Does Information Science Prove Creation?
(March 2004)

[This is my first response to Mike Hager's post on 18 Mar 2004, where I accepted his challenge to debate the scientific evidence for creation. Within the opening volley below is my opening argument for the affirmative.]

Dear Mike,

When you first popped on the scene in mid-December you said “Don't waste a minute of your valuable time on this idiocy.” I predicted you would be back, and sure enough here you are, still shouting some 3 months and 27 posts later! I will say you evolutionists are consistent and predictable! If you are so convinced creation is a myth, why do you keep coming back? I again point out that I don't waste my time on "alien abduction", "flat earth", or "Elvis is alive" websites. The reason is because you know creation is true (see Romans 1), but you hate the fact that it is in direct opposition to your atheistic worldview, so you attempt to "suppress the truth" (Romans 1). Thus as Brady rightly pointed out you lash out with emotion instead of logic, reason, and science.

I will give you one last opportunity to post something substantive (maybe post 28 will be a charm), and will therefore take you up on your ever-evolving challenge. Before I post evidence for creation science below, you are again warned to not use this forum as a soapbox to shout vapor from the mountaintops. Evidence must be presented. Do not respond with the usual  “you are a coward and a fool” (17 Dec 2003), or “the false ideas presented here are beneath me” (23 Dec 2003), or “I will not give you any evidences for evolution” (23 Dec 2003)”, or “Go and learn” (30 Dec 2003), or “Do not listen to this site. It is simply wrong. Go out and educate yourselves.” (30 Dec 2003), or “The only way to avoid ignorance such as his is to educate yourself.” (22 Jan 2004), or “again, I will not present that evidence.” (27 Jan 2004), or “You are wrong, unfortunately [sic], on both counts but I must again refrain from pointing out your errors.” (28 Jan 2004), or “As I have said before, I am not posting here to defend science.” (26 Jan 2004), or “Ignore him and his damaging propoganda! [sic]” (26 Jan 2004), or “Do not believe Fred” (17 Mar 2004),” or “Creationism …is a pack of damnable lies that only the feeble-minded can accept” (17 Mar 2004). 

Any such response will prove that you are not truly interested in honest debate. Any objective reader will see this clearly. Evidence is required. The choice is yours.

There are several other common sense ground rules that should be stated:

1)   Your claim that evidence against evolution never equates to evidence for creation is unscientific, it is a view not even shared by most evolutionist scientists I know. If we were to drop a rock and it did not fall, this would falsify the theory of gravity, would it not? If we witnessed heat spontaneously flow from a cold to a hot source, this would falsify the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, would it not? The paramount point is that a defining quality of a scientific theory is its ability to be falsifiable, and hence its ability to withstand falsification criteria. Often the falsification criteria is evidence for a competing or opposing theory. The problem is that I suspect you are well aware that evolution theory is either not falsifiable (bogus “tests” not withstanding) or has been falsified.

2)   Avoid brash assertions, like: “you are wrong because evolution is true”.

3)   Avoid classic circular reasoning, such as the argument you used in your very first post to this guestbook: “Since the deity is unreal, it is clear that it could have created nothing.” (17 Dec 2003); later repeating this fallacy: “No creator exists, thus no act of intelligent creation can have occurred” (30 Dec 2003), and “There is no creator…so creationism is false” (30 Dec 2003)

OK, now on to evidence for creation. For starters, this web site already provides numerous evidentiary examples of creation (which you “rebutted” by proclaiming “It’s not true! Don’t believe him!”).  It’s now time for you to actually provide evidence, not mere philosophical ramblings and circular logic. To make things easy I’d like you to focus on the following evidence for creation:

The genetic code in the DNA proves that life on earth originated from intelligence, since information requires an intelligent sender. There are no known examples in the universe where a code originated by chance. In the movie “Contact”, as soon as Jodie Foster’s character recognized a “code” within the signal received from space, she immediately and correctly attributed the signal to an intelligent sender. The code both falsified the notion that the signal was naturalistic, and affirmed the fact the signal originated from intelligence. Applying this standard to our debate, the genetic code thereby falsifies NeoDarwinian evolution (naturalistic origin of all life), while concurrently proving life must have originated via an intelligent sender.

The ball is in your court.

Sincerely,
Fred Williams

[Mike's reply, March 19th]

Fred, the day that I need to be instructed by you in debate shall never come. I am surprised and gratified that you have actually responded. You did so in a very high-handed and insulting manner, which is ironic given that you at the same time try to lecture me on my behavior. On the subject of name-calling and vituperative rhetoric, I refer you to your own beliefs and advise you to look to the beam in your own eye. Now, since the challenge made and accepted was for you to provide a logical or scientific defense of creationism, I offer the following two rebuttals. You stated “Your claim that evidence against evolution never equates to evidence for creation is unscientific,” This is absolutely inaccurate and I must maintain that argument against evolution is not evidence in favor of creationism. The supporting analogy is simple. Upon considering an egg, say that the true assertion, “The egg is not white” is made. The conclusion “Therefore, the egg is black” would be invalid. The reason, obviously, is that the egg could be some color other then black or white. In our debate, I will freely admit that there are no other popular concepts for how life developed, but the possibility of other solutions exists. Thus attacks on one cannot be considered proof of the other. Evolution and creationism do not, however much it appears on the surface that they do, form a dichotomy. I point this out merely to establish the framework under which we must proceed. Your suggested “ground rule” runs contrary to the rules of logic, so must be disregarded. Note that I do not do so arbitrarily. I provide an argument for my position. Refute it if you can. Should you succeed in doing so, we will accept you position as a given as we move forward. You next state, “The paramount point is that a defining quality of a scientific theory is its ability to be falsifiable…” You are absolutely correct. Now, let us apply this concept to creationism. If one accepts an omnipotent creator deity, any evidence or argument against creationism can be simply met by claiming that an infinite god can create in any form, including one that subsumes the evidence or argument. Falsification is thus impossible, so by your very good standard, creationism is not science. It is clear that this example demonstrates a severe logical flaw to creationism. I invite you to refute either of my two points. Should you successfully do so, we can move on to other matters. I await your reply.

[My response, March 21st]

Mike,

In your reply above you did not spend one sentence on the single example I provided you (regarding information), and instead waxed philosophical on the ground rules, logic, and me calling you names (which was not true). I understand you feeling “insulted” – facts have a tendency to do this! But the point of a debate is point/counter-point, not red herrings and obfuscation, which is a waste of everyone’s time (other than serving to prove you do not have a leg to stand on). This is not intended as an insult, it is an honest assessment of what transpired.

Your continued objection that evidence against evolution is never evidence for creation and visa versa is, to put it accurately, ludicrous to the highest degree. How else can one describe it? It has become your own personal “god of the gaps” argument. You then try to bolster this view by erecting your  “egg is not white, therefore it is black” analogy, which is a strawman. I never said there did not exist examples where evidence for creation isn’t necessarily evidence against evolution (common features is one such example – it can be attributed to both design and common decent). But you claim counter evidence to evolution is never evidence for creation (your “god of the gaps”), and then erect a false analogy (strawman) to lean on! When we are discussing origins in general, as I mentioned to you several months ago there really are only two possibilities: either life arose naturalistically, or it arose non-naturalistically. Thus, when evidence is presented that is clearly against a naturalistic explanation, it is evidence for a non-naturalistic explanation. There is simply no denying this. Most evolutionists have no problem with this fact. Why are you having such trouble with this bare-bones common sense logic? Strangely you even admit you can’t think of a third alternative! One can only conclude that the reason you won’t budge from this bizarre position is to distract and obfuscate, how else should one reasonably interpret your behavior? (note that some naturalist scientists who recognize the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of non-naturalistic origins have erected the panspermia hypothesis that aliens seeded life here! Of course this only pushes the problem out to space and back in time)

So now I will try one last time to present my argument. Please do not avoid it this time around. I’m simply going to cut&paste it from my prior post. Within the text you will find falsification criteria for creation (OK, it may not be plainly obvious – find a single example of a code that arose naturalistically and IMO you have falsified creation):

The genetic code in the DNA proves that life on earth originated from intelligence, since information requires an intelligent sender. There are no known examples in the universe where a code originated by chance. In the movie “Contact”, as soon as Jodie Foster’s character recognized a “code” within the signal received from space, she immediately and correctly attributed the signal to an intelligent sender. The code both falsified the notion that the signal was naturalistic, and affirmed the fact the signal originated from intelligence. Applying this standard to our debate, the genetic code thereby falsifies NeoDarwinian evolution (naturalistic origin of all life), while concurrently proving life must have originated via an intelligent sender.

Sincerely,
Fred Williams

[Mike's reply, March 21st]

First, my offering of the egg analogy is not a straw man attack. A straw man is when one side of a debate states the opposite side’s position and then attacks their own, not their opponent’s, formulation of the argument. I did not do that. For a real example of a straw man, see one of my earlier posts, the one where I believe you finally acceded to this exchange, where I engaged in such an argument but immediately admitted to it. Here I made an assertion and offered a supporting analogy. Your assertion that I used an invalid logical technique or improper debating tactic in this is incorrect. Enough of that, on to other matters… you do rebut my assertion by posing a dichotomy of naturalistic v. non-naturalistic origins of life as being an exclusive binary set, contrary to my position. In other words, you are stating as given “A or B; if A not B and if B not A” and that by giving evidence for one it refutes the other, “A, therefore not B”. To avoid an actual straw man attack, I await your agreement that this is a fair restatement of your position before proceeding on this point. I note with regret that you completely ignore my second assertion, that due to the agreed statement “The possibility of falsification is a requirement for a system to be considered scientific,” (stated by you and agreed to by me) creationism (or non-naturalistic development) is not science. Since our agreed upon terms, by my challenge that you accepted, concerned a logical or scientific defense of creationism, I feel that it is a germane point and ask that you address it. Now, I will respond to your position on information encoding. It appears that your information theory argument is an example of the argument from design. In short, complexity absolutely implies design. This is arguably the central position of supporters of creationism, whether using information encoding as the example of complexity, or the development of visual organs (Tim, you may consider this a reply to you, also), or any one of myriad cases in biology. Again, to avoid any problems, I await your agreement that this is a fair assessment of your position. I was accused of using straw man arguments so I will take no chances on actually doing so. Note that no person could reasonably say I have avoided your argument. There is a reason for my approach. Since it is my position that you are actually using the argument from design, I intend to attack the argument directly. Should I factually take up your argument as to information encoding and win (which I believe I could successfully do) then the debate could be moved to any one of hundreds of other examples where creationists believe irreducible complexity exists. The argument from design itself is flawed, and I intend to show that.

[My response, March 21st]

Mike,

Mike: “A straw man is when one side of a debate states the opposite side’s position and then attacks their own, not their opponent’s, formulation of the argument. I did not do that.”

This is precisely what you did. Your false analogy “egg is not white, therefore it is black” is your “formulation of the argument” not mine. This is very much a caricature (strawman) of my position that you can then easily tear down.

In other words, you are stating as given “A or B; if A not B and if B not A” and that by giving evidence for one it refutes the other,

“Refute” is too strong a word. Evidence for ‘A’ does not necessarily refute ‘B’, it becomes evidence against ‘B’. When you prove ‘A’ is when you refute ‘B’. An example is naturalistic or non-naturalistic cause of a fire. If you find a gas can, this is evidence the fire was started non-naturalistically (arson), but it is not necessarily proof (the can may have been there by coincidence). Finding gas spread throughout the room where the fire started that is traceable to the can in question would become proof for a non-naturalistic cause (arson).

I note with regret that you completely ignore my second assertion, that due to the agreed statement “The possibility of falsification is a requirement for a system to be considered scientific,” (stated by you and agreed to by me) creationism (or non-naturalistic development) is not science.

First, I did not make that statement, but I don’t want to get too far into semantics. To be specific I said a theory stands or falls on its testability. I believe something outside of empirical science (testable, repeatable) can still be ”scientific”  (science is after all “knowledge”, for which it is derived). For example, we know Kennedy was assassinated but we can’t use empirical science to prove it; we have to rely on historical science, which sometimes can be just as convincing as empirical science.

Nevertheless, the example I provided you falls into empirical, testable science, one that I can prove over and over again -- that a code always requires a sender. A simple falsification would be to find one single counter-example. We know in the field of information science that no such evidence exists, and thus we can declare with 100% certainty that it is impossible to have a code without a sender. We can also declare with 100% certainty that it is impossible for coded information to arise naturalistically. Finding a code in the DNA was the death knell of evolution.

Unlike the above example I provided, evolution has no realistic falsification criteria, which really makes it no better than a low-grade hypothesis. The “theory” has been propped up to be un-falsifiable. Your “god of the gaps” argument is one such example; evolution has a smorgasbord of other “answers” ready to be employed for any and every possible scenario.

The information argument is of course related to “design”, but it goes deeper because we can establish solid laws of nature around it. Like matter and energy, information is a fundamental, mass-less entity (a computer will not run without the program). It always requires a sender, always, no exceptions. All you need is one counter-example and you refute the information argument. Just one! Good luck! 

I have two final questions:

1)     Do you consider arson investigations unscientific (or as you may imply, “flawed”)? If so, why?

2)     Do you consider the methods used in the movie “Contact” that identified the signal from outerspace as originating from a “designer” flawed science? If so, why?

Mike, you are trapped in a catch-22. Your argument is doomed. Why? If you answer no to both questions, you’ve ceded my point and the debate is over. That is why you will be forced to say yes to both questions (that neither are scientific), which any objective reader will see as an inconsistent response made only as a last dying breath of desperation. Objective reader, now await the spin that is coming to a guestbook near you! 

Sincerely,
Fred Williams

[Mike's reply, March 22nd]

Fred, it seems we need to clarify our terms. If we do not agree what we are debating, we cannot debate. You state “I believe something outside of empirical science (testable, repeatable) can still be “scientific” (science is after all “knowledge”, for which it is derived).” I do not agree and, in full good faith I assure you, believe we cannot proceed until this is resolved. I propose the following definition of science. “A scientific theory is one arrived at using the classic method (observation, hypothesis, testing) and meets the requirements of being testable, repeatable and falsifiable.” Do you concur?

[My response, March 23rd]

Dear Mike,

You claim you do not agree to my statement on what science is and that unless I accept your definition you will not proceed. I’m not at all surprised you are taking this course, it is a common tactic when arguing from a hopeless position to try to box the debate into a tight little corner. The next step is to try to “win” in the corner, then claim it proves the original argument being debated. Bait & switch, and the illusion is cast!

Nevertheless, even with your equivocation of what “science” means, I still provided an example that has reasonable falsification criteria. But instead of addressing the example (you’ve now spent three posts avoiding it) you want to debate what “science” is. You ask: “I propose the following definition of science. “A scientific theory is one arrived at using the classic method (observation, hypothesis, testing) and meets the requirements of being testable, repeatable and falsifiable.” Do you concur?”

No and Yes. No, I don’t accept this as a definition of “science” (even plenty of secularist scientists disagree with your definition; sources provided if necessary). Yes I accept this as a suitable definition of a “theory”.

So for the third time I ask you to address my argument (see this post). I then ask you to address the two follow-up questions I asked in this post.

Sincerely,
Fred Williams

[Mike's reply, March 24th]

I now have two points to make. By commonly accepted definition, (whether you choose to accept it or not) for a theory to be considered science, it must meet the requirements of being testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. On this point, creationism fails absolutely. Creationism is not falsifiable. The reason, which I have proposed before, is clear. If one accepts the existence of a universal creator being, then any opposing evidence or argument can immediately be voided with the contention that the deity can create in any form, including one that subsumes the evidence or argument. Falsification is impossible, so creationism does not meet the definition of science.

Creationism also fails the requirement of testability. There is no possible experimental model to test for the influence of the supernatural. The reason is similar to the above. It may simply be claimed that an infinite creator can void any imaginable test if he/she/it desired. Also, once the supernatural has been admitted, then all the supernatural must be given equal weight, until experimentation shows a preference. It is as logically valid to assert that Leprechauns created the world seventeen minutes ago in exactly the state it currently exists, including all evidences that they didn’t, as it is to claim that Yahweh did it 6,000 years ago, or someone else did it 600,000,000 years ago. It is interesting to note that all the “evidences” of intelligent design and creationism are explained equally well by the Leprechaun theory as any other. Of course, the fact that mainstream science is not whole-heartedly embracing intelligent leprechaun design is clearly an indication of a conspiracy and anti-Irish bias (Erin Go Bragh!).

Lastly, there is the test of repeatability. Here, at least, creationism succeeds admirably. I personally have heard the claim “god did it” repeated until I am quite sick of it.

My next point is that while, as I have shown, creationism is not science, it very much likes to pretend that it is. The argument provided by my opponent, concerning information, is one such example. I provide the text of the argument here:

“The genetic code in the DNA proves that life on earth originated from intelligence, since information requires an intelligent sender. There are no known examples in the universe where a code originated by chance. In the movie “Contact”, as soon as Jodie Foster’s character recognized a “code” within the signal received from space, she immediately and correctly attributed the signal to an intelligent sender. The code both falsified the notion that the signal was naturalistic, and affirmed the fact the signal originated from intelligence. Applying this standard to our debate, the genetic code thereby falsifies NeoDarwinian evolution (naturalistic origin of all life), while concurrently proving life must have originated via an intelligent sender.”

The primary error here occurs in the misuse of “code”. A code is an artificial way of representing and compressing information. In DNA, the chemicals adenine, thiamine, cytosine and guanine do not form a code. The letters A, T, C and G, commonly used to represent them constitute a code. The order of occurrence in DNA is the information flow represented by the code. It is true that a code cannot arise spontaneously, as it is a man-made construct.

Information Theory, which is what is seemingly being appealed to here, has nothing to say about the sources of information, just with how to most efficiently encode it. Thus, this example, while pertinent to how we look at the information in DNA, has no bearing on the actual content. The error here is in mistaking a code for the thing it represents and thinking that statements true about the representation of a thing are inherently true about the thing itself. This argument is no more reasonable then claiming that Greenland is much larger then South America because it appears so on a Mercator projection map. In fact, by the definition used in I.T., there is no more information rich signal then one that is completely random. The statement that “information requires an intelligent sender” is simply false.

It is also interesting to remember that humans are always seeing intelligent design in patterns. We saw pictures in the stars. We saw predictable patterns in the way they move over time, and immediately gave them the power to cause events in our lives (astrology). We did the same thing with numbers, colors, totem animals, etc. None of those were correct. This habit of identifying everything as an intelligent agent is probably due to humans having evolved as social animals, a situation where putting yourself in another person's shoes is a very useful skill, one which allows you to predict what another will do. It's much less useful when you apply it to natural phenomena, but it's apparently a very hard habit to break

So, we see that Fred’s formulation is incorrect factually. It is also logically flawed. It is, as I have stated before, yet another permutation of the old argument from design, this time using information theory as a way to show irreducible complexity. One simply described problem with this argument (there are many, but really only one is needed) is it’s internal inconsistency. The argument asserts that complexity or order cannot arise spontaneously (a factually incorrect statement in itself). Given that there is perceived order and complexity in the natural world, it goes on, that could not have arisen on it’s own, there must be a creator. If one agrees that order and complexity cannot arise spontaneously, how does one account for the order and complexity in the creator? If the creator has existed eternally or self aggregated in some way in the distant past, this is clearly an example of spontaneous order and complexity either coming in to existence or being part of the inherent makeup of the universe. If spontaneous order can exist in the creator, why can it not exist elsewhere? The creationist or theist can claim that the creator is somehow outside the rules and not subject to the logic of man. That course of argument, of course, moves out of the realm of logic and into mysticism, as described above in my discussion of the possible falsification and testability of creationism.

The challenge, issued by me, in this debate was to show a logical or scientific defense for creationism. As has been shown, creationism can in no way be considered science, so a scientific defense of it is impossible. Still, my opponent gave an example of such an attempt, one that had several flaws. I showed why it was a flawed factual formulation and why it was a flawed logical proposition. It is apparent that Fred has utterly failed to give a logical or scientific defense of creationism. I am certain that he will be unsatisfied with my arguments. I leave the readers, if there are any, to judge for themselves. I welcome any further attempts by my opponent to provide what my challenge asked for.

As a final note, (and this is pure commentary) it is interesting to consider that since creationism is not a science, in spite of claims to the contrary, what actually is it? I will venture the following: It is theology. To believe in it, one must engage in an act of faith, one must believe in the absolutely unprovable. The error made by many, especially creationists, is that once they have engaged in their personal act of faith it is somehow incumbent upon others to accept it as they have. Faith is not a valid tool for ascertaining facts about the world, else all people at all times and in all places would have come to the same faith based conclusions. That has not occurred. However, properly using the discipline of science, the same truths are revealed in all places and at all times. Which, then, is the better tool? Faith has a place in human existence, but that place is not in the acquiring of knowledge.

[My concluding post, March 27th]

Dear Truth seekers,

Mike lived up to my prediction in my previous post: “The next step is to try to “win” in the corner [redefine “science”], then claim it proves the original argument being debated. Bait & switch, and the illusion is cast!” 

Since Mike’s first appearance here he has continued to insist that his own personal definition of “science”, testability and repeatability, is the correct one. Empirical science however is merely a subset of science, not its whole. Webster defines “science” as “the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding”. Mike claims that empirical testability & repeatability is a “requirement” to determine the validity of a claim such as intelligent design. Taking his definition of science to its full extent, his reasoning would force him to conclude that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that the events of 911 never occurred, that Elvis didn’t die (or for that matter was born), etc!

Anyone with an objective mind who has read this exchange should clearly see that disbelief in a Creator or creation cannot be defended rationally. When defending such a hopeless position, one must resort to all kinds of bizarre arguments, such as Mike’s insistence that testability and repeatability are the required standards to determine the truth of something (the grand irony is that his own religion of evolution does not even remotely meet this standard!). Note how Mike after four posts still completely ignored my two simple questions as to whether arson investigations and SETI research are scientific. He knows they totally and completely undermine his argument, so he continually sidestepped them. He knows they put him in a catch-22. If he admits they are scientific, his entire argument falls apart because it is based entirely on repeatability/testability. If he claims they are not scientific, he looks like a fool! (Carl Sagan and many other evolutionists have claimed SETI is scientific, perhaps not realizing the implications of what they were saying). Mike has no way out, so he ignores the questions. There really is no point asking him to answer the questions a 4th time, it should already be clear to the intellectually honest, objective reader that Mike simply cannot defend his position. 

At this point the debate is over, but I will address Mike’s response to my example of a reasonable falsification test for creation, that providing a single example of a naturalistic origin of a code would falsify the “information requires an intelligent sender” and “information cannot arise naturalistically” laws. Mike employed several strawmen and made numerous inaccurate claims regarding information science: 

In DNA, the chemicals adenine, thiamine, cytosine and guanine do not form a code.

Strawman #1. I never said they did.

The letters A, T, C and G, commonly used to represent them constitute a code.

Not true. Letters by themselves do not constitute a code. Meaning and intent, along with syntax (letters) are what make up a code such as C++, the English language, and the genetic code. In the genetic code, combinations of ATCG (grouped in threes called codons) are designed to mean different things depending on their order within the codon. It could specify an amino acid, it could specify a stop sequence, etc. If I wrote to someone ATGCGCAGTAGC, they wouldn’t have a clue what I was talking about. But if I indicated it was a genetic sequence, then a person trained in the genetic code could decipher it.

It is true that a code cannot arise spontaneously, as it is a man-made construct.

Strawman #2. Of course a code cannot arise spontaneously. But it also cannot arise slowly over ions of time naturalistically. It is impossible.

Objective reader take note to Mike’s words above: “A code… is a man-made construct”.

Mike has just unwittingly admitted that a code MUST come from an intelligent sender!!!

Mike, your own mind convicts you of how utterly bankrupt your atheistic position is! Where did the genetic code come from?!!!!

Mikes argument quickly deteriorated:

The error here is in mistaking a code for the thing it represents and thinking that statements true about the representation of a thing are inherently true about the thing itself. This argument is no more reasonable then claiming that Greenland is much larger then South America because it appears so on a Mercator projection map. In fact, by the definition used in I.T., there is no more information rich signal then one that is completely random.

First, I never “mistook the genetic code for what it represents”. This basically makes no sense and is incoherent. Mike then essentially claims that a book of random characters contains more information than an encyclopedia! This defies all common sense, but over the years I’ve heard this argument by many an evolutionist! It is yet another sad commentary on the sheer hopelessness of defending evolution – if evolution had supporting evidence then defenders of it would not have to resort to such incredibly vaporous arguments! To be fair, some evolutionists who are formally trained in information science do not make this argument. Evolutionist (and Marxist) Dr Tom Schnieder of NCI has an online article that completely refutes Mike’s specious claim: 

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html 

Mike continues to misunderstand information with this statement: 

It is also interesting to remember that humans are always seeing intelligent design in patterns.  We saw pictures in the stars.

Strawman #3 (a textbook example of one). I don’t know of a single intelligent design advocate who blanket equates pattern to “design”. It is only when a “pattern” cannot reasonably and mathematically be attributed to random chance or naturalistic order that “design” becomes apparent.

The argument asserts that complexity or order cannot arise spontaneously (a factually incorrect statement in itself).

Strawman #4 (another textbook example). No creationist I know ever made this claim. It’s a sad but accurate commentary on the dearth of evolutionary evidence that forces their proponents to resort to strawman after strawman after strawman.

Conclusion

Mike, your story hasn’t changed since you first posted here: your mind is made up despite the evidence, despite any examples given you, despite clear violations of common sense and logic. Your refusal after 4 posts to answer two simple questions (on arson and SETI) that you know exposes your folly is ample proof your position is bankrupt and that you have made up your mind despite the evidence. The additional fact you admit that a “code is man-made [comes from intelligence]” proves you understand the concept but refuse to accept the consequences of this reality (you know it proves a Creator).

I know it may not sound like it, but I say the following with all due respect and sincerity, not just to Mike but to all unbelievers reading this: The Bible says you are “dumb on purpose” (Romans 1:18-20; 2 Peter 3:5) and that you are a “fool” (Romans 1:22, Psalms 14:1, Psalms 52:1, etc). If there truly is a God, isn’t such honest, straightforward talk showing you far more respect than failing to point this out to you? (see Ezekiel 3:18).  I’ll conclude with one last truthful reality on unbelief and the seriousness of misleading the public: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42-43)… “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31)

Sincerely,
Fred Williams
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise (Proverbs 12:15)

[Mike's closing remarks, March 30th]

Yet again, in another iteration of a common occurrence in my life, I see the uselessness of trying to debate a zealot. I do this a lot, as I am a defender of truth and zealots are rarely drawn to the truth. It is amusing how creationist’s deceptive tactics remain constant, tactics such as shifting standards of proof (a recurring creationist favorite). Fred did it in our exchange, providing an excellent example of the tactic. In his first post, he insisted that I provide falsifiable evidence for his scientific postulation. Then, at the end, he claimed to adhere to a definition of science where falsification was not needed. You see, as is typical with creationists, he likes using the trappings of science when they support his position and is more then happy to demand it of others, yet he balks when it is applied to his arguments. Which is it? If falsification is not required for science, why did you insist on it? If it is, how do you respond to the fact that creationism is, as I showed, beyond falsification. You can’t have it both ways.
One sure sign of a weak argument is when its proponent engages in broad generalizations and refuses to define terms. You see, when terms are clear and points made specific, they are subject to refutation. Creationists are too attached to their beliefs to allow them to be refuted, so they simply don’t allow it. One way is by sticking to broad statements and allowing terms to mean what they want them to when they need them to. Fred does this by refusing to define science and even rejecting a standard definition of it. He shifts the meanings of “code” and “information” freely when they are very different things. He even goes so far as to deride my own attempts at clarity as trying to “put the debate in a box”. Clarity is a friend of truth, Ladies and Gentlemen, and the enemy of lies. Creationists must flee from it, as we saw Fred do. Their deceptions cannot stand before it. Forgive my hyperbole, folks, but the mood took me.
There is much more that could be said, but I will stop on this note. Creationism is not, as I have shown, a science. It is a theological position, as I said before, but it is also more. It is a social movement, almost a political party. Supporters of creationism, like Fred, do not really have a scientific or philosophic position to champion, they have an agenda to advance. Why else would he include a section on his page that attempts to show people how to teach creationism in the schools? The agenda is quite simply to negate the social progress that has led to the secularization of many segments of society and government. I leave it to any readers to judge if this is a good thing (I mean it clearly isn’t, it would take an utter moron to believe that cr… Oh, wait, I was leaving it to the reader, wasn’t I?)
In closing… Do not believe a word you read on this page, people! Don’t listen to me, and for the sake of the future of humanity, do not listen to Fred and his ilk! Do not be their follower! Think for yourself! There is no science here! There is only partisan religious rhetoric! Go out and learn for yourself and put in the hard work of learning science and logic and see just how deceptive the claims made on this page and others like it are. DARWIN ROCKS!

 

Home | The Show | Articles | Debates | Guestbook | Forum | Bio | Speaking | Links