Creation: The Science of Information Part II
- By: Gregg
- 12 Comments
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.
A Darwinian Primer
The 6 types of evolution taught in the average public school, the first 5 being types of Darwinian evolution, and the last being simple modifications or changes within kind and not even really “evolution” are:
- Cosmic evolution
- Stellar evolution
- Chemical evolution
- Abiogenesis—Life from non-life
- Micro-evolution (Changes within kind – not evolution)
Darwinism and Ignorance
With respect to Scientific laws, they are laws because they have repeatedly been shown to be true (they are always valid), they have never been refuted or contradicted, they are universal (true in Kentucky, Afghanistan, or on the moon), they do not vary in time, they are simple, and there are no exceptions. There are three domains and two divisions to which Scientific laws apply. The three domains are Life, Information, and Matter (which includes energy) and the two divisions are the material and the non-material.
These are all very important properties of Scientific laws.
When a notion comes along that seems likely only if one or more Scientific laws 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 very critical analysis. In the coming months, I intend to show (again) that large portions of the Darwinist religion utterly ignore the laws of science. Thus, Darwinism appears ignorant with respect to the Scientific laws governing the natural universe.
Any time someone relies upon other than natural, or supernatural, events to explain a natural act, that constitutes faith. Darwinism requires a belief in the supernatural at each step of the evolutionary progression and, therefore, is a faith based religion.
The laws of thermodynamics, the law of cause and effect, the law of energy conservation, and the laws of motion are all considered simple, universal, always valid, and invariable facts as these laws apply to the material division and physical matter (and energy) in the universe. The law of biogenesis (life from life) is considered simple, universal, always valid, and an invariable fact as the law applies to the material division and all known life in the universe. The laws governing Information, such as that Information is always substitionary, applies to the non-material division and all known Information in the universe.
The fact is, examining the primary tenets of Darwinism in the light of actual science, and the Scientific Laws that govern the entire natural universe, is probably the primary basis for my conversion from Darwinian paganism back to the light of Christianity. It was at least the starting point all those years ago.
Cosmic Evolution Ignores Scientific Laws
Darwinian “Big Bang” starts with an assumption that there is nothing, then nothing explodes, and the shrapnel of the exploding nothingness forms absolutely everything. Cosmic evolution defies a multitude of Scientific laws.
Let’s start with the law of cause and effect. In short, every effect is preceded by a cause and the cause is always greater than the effect. Since Big Bang depends upon nothing being the cause of everything, this instantly defies the Law of Cause and Effect since nothing is never greater than anything and certainly is much less than everything.
In addition, if there is nothing (to include time and gravity) then nothing could not possibly cause the effect of nothing condensing. I know that sounded like a double negative, but read it again. Thus, Darwinism appears ignorant with respect to the scientific law governing all known causes and effects in the universe.
The Laws of Thermodynamics describe the qualities of thermal energy. Big Bang depends upon nothing condensing and getting so hot that it explodes. This utterly defies the laws of Thermodynamics. Nothing cannot condense, does not make good fuel, and cannot create friction even assuming it could. Thus, Darwinism appears ignorant with respect to the scientific law governing heat energy.
The Laws of Probability must be ignored for the current set of mathematical equations resulting in Big Bang to be valid. The equations are almost infinitely fine-tuned to meet the result which means they are almost infinitely unlikely. Thus, Darwinism appears ignorant with respect to the scientific laws governing probability.
The first Law of Information states that matter and energy cannot produce information through material processes. The organization that resulted from the hypothetical Big Bang explosion alleges that vast amounts of information were assembled entirely by material processes. This is in direct conflict with the first Scientific Law of Information. Ignoring this law means that Darwinian Big Bang is also ignorant to the Scientific laws governing Information itself.
The Light Travel principle dictates that light must have time to travel significant distances before it can be observed. Big Bang states that the entire universe is no more than 15.6 to 16 billion years old, yet we observe light that is allegedly from stars far greater in distance than 16 billion light years distant. Big Bang is in direct conflict with the Light Travel principle.
Abiogenesis Ignores Scientific Laws
The Scientific law of biogenesis is also called the law of life. It is the only known scientific law that applies to living things. Louis Pasteur formulated this law centuries ago. The law of biogenesis states that life can only ever come from life. That is, life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.
Darwinists like to point out that Pasteur formulated this law in opposition to spontaneous generation, not Darwinian evolution. Thus the quibbling point is that the law of life does not dispel Darwinian evolution. To which, the obvious answer is, of course it does, as anyone can immediately see. So-called abiogenesis is just a retread of spontaneous generation, at the end of the day.
Let me explain. One of the tenets of the Darwinist religion is that life can spring forth from dirt and rocks in a miraculous act of spontaneous generation that Darwinism calls abiogenesis — life coming from non-life. Not only has this notion never been supported by experimentation or empirical science, but it stands in direct opposition to the only known scientific law pertaining to life. Thus, Darwinism appears ignorant with respect to the scientific law governing all known life in the universe.
In addition, the first Law of Information states that matter and energy cannot produce information through material processes. The organization that resulted from the hypothetical abiogenesis event alleges that vast amounts of information were assembled entirely by material processes into proteins, RNA, DNA, and eventually a living cell. This is in direct conflict with the first Scientific Law of Information. Thus, Darwinism appears ignorant with respect to the scientific law governing all Information in the universe.
In the coming months, I intend to show how all aspects of Darwinism — the collected Unsubstantiated Conjecture about Unobserved Events in the Past Supported Primarily by a Philosophical Bias — ignores Scientific laws while masquerading as science. I will discuss so called stellar evolution, so called chemical evolution, and so called macro-evolution and point to various scientific laws that these religious beliefs ignore.
And while I am sure the rationalizations that result will prove highly entertaining, I don’t want anyone who reads these posts to lose sight of something. And that is the purpose behind these posts. There is truth in the universe. A principled person strives to live by truth. An intellectually honest person never stops investigating, never stops questioning, and never stops seeking the truth.
Tomorrow morning, if incontrovertible evidence appeared that the Bible was wrong — let’s say God sent Micheal to announce, “Hey, guys, I was just kidding about that part.” I would be forced to re-evaluate my belief structure because I am a principled, intellectually honest truth seeker.
I believe that anyone who can honestly and objectively look at Darwinism in the light of the truth must reject large parts of it as anything other than a well disguised pagan myth. It strikes me as ironic that the most vocal believers in Darwinism are also those who pride themselves on being too intellectually disciplined to believe in fairy tales, yet that is exactly what they are doing.
The truth is that in the beginning, GOD created and for by him all things were created. This statement of truth contains time, force, and action — it is quite possibly the most perfectly balanced scientific statement in the history of mankind.
May God Bless you and yours,
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
Comments are closed.
I already responded to the abiogenesis idea in the previous post, and I can tell from this post that you aren’t going to be convinced by what I said. (I’m guessing this post was already written before I put in my comments, although I suppose it’s possible something was added. And if there’s a delay in posting, I’ll understand.)
I have a problem with the way you are stating that the law of biogenesis is the only scientific law about living things, and that so-called Darwinists are IGNORANT of this law. You have it backwards here. What authority made this a law on the exalted level that you’re implying for it? Biology doesn’t recognize this law as going beyond the experiments of Pasteur and others. You’re claiming a stature for this law that it doesn’t have.
Pasteur’s experiments do not apply in any way to the ideas of abiogenesis. The conditions in his experiments were different. Whether abiogenesis is possible is a separate question. In the same way, you cannot look around in your daily life and make any observation that addresses this question. The conditions now are different from the early earth and there is no way you could make this kind of observation yourself anyway. Whether abiogenesis was possible or not, the approach to the question is chemical and biochemical.
(As for it being the only law relating to life sciences, FWIW, what about Starling’s Law of the Heart? It isn’t considered a law of the stature of physics laws, but is used in physiology, describing the function of the heart.)
….”Thus, Darwinism appears ignorant with respect to the scientific law governing all Information in the universe.”
I don’t think there IS a scientific law governing all information in the universe.
At this point you haven’t defined the First Law of Information. I expect you’ll do that in the future. Or maybe you wrote it above – ” matter and energy cannot produce information through material processes”? What makes that a law? What’s the background for you thinking that is a law? I’m skeptical. (In fact, without knowing the way the words are defined in that statement, I have to say right off it sounds incorrect.) Just because someone writes a book or article and calls something a law doesn’t give it the stature of a physical law in science.
(Lots of people bought books on the supposed “Law of Attraction”, which I hope you’ll agree was without basis.) You could propose this idea as something to be evaluated and investigated, but at this point I think you are not in a position to use this idea as an authoritative argument against evolution.
When I think about information, one thing I think of is the various sounds and colors and chemicals that different organisms use to communicate to each other. Do you consider this to be information?
For instance, there is a group of beetles called fireflies that communicate by flashes of light. (question – how do these fit into your idea that beetles only produce beetles? Were these created separately from the other beetles or could they have evolved by ‘micro-evolution’ in your view because they are still just beetles?)
The frequency of the light flashes (and if IIRC also the wavelength) communicates to other fireflies that a female of that species is in a particuar location.
But then there is a species of fireflies that sends information that is untrue. Its flashes say it is a particluar kind of firefly, but in fact it is a larger kind which kills and eats the male which responds to the signal. All this happens, I assume, without any thought on the part of the fireflies. It is one mindless collection of matter and energy sending information which is received with another mindless collection of matter and energy. And in some cases sending deceptive information.
(The enzyme which is necessary to make the light is from the same protein family as a similar more general enzyme, and in fact it can catalyze the original reaction. That part of the light-emitting reaction did not have to be developed from nothing; gene duplication was all that was necessary. I don’t know, though, the source of the substrate.)
You said, “Darwinian “Big Bang” starts with an assumption that there is nothing, then nothing explodes, and the shrapnel of the exploding nothingness forms absolutely everything. Cosmic evolution defies a multitude of Scientific laws.”
This is quite simply not the most current theory, the Big Bang currently does not begin with the assumption of “nothing”, therefore any and all “problems” derived from your initial definition are called into question.
Secondly, while a deterministic universe was favored by Einstein, Quantum physics has since shown that at the sub-atomic level at least, that events can and do occur without cause.
Thirdly, laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are simply statements of what we have observed. Should we observe and validate an event which violates something which we had previously given the label of “law”, that “law” is adjusted to accommodate the new event.
A law it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.
First of all, yes, it is the most current theory unless you would like to get more descriptive. The fact of the matter is that it does start with nothing unless, by faith, you count magical “quantum fluctuations” as something other than nothingness. Realistically, they are still nothingness, they are just an authoritative scientific sounding way to say nothingness.
Secondly, see above.
Thirdly, nothing has refuted these scientific laws. Descriptive is good enough for my purposes.
I hope you’re well.
You wrote: “The first Law of Information states that matter and energy cannot produce information through material processes.”
I don’t think this is true. If I press the keys 5 4 6 / 4 2 on a calculator, it displays the number 13. This isn’t just an arbitrary number. It’s informative; It tells me the width of a rectangle with area 546cm^2 and width 42cm. I didn’t know that before. The calculator has produced information. But a calculator is a material device which undergoes material processes. This contradicts the first law as you have stated it.
May peace be with you,
The calculator didn’t produce the information, Neil. YOU did.
Let me be more specific. Tools do not produce information, though they can reveal it. There is always a sender and always a recipient for information. Replace your calculator with an abacus. Slide the beads from left to right and so forth and, assuming that you understand the code that is in use, you will “send” the information you seek and you will also happen to be the one who “receives” that information. The abacus — nor the calculator — created the information.
God Bless you,
You said, “I have a problem with the way you are stating that the law of biogenesis is the only scientific law about living things, and that so-called Darwinists are IGNORANT of this law. You have it backwards here. What authority made this a law on the exalted level that you’re implying for it? Biology doesn’t recognize this law as going beyond the experiments of Pasteur and others. You’re claiming a stature for this law that it doesn’t have.”
I’m sorry you have a problem, but I disagree. You are attempting to detract from the universality of this Scientific law without cause or justification. Please cite a case where life came from non-life, life could come from non-life, it is possible life might come from non-life, it is hypothesized that there is any kind of valid mechanism during which life could possibly come from non-life under any reasonable circumstances — and we’ll put this to bed.
Since the above hasn’t happened in all of recorded history and doesn’t seem likely to happen any time soon since it has been shown to be mathematically impossible by even the most generous of models and in experiment after failed experiment, there is a reason I don’t look worried.
Now, given that this IS the case, here is the bottom line. If one considers that the Law of Biogenesis is a Natural Law, as in “In nature, life only ever comes from life,” than to believe otherwise is either ignorance of this Scientific Natural Law, the only one that is known to govern all known life in the known universe, or it is a religious belief in something supernatural. Darwinists believe that life can spring forth supernaturally from rocks and dirt and water. I believe that in the beginning, God created man, male and female created He them, in His image created He them. So we each have our various religious bias, mine just happens to believe that God was the original prime mover, the first cause, who spoke life into existence setting the Law of Biogenesis in motion. And I have just a bit more scientific evidence to support my belief than Darwinists. That’s all.
I’m using your definition of information from your previous post. In particular “the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence”.
Before I used the calculator, I did not know that “546/42=13”. After I used the calculator, I did. In the process, I gained knowledge; I received information. The fact that I could have received the information through some other means, an abacus, is irrelevant. In the example I gave, I received the information from the calculator. In your abacus example, I produced the knowledge myself and only use the abacus as a storage medium; It’s a different scenario.
The information I sent to the calculator was “546/42=?”. The information I received was “13”. Those are different pieces of information. The context allowed me to join them together to obtain “546/42=13”.
If my calculator couldn’t produce information, it would be useless.
May peace be with you,
Two can play that game. You’re assuming the following law can be broken: “When life comes from life, it is through cell division”. This law is a universal law. I challenge you to find one case where this law is broken. Darwinists don’t need to assume that this law is broken.
May peace be with you,
If you were using my definition, you would set the calculator on a table all by itself and, without any interaction on the part of any intelligent agent, it would generate information all by itself. That doesn’t happen.