be seen as possible.
Here’s a thought. Why should their unsubstantiated conjecture or collection of interdependent unsubstantiated conjectures about unobserved events in the past based largely on unsupported assumptions mainly propped up by a philosophical bias have to obey Scientific laws if there is no Law-Giver?
But there is a Law Giver. There is a Creator from whom all logic and order is derived. The word of God, and the biblical account of God’s creation, is the foundation for natural laws in fact, not in guesses.
God Bless you and yours.