Stephen Meyer's Bogus Information Theory

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Yes, somehow creationists are always concerned with evidence for design, but never seriously consider how our examples of human design differ in many ways from what we see in biology. In particular, they don't seem to have seriously addressed Mark Isaak's article.

I note Meyer also has a tendency (in those quotes) to use the weasel word 'large'. I guess whenever a biologist demonstrates evolution has produced useful information, he'll just claim the amount isn't large enough to count as a violation of his rules.

The focus on "large amounts of specified information" (my emphasis) also reduces his entire book to a strawman argument, since the TOE neither predicts nor expects saltation. It is the compounding of small changes across generations that makes net change in the genome large. If "small" amounts of specified information can be produced naturally under Meyer's (false and arbitrary) limits, this allows evolution and speciation to occur. In other words, you could believe what he says about information and he'd still be wrong about design being necessary in biology.

I’ll call the third kind “creationist information”.

Matt Young said:

I’ll call the third kind “creationist information”.

I call it Dembski information. The units are dits.

Jeffrey -

Thanks for yet another insightful post. Maybe you can enlighten BioLogos's Darrel Falk, who contends that there is some utility in Intelligent Design based on its interest in biological "information". Even after I pointed out that you, among others, have rejected the "importance" of this work, he still believes that there is this utility.

MACROEVOLUTIONISTS THINK ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN RANDOM EXPLOSIONS. IT IS NOT TRUE. THE VOLCANO VESUVIUS DESTROYED THE CITY OF POMPEII; IT DID NOT BUILD A BETTER CITY ON TOP OF IT. INFORMATION THEORY PROVES CITIES HAVE TOO MUCH COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION TO EMERGE WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AND EVEN A PROKARYOTIC CELL HAS MORE BITS OF COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION THAN A CITY, AND A EUKARYOTIC CELL HAS EVEN MORE. THE DARWINIACS HAVE YET TO SHOW ONE CITY THAT WAS BUILT BY A VOLCANO, AVALANCHE, OR OTHER NATURAL DISASTER. UNTIL THEY DO, THEIR THEORY REMAINS UNPROVED!

As in being ditszy, I suppose:

yum install Jesus said: MACROEVOLUTIONISTS THINK ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN RANDOM EXPLOSIONS. IT IS NOT TRUE. THE VOLCANO VESUVIUS DESTROYED THE CITY OF POMPEII; IT DID NOT BUILD A BETTER CITY ON TOP OF IT. INFORMATION THEORY PROVES CITIES HAVE TOO MUCH COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION TO EMERGE WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AND EVEN A PROKARYOTIC CELL HAS MORE BITS OF COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION THAN A CITY, AND A EUKARYOTIC CELL HAS EVEN MORE. THE DARWINIACS HAVE YET TO SHOW ONE CITY THAT WAS BUILT BY A VOLCANO, AVALANCHE, OR OTHER NATURAL DISASTER. UNTIL THEY DO, THEIR THEORY REMAINS UNPROVED!

Jesus:

Information theory, even creationist information theory, has nothing to do with "building a better city". The notion of "better" doesn't exist in information theory.

Explosions are a poor analogy with mutation+selection.

And finally, your argument is not improved by shouting.

YUM YUM THINK ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN NON-RANDOM MIRACLES . IT IS NOT TRUE. THE VOLCANO VESUVIUS DESTROYED THE CITY OF POMPEII; IT DID NOT INVOLVE ANY PUNISHMENT FROM GOD. INFORMATION THEORY PROVES THAT COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION IS PURE CRAP AND SO IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AND EVEN A PROKARYOTIC CELL HAS NO BS INFORMATION, AND A EUKARYOTIC CELL HAS SOME BUT WE CANT SAY HOW MUCH THAT COULD ALL BE PRODUCED BY NATURAL MEANS. THE CREATIONISTS HAVE YET TO SHOW ONE THING THAT WAS BUILT BY A MIRACLE, OR OTHER NON-NATURAL PROCESS. UNTIL THEY DO, THEIR SO CALLED THEORY REMAINS COMPLETELY UNSCIENTIFIC!

YUM: ON THE LEFT EDGE OF YOUR KEYBOARD THERE IS A KEY NAMED "CAPS LOCK". IT"S PURPOSE IS TO MAKE YOUR RANTS READABLE.

USE IT (Caps) like this. Now your rants will be in sentence case, which is actually readable, if not any more sensical.

Additionally, on the right edge of your keyboard is an L-shaped key labeled "Enter".

You use this key to make things called "paragraphs". Paragraphs separate things called "thoughts" and again, make your rant more readable.

You use it like this (enter)(enter)

First nonsensical thought (enter)(enter)

Initial non-sequitor (enter)(enter)

Long list of subsequent non-sequitors (enter)(enter)

See?

I had the thought the other day that there is a central flaw in all creationist claims about information.

In all legitimate information theories, information is implicitly created by the observer. Something that is "noise" to me may be information to you.

Creationists always claim that intelligence must be created for the observer. A magic "designing" "intelligence" had to create something before it became information.

This quickly leads to absurd conclusions. If I decided to measure the weights of individual grains of sand from a sample for some reason, that distribution becomes information from my observer perspective. Therefore, by "creationist information theory", the grains of sand must have been "designed by an intelligence".

yum install Jesus said: MACROEVOLUTIONISTS THINK ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN RANDOM EXPLOSIONS. IT IS NOT TRUE.

HE VOLCANO VESUVIUS DESTROYED THE CITY OF POMPEII; IT DID NOT BUILD A BETTER CITY ON TOP OF IT.

Glen Davidson said: If you can't back up your claim that "specified information" only comes from a mind...

"Experience shows that large amounts of specified complexity or information (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source...

Thank you, Dr. Shallit. I was interested to see a poster on Telic Thoughts lay down a challenge to "go where reviewers are reluctant to trod", namely to point out specific problems in Meyer's facts and reasoning, and to back up our criticisms. I submit that anyone who considers this task to be challenging has not read the book very carefully.

A real challenge would be to point out all of the problems in the book. I've been working on chapters 4, 8, 13, and 16, as time permits, and it's looking to take quite a while.

As I said on your blog, JS:

p. 258 "If a process is orderly enough to be described by a law, it does not, by definition, produce events complex enough to convey information."

Somebody call Johannes Kepler, there's no way to know where the planets are!!!ONE!!!

R0b said: Thank you, Dr. Shallit. I was interested to see a poster on Telic Thoughts lay down a challenge to "go where reviewers are reluctant to trod", namely to point out specific problems in Meyer's facts and reasoning, and to back up our criticisms. I submit that anyone who considers this task to be challenging has not read the book very carefully. A real challenge would be to point out all of the problems in the book. I've been working on chapters 4, 8, 13, and 16, as time permits, and it's looking to take quite a while.

RDK - I too once thought that the Jeebus yum was a Poe, but if you go to his website, you will see a virtual self-spammed site reeking of flat-earthism and other freakish stuff.

If it's a Poe, it's a damn good one, ONE THAT SHOULD BE POSTING OFTEN AT UD! (That is Dembski's Uncommon Descent site for the unitiated). IF I WERE A JEEBUS YUM, OR EVEN A POE, I WOULD GET OVER ASAP TO UD AND SAVE SOME DAMN SOULS!

DO IT FOPR THE KIDZ.

stevaroni said: YUM: ON THE LEFT EDGE OF YOUR KEYBOARD THERE IS A KEY NAMED "CAPS LOCK". IT"S PURPOSE IS TO MAKE YOUR RANTS READABLE. USE IT (Caps) like this. Now your rants will be in sentence case, which is actually readable, if not any more sensical. Additionally, on the right edge of your keyboard is an L-shaped key labeled "Enter". You use this key to make things called "paragraphs". Paragraphs separate things called "thoughts" and again, make your rant more readable. You use it like this (enter)(enter) First nonsensical thought (enter)(enter) Initial non-sequitor (enter)(enter) Long list of subsequent non-sequitors (enter)(enter) See?

fnxtr said: As I said on your blog, JS: p. 258 "If a process is orderly enough to be described by a law, it does not, by definition, produce events complex enough to convey information." Somebody call Johannes Kepler, there's no way to know where the planets are!!!ONE!!!

p. 293: "Here's my version of the law of conservation of information: "In a nonbiological context, the amount of specified information initially present in a system S_i, will generally equal or exceed the specified information content of the final system, S_f." This rule admits only two exceptions. First, the information content of the final state may exceed that of the initial state, S_i, if intelligent agents have elected to actualize certain potential states while excluding others, thus increasing the specified information content of the system. Second, the information content of the final system may exceed that of the initial system if random processes, have, by chance, increased the specified information content of the system. In this latter case, the potential increase in the information content of the system is limited by the "probabilistic resources" available to the system."

— Jeffrey Shallitt quoting Meyer

I’ll call the third kind “creationist information”.

stevaroni said: YUM: ON THE LEFT EDGE OF YOUR KEYBOARD THERE IS A KEY NAMED "CAPS LOCK". IT"S PURPOSE IS TO MAKE YOUR RANTS READABLE. USE IT (Caps) like this. Now your rants will be in sentence case, which is actually readable, if not any more sensical. Additionally, on the right edge of your keyboard is an L-shaped key labeled "Enter". You use this key to make things called "paragraphs". Paragraphs separate things called "thoughts" and again, make your rant more readable. You use it like this (enter)(enter) First nonsensical thought (enter)(enter) Initial non-sequitor (enter)(enter) Long list of subsequent non-sequitors (enter)(enter) See?

fnxtr said: As I said on your blog, JS: p. 258 "If a process is orderly enough to be described by a law, it does not, by definition, produce events complex enough to convey information." Somebody call Johannes Kepler, there's no way to know where the planets are!!!ONE!!!

Excellent review. If still available I'll try to reference it on the Amazon site.

The arguments used by Meyer are understandable in the sense that they appear logical, rational, and scientific. However, considering the fact that Meyer's audience is the fundamentalist churchies who eat up this crap and have NO understanding of science, it all sounds so plausible to them. Thus the Dishonesty Institute is making headway on their wedgies by duping their flocks into this error filled book, sorry, "book of the century" I think some reviewer called it.

Fletcher says I have been duped, and his reference to Uri Geller suggests that Meyer’s book is a deliberate hoax – that he has offered evidence and arguments that he knows to be false. Like any layman who reads books on science for the general reader, I have to take the presentation of the data largely on trust, and try to evaluate more speculative arguments as best I can. Meyer’s book seems to me to be written in good faith. If he misrepresents contemporary research on the origin of life, I will be grateful to have it pointed out to me. But the RNA world hypothesis Fletcher offers as a refutation is carefully described by Meyer, who argues that while it might help solve some problems (in virtue of the catalytic properties of RNA), it simply pushes back to a different molecule the basic question of how such an extremely complex replicator came into existence, thus allowing natural selection to begin. [Bolding added] http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/signature-in-the-cell-meyer-responds-in-the-tls/#comment-17732

Two things struck me as I read it: first, its essential dishonesty

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

THE VOLCANO VESUVIUS DESTROYED THE CITY OF POMPEII; IT DID NOT BUILD A BETTER CITY ON TOP OF IT.

Nagal wrote:

"But the RNA world hypothesis Fletcher offers as a refutation is carefully described by Meyer, who argues that while it might help solve some problems (in virtue of the catalytic properties of RNA), it simply pushes back to a different molecule the basic question of how such an extremely complex replicator came into existence, thus allowing natural selection to begin."

Actually that's not a very big problem at all. First, the precursors of ribonucleotides are some of the most likely molecules to form under the conditions of the primitive earth. Second, ribonucleiotides can be polymerized by chemical reaction catalyzed by things other than proteins. Third, RNA molecules can serve as templates for their own replication and can catalyze their own replication. Taken together, these observations mean that it extremely likely that such a replicating system could arise and undergo selection, given the conditions of the primitive earth. It certainly doesn't solve all the problems, but it does go a long way.

@ Glen -

Speaking of dishonesty, you may include the likes of Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk. Neither one believes that the Dishonesty Institute has sinister motives (In fact Giberson says he knows some at the DI and that they are a-ok with him, except that they are pushing ID as a political, instead of scientific, movement.). Falk thinks that there is some potential usefulness from the DI with regards to our understanding of "biological information" (Of course that's nonsensical, given the substantial critiques written by Jeffrey Shallit and Wesley Elsberry, among others.).

They are also dishonest in the sense that they allow creos to post ad hominem attacks, but when I have sought to remind them of some uncomfortable truths regarding the DI's current and past behavior, I've been told to "shut up". To make a long story short, I've been banned there until I "apologize" for my behavior.

At least AusAdrian (#2423, here: http://biologos.org/blog/footprints-in-the-sand/), you and one other frequent PT poster appreciated my efforts in trying to persuade both Giberson and Falk that they are mistaken in thinking that the DI could be persuaded to "play ball" with the mainstream scientific community. In fact, both agreed with my observation that the BioLogos Foundation could be viewed as a DI "stealth ally".

As AusAdrian noted in his comment, all I tried to do there was this: "...I found your writings so refreshing and reinforcing." Sometimes the truth hurts and it seems as though BioLogos isn't interested in hearing the truth about the ongoing lies, censorship and other forms of deceit, including theft, being practiced by the DI daily.

Sincerely,

John

The people who have endorsed this book, from Thomas Nagel to Philip Skell to J. Scott Turner, uncritically accepting Meyer's claims about information and not even hinting that he might be wrong, should be ashamed.

— Jeffrey Shallit

Frank J said: Why should they be ashamed? "Expelled" plainly shows that they are doing all of this to prevent another Hitler.

In fact, both agreed with my observation that the BioLogos Foundation could be viewed as a DI “stealth ally”.

MACROEVOLUTIONISTS THINK ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN RANDOM EXPLOSIONS. IT IS NOT TRUE. THE VOLCANO VESUVIUS DESTROYED THE CITY OF POMPEII; IT DID NOT BUILD A BETTER CITY ON TOP OF IT.

My impression is that he is either so tied up with 'information theory' that he doesn't really think about what information is. In talking about meteorological data he confuses dat and information. He also confuses the encoding of information with information, a string of characters is not information although it may contain information. An example of the confusion in this area is seen in the first comment: "Does the string "pain' contain the same amount of information to a Frenchman, an Englishman, and a German?" The string does not in itself contain information. It may be a word in each of those languages but a word does not constitute information.

Peter Henderson -

In my view, the creationist use of "information theory" is exactly equivalent to the creationist use of "the second law of thermodynamics".

They are simply trying to change the subject to something that they desperately (and wrongly) hope that biologists are unfamiliar with - but that they themselves are completely ignorant of - and do an end run around the evidence, by (wrongly) claiming that evolution is "theoretically impossible" (so all of the evidence for it can't matter).

I'm just an MD pathologist (no longer practicing) with an undergraduate degree in biology and some master's level courses in statistics and probability, not an information theorist.

Yet as I noted above, the creationist approach seems to me to be grounded in a simple, fundamental error. Information is created by the observer, that's trivially true and compatible with all valid information theories. But all creationist claims amount to the assertion that it had to have been created "for" the observer - that if an observer makes something into information, that something had to have been directly "created by intelligence" in the first place. As I also noted, this leads to absurd conclusions, because any arbitrary phenomenon will become information if observed in an organized way by an intelligent observer.

But of course, they'll make up nonsense arguments and contradict actual experts like Jeffrey Shallit all day.

Peter Henderson -

Whoops, my fourth paragraph above borders on an unintentional straw man misrepresentation of actual creationist claims. Let me immediately clear that up.

What they actually assert is that certain "kinds" of information had to be directly "created by intelligence". "Complex specified information" and so on.

The problem is that the creationist invented terms have no meaning that creationists themselves cannot define them in a meaningful way.

If someone claims It may be a word in each of those languages but a word does not constitute information, then there is really nothing to do except roll one's eyes. In both Shannon's theory and Kolmogorov's theory, a word or string of symbols indeed constitutes information. To deny this just exhibits utter cluelessness.

Peter Henderson said: Who [a YECer] is claiming Jeffrey is confused about what information actually is. Anyone like to comment ?

Peter: I'm in agreement. It's just fine for Dembski or anyone else to propose a new definition of information. But then he should (a) publish it in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (b) forthrightly deal with criticisms (c) acknowledge mistakes quickly and (d) show how his ideas can be used on more than toy examples. If only he had done all these things, instead of heaping scorn on his critics, calling them "obsessive" and worse.

One of the very first things Elsberry and I commented on was the observer-dependence of "specified complexity".

That level of full disclosure is rare among creationists.

— harold

Thinking about why we have two different, incompatible definitions of information can also give insight into why no actual scientist thinks much of Meyer's version.

Why do we have two? Why not figure out which one is better and just use that one?

Well, the answer is we have two because both are useful. Shannon is good for answering some questions, solving some practical, real-world problems. Kol for others.

So what would make scientists adopt a third definition? Why, that's easy: utility! Armed with this insight we can respond to the YECers. There is no algoritm or rules set for determining how to measure specified information. One scientist cannot check another's results, because they can't even figure out how to measure it in the first place. Because of that, its useless. And because it is currently useless, science has not adopted Meyer's idea.

In a sense the argument over specified information reflects a broader difference between creationists and scientists. To creationists, a theories' reflection of Truth is more important than its utility. Specified complexity seems to reflect an idea of platonic, non-material, objective information. Thus creationists view it as a good theory, even if its useless for (e.g.) helping you compress files. In contrast, scientists value utility far more than how well a theory matches some preconceived notion of Truth. Shannon and Kolomgorov are useful to science. Meyer is not. So Shannon and Kol will continue to be taught in information theory, while Meyer will not.

If Meyer or Dembski ever give us a methodology for calculating specified information which can be used independently, and if this methodology turns out to be useful, then it will get respect. Not before.

Jeffrey Shallit said: Peter: I'm in agreement. It's just fine for Dembski or anyone else to propose a new definition of information. But then he should (a) publish it in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (b) forthrightly deal with criticisms (c) acknowledge mistakes quickly and (d) show how his ideas can be used on more than toy examples. If only he had done all these things, instead of heaping scorn on his critics, calling them "obsessive" and worse. One of the very first things Elsberry and I commented on was the observer-dependence of "specified complexity".

harold said: In all legitimate information theories, information is implicitly created by the observer. Something that is "noise" to me may be information to you. Creationists always claim that intelligence must be created for the observer. A magic "designing" "intelligence" had to create something before it became information.

eric said: If Meyer or Dembski ever give us a methodology for calculating specified information which can be used independently, and if this methodology turns out to be useful, then it will get respect. Not before.

Scott said: Further, it appears to be the conflation of the term "information" with the concept of "meaning" which is implicitly exploited by S. Meyers and the DI.

Jerrym said:The idea that Dembski and Meyers definition of specified information is not formal enough for scientists to be able to repeat their measurements is a simple clear concept that even I can grasp.

Interesting. If I understand your intent, a simple example of this would be the faces that a person sees in clouds, leaves, or rocky outcrops. The “meaning” of the face is created by the observer. There is no “designer” arranging the droplets in the cloud (or leaves on the tree) so that it looks like a face.

However, if I understand correctly a comment made on Mr. Shallit’s blog, the “information” (the specific arrangement of particles) is still present, independent of the observer.

Further, it appears to be the conflation of the term “information” with the concept of “meaning” which is implicitly exploited by S. Meyers and the DI.

Karen S. said:

In fact, both agreed with my observation that the BioLogos Foundation could be viewed as a DI “stealth ally”.

John, I believe they backed out of the "stealth ally" comment. Of course I share your view that the DI is dishonest. I also pointed out that sometimes it is very, very hard for believers to acknowledge that their fellow believers might be liars. It's good that you have documented the DI's underhanded ways. I hope the facts will one day sink in and BL will distance themselves from the DI and denounce their tactics. Did they delete a lot of your comments?

Karen S. -

I don't think they've backed off the "stealth ally" comment. They opted to delete my list of Dembski's "crimes", allowing me to keep it only at one blog thread (I had posted it more than once, the second time to remind Karl Giberson that Dembski is not a nice person, nor are his fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers.).

John,

I think one of them really did back away somewhat from the comment. As I recall, Peter Enns asked you to document the DI's dishonesty, which you did. Any feedback from that? Why not post a link to Jeffrey Shalitt's latest post, which is specifically on their dishonesty?

Karen S. said: John, I think one of them really did back away somewhat from the comment. As I recall, Peter Enns asked you to document the DI's dishonesty, which you did. Any feedback from that? Why not post a link to Jeffrey Shalitt's latest post, which is specifically on their dishonesty?

John,

Are you kidding? Do they make anyone else apologize? How do they want you to apologize-- via email or on the blog? There seems to be lots of whack jobs commenting on that blog and many are very insulting, e.g. Gregory. When John Davison was posting there he called me a bitch! Glen Davidson was the only one who told him off for that.

Anyway, the blog doesn't appear to be friendly at all to women. The bloggers don't respond to my comments except for 1x only. There are no female bloggers and very few female commenters.

harold said: This concept, that one person's information is another person's noise and vice-versa, is commonly misunderstood in lay discussions about Information Theory.

An important point to bear in mind is that both the information source and the noise source on Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 are stochastic processes. They could both be treated as information sources. The main difference between them is that the receiver is interested in the information source and wants to ignore the noise source.

Some creationists will argue that noise degrades information just like the Second Law of Thermodynamics degrades order, and imply that the Second Law applies to information. But for Shannon’s definition of information, since we don’t care about meaning, and since the difference between information and noise depends only on our interest, this argument holds no water. We change noise into information simply by deciding to care about it, and information into noise by choosing to ignore it.

Karen S. said: John, Are you kidding? Do they make anyone else apologize? How do they want you to apologize-- via email or on the blog? There seems to be lots of whack jobs commenting on that blog and many are very insulting, e.g. Gregory. When John Davison was posting there he called me a bitch! Glen Davidson was the only one who told him off for that. Anyway, the blog doesn't appear to be friendly at all to women. The bloggers don't respond to my comments except for 1x only. There are no female bloggers and very few female commenters.

John, Are you kidding?...How do they want you to apologize– via email or on the blog?

ben said:

John, Are you kidding?...How do they want you to apologize– via email or on the blog?

And if you did apologize, what kind of camera would you have to send them?

Karen S.,

In light of my recent experience over at BioLogos, I must conclude that they are more interested in winning the "approval" of their fellow "brothers in Christ" than in reminding them that they must recognize the scientific fact of biological evolution and that Intelligent Design doesn't even come close as a "substitute" to contemporary evolutionary theory. Their stance is substantially at odds with invertebrate paleontologist Keith Miller (an Evangelical Protestant Christian) or Ken Miller's (who, I will observe again, did tell a private audience here in New York City last May that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should leave such faiths for those which do accept science).

Scott -

Well, not quite exactly, but certainly close enough. We both accept standard, rigorous definitions of information, and agree about creationist mistakes.

The source I quoted does actually say that something definitively becomes information upon being observed as information. That position is not at all controversial.

However, you're obviously correct that, in most contexts, under the assumptions of science, the physical entity existed before being observed.

I'd say that the position I quoted is a bit more generalizable than your position, and that you add something that, while obviously true much of the time, may be unnecessary.

Although the position I quoted may superficially sound less concrete, it's actually more concrete and generalizable. There may be disputes about whether or not some type of information fully existed as information before observation, but we can ALWAYS agree that it's information once a human observer makes it so in a manner consistent with information theory.

However, enough of this, because we clearly don't have a real disagreement, and creationist distortions and dissemblings grossly exceed this kind of philosophical fine tuning.

As for creationists, as I noted above, they use "information theory" in the same way that they have classically used "the second law of thermodynamics" (and many other things).

Frustrated by trying to dispute the evidence evolution, they try to do an end run around it by pulling a "theoretical disproof" of evolution out of their butts. Note the absurdity. A one-liner "theoretical disproof" of a strongly supported theory must always be viewed with great skepticism.

And in the course of trying to do this end run, they are by necessity required to try to change the subject.

They desperately (and incorrectly) hope that biologists will be extremely ignorant of some other field (thermodynamics, information theory, whatever), and that full experts in that field will be unaware of their claims about it.

(However, they get one thing right - they assume correctly that the dolts who actually give them real money will be as ignorant of [physics, information theory, or whatever] as they are of biology.)

They then proceed to distort and dissemble on (thermodynamics, information theory, whatever), revealing their own ignorance and chicanery.

And inevitably they get busted by biologists and full experts in the field that they are attempting to distort.

John Kwok -

I'm inclined to agree with Kenneth Miller on the matter of religions that deny scientific reality, with the strong caveat that other peoples' religious beliefs are not my business unless they want my opinion, unless they do something that affects me.

It seems to me that getting emotionally committed to a position that outright denies scientific reality (not a position that believes things that are beyond the realm of science, or beyond the current reach of scientific investigation, but a position that denies scientific reality), inevitably leads to some frustration.

Creationists are a good example of this.

John Kwok said: Karen S., In light of my recent experience over at BioLogos, I must conclude that they are more interested in winning the "approval" of their fellow "brothers in Christ" than in reminding them that they must recognize the scientific fact of biological evolution and that Intelligent Design doesn't even come close as a "substitute" to contemporary evolutionary theory. Their stance is substantially at odds with invertebrate paleontologist Keith Miller (an Evangelical Protestant Christian) or Ken Miller's (who, I will observe again, did tell a private audience here in New York City last May that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should leave such faiths for those which do accept science).

harold said: They then proceed to distort and dissemble on (thermodynamics, information theory, whatever), revealing their own ignorance and chicanery. And inevitably they get busted by biologists and full experts in the field that they are attempting to distort.

Second, the information content of the final system may exceed that of the initial system if random processes, have, by chance, increased the specified information content of the system. In this latter case, the potential increase in the information content of the system is limited by the “probabilistic resources” available to the system.“

Mike wrote:

"For the ID/creationist, the process of decay after a living organism dies is their classic example of what they misrepresent as the second law of thermodynamics in action."

Great, now we can agree that dead organisms cannot evolve. Finally, some common ground!

Apparently RG, you're the only one who doesn't care, since you've decided to be a "good" troll and stop by to comment. A few others have commented on it, most notably Karen S.

It's hysterical that you seem to "drop in" whenever I say something that strikes you as being funny or silly or outrageous. How come you don't "visit" when I truly have something commendable?

Do me a favor. If you don't like my posts, then stop "dropping by" to comment, please.

DS said: Mike wrote: "For the ID/creationist, the process of decay after a living organism dies is their classic example of what they misrepresent as the second law of thermodynamics in action." Great, now we can agree that dead organisms cannot evolve. Finally, some common ground!

Karen S. said: John, I think one of them really did back away somewhat from the comment. As I recall, Peter Enns asked you to document the DI's dishonesty, which you did. Any feedback from that? Why not post a link to Jeffrey Shalitt's latest post, which is specifically on their dishonesty?

John Kwok said: Apparently RG, you're the only one who doesn't care, since you've decided to be a "good" troll and stop by to comment. A few others have commented on it, most notably Karen S. It's hysterical that you seem to "drop in" whenever I say something that strikes you as being funny or silly or outrageous. How come you don't "visit" when I truly have something commendable? Do me a favor. If you don't like my posts, then stop "dropping by" to comment, please.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Generally because you don't say much that adds value. You bring up fairly obvious points, advance no new arguments, and your comments lack both creativity and humor. Your obsession with Star Trek is such old hat that it's boring. Get over yourself, John. Nobody cares whether you've been banned (yet again) from another blog.

John Kwok said: Apparently RG, you're the only one who doesn't care, since you've decided to be a "good" troll and stop by to comment. A few others have commented on it, most notably Karen S. It's hysterical that you seem to "drop in" whenever I say something that strikes you as being funny or silly or outrageous. How come you don't "visit" when I truly have something commendable? Do me a favor. If you don't like my posts, then stop "dropping by" to comment, please.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Generally because you don't say much that adds value. You bring up fairly obvious points, advance no new arguments, and your comments lack both creativity and humor. Your obsession with Star Trek is such old hat that it's boring. Get over yourself, John. Nobody cares whether you've been banned (yet again) from another blog.

John Kwok said: Apparently RG, you're the only one who doesn't care, since you've decided to be a "good" troll and stop by to comment. A few others have commented on it, most notably Karen S. It's hysterical that you seem to "drop in" whenever I say something that strikes you as being funny or silly or outrageous. How come you don't "visit" when I truly have something commendable? Do me a favor. If you don't like my posts, then stop "dropping by" to comment, please.

I guess if you don't like John's comments you don't have to read them.

Karen S. said: I guess if you don't like John's comments you don't have to read them.

John Kwok said: Why don't you "get over yourself," RG. Lately it seems as though half the posts you do post here pertain me. If I'm not worthy of attention, then why do you bring it up. But, wait, I get it. You're just as delusional as a lot of the creo trolls posting here:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Generally because you don't say much that adds value. You bring up fairly obvious points, advance no new arguments, and your comments lack both creativity and humor. Your obsession with Star Trek is such old hat that it's boring. Get over yourself, John. Nobody cares whether you've been banned (yet again) from another blog.

John Kwok said: Apparently RG, you're the only one who doesn't care, since you've decided to be a "good" troll and stop by to comment. A few others have commented on it, most notably Karen S. It's hysterical that you seem to "drop in" whenever I say something that strikes you as being funny or silly or outrageous. How come you don't "visit" when I truly have something commendable? Do me a favor. If you don't like my posts, then stop "dropping by" to comment, please.

Rilke's granddaughter said: You're annoying. Much like Robert Bryers, Brian, and FL. It's no big deal. Just sayin'

Stanton said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: You're annoying. Much like Robert Bryers, Brian, and FL. It's no big deal. Just sayin'

That's like saying a carpenter bee is as bad as a boll weevil, kissing bug, and a tsetse fly. Just sayin'

than dammit

Thank goodness I have a life which extends far beyond responding to self-centered, quite arrogant, trolls like yourself (For example, I am about to do my small bit in helping relief efforts in Haiti. When you can do something like that, then and only then, do you have any right to judge someone other than yourself.).

Rilke's granddaughter said:

Karen S. said: I guess if you don't like John's comments you don't have to read them.

Occasionally, John's comments contain information I'm interested in. But wading through their dull, eternally-repetitive, somewhat... turgid content is wearing. John's problem (if I may speak frankly) is that he writes EXACTLY like a creationist idiot. And on topics other than evolution and ID, it appears that he might be one (look him up at Rational Wiki, for example; or some of the hilarious attempts he made to threaten PZ Myers). John is a very troubled soul.

Rolf Aalberg said:

Stanton said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: You're annoying. Much like Robert Bryers, Brian, and FL. It's no big deal. Just sayin'

That's like saying a carpenter bee is as bad as a boll weevil, kissing bug, and a tsetse fly. Just sayin'

Must have been more than eight people on the Ark...

Additionally, I happen to like Star Trek references. But I'm wondering-- if Spock descended from both humans and Vulcans, why are there still humans and Vulcans?

Karen S. said: Additionally, I happen to like Star Trek references. But I'm wondering-- if Spock descended from both humans and Vulcans, why are there still humans and Vulcans?

Why don't you "get over yourself," RG. Lately it seems as though half the posts you do post here pertain me.

maybe it's because often half the posts here ARE yours?

you have NPD, Kwok.

seek treatment.

John Kwok said: Myers is a jackass and I decided deliberately to provoke him. But at least he's a very intelligent one who often does make sense. The same can't be said for you:

Rilke's granddaughter said:

Karen S. said: I guess if you don't like John's comments you don't have to read them.

Occasionally, John's comments contain information I'm interested in. But wading through their dull, eternally-repetitive, somewhat... turgid content is wearing. John's problem (if I may speak frankly) is that he writes EXACTLY like a creationist idiot. And on topics other than evolution and ID, it appears that he might be one (look him up at Rational Wiki, for example; or some of the hilarious attempts he made to threaten PZ Myers). John is a very troubled soul.

Rilke's granddaughter said: John, you spent dozens of emails to his colleagues asking them to intercede for you. You tried to blackmail him into giving you expensive camera equipment. You whined and cried about your banning for months on other sites. You didn't do it deliberately to provoke him John, you did it because, as Icthy says. you're not well. Hell, you review books you've never read; you cyberstalk women; you get your psychological revenge by threatening to put people in your "novels" and then killing them. These are unhealthy things. John. You're a joke on the intertubes. You really need help.

John Kwok said: Myers is a jackass and I decided deliberately to provoke him. But at least he's a very intelligent one who often does make sense. The same can't be said for you:

Rilke's granddaughter said:

Karen S. said: I guess if you don't like John's comments you don't have to read them.

Occasionally, John's comments contain information I'm interested in. But wading through their dull, eternally-repetitive, somewhat... turgid content is wearing. John's problem (if I may speak frankly) is that he writes EXACTLY like a creationist idiot. And on topics other than evolution and ID, it appears that he might be one (look him up at Rational Wiki, for example; or some of the hilarious attempts he made to threaten PZ Myers). John is a very troubled soul.

Dale Husband said: Since you attacked John Kwok first on this thread, it seems you are not much better than him. These personal spats should have no place here, and if I moderated this, I would have sent every post from you and John addressing each other rather than the original issue above to the Bathroom Wall. So please knock it off, both of you!

Rilke's granddaughter said: John, you spent dozens of emails to his colleagues asking them to intercede for you. You tried to blackmail him into giving you expensive camera equipment. You whined and cried about your banning for months on other sites. You didn't do it deliberately to provoke him John, you did it because, as Icthy says. you're not well. Hell, you review books you've never read; you cyberstalk women; you get your psychological revenge by threatening to put people in your "novels" and then killing them. These are unhealthy things. John. You're a joke on the intertubes. You really need help.

John Kwok said: Myers is a jackass and I decided deliberately to provoke him. But at least he's a very intelligent one who often does make sense. The same can't be said for you:

Rilke's granddaughter said:

Karen S. said: I guess if you don't like John's comments you don't have to read them.

Occasionally, John's comments contain information I'm interested in. But wading through their dull, eternally-repetitive, somewhat... turgid content is wearing. John's problem (if I may speak frankly) is that he writes EXACTLY like a creationist idiot. And on topics other than evolution and ID, it appears that he might be one (look him up at Rational Wiki, for example; or some of the hilarious attempts he made to threaten PZ Myers). John is a very troubled soul.

Dale, I normally leave John alone. But he's a cyberstalker of women, and that bears watching. Do you enjoy him constantly whining about his latest blog-banning?

Rilke's granddaughter said: Dale, I normally leave John alone. But he's a cyberstalker of women, and that bears watching. Do you enjoy him constantly whining about his latest blog-banning?

Dale Husband said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Dale, I normally leave John alone. But he's a cyberstalker of women, and that bears watching. Do you enjoy him constantly whining about his latest blog-banning?

It's not about what I enjoy or don't enjoy, but about what is appropriate. Which is why I admonished both of you.

Dale Husband said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Dale, I normally leave John alone. But he's a cyberstalker of women, and that bears watching. Do you enjoy him constantly whining about his latest blog-banning?

It's not about what I enjoy or don't enjoy, but about what is appropriate. Which is why I admonished both of you.

John Kwok said: Now the real reason for RG's harassment of me comes out. The trouble with her line of thinking - and you know this DH - I haven't been involved in cyberstalking of women elsewhere at a popular social networking site, and none of the women I do know would make this bizarre accusation, especially the one I am currently dating:

Dale Husband said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Dale, I normally leave John alone. But he's a cyberstalker of women, and that bears watching. Do you enjoy him constantly whining about his latest blog-banning?

It's not about what I enjoy or don't enjoy, but about what is appropriate. Which is why I admonished both of you.

Dale Husband said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Dale, I normally leave John alone. But he's a cyberstalker of women, and that bears watching. Do you enjoy him constantly whining about his latest blog-banning?

It's not about what I enjoy or don't enjoy, but about what is appropriate. Which is why I admonished both of you.

John Kwok said: And no, I did not use the social networking site in question to find my date. We met in person last summer, long before I knew we were both members of the same site:

John Kwok said: Now the real reason for RG's harassment of me comes out. The trouble with her line of thinking - and you know this DH - I haven't been involved in cyberstalking of women elsewhere at a popular social networking site, and none of the women I do know would make this bizarre accusation, especially the one I am currently dating:

Dale Husband said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Dale, I normally leave John alone. But he's a cyberstalker of women, and that bears watching. Do you enjoy him constantly whining about his latest blog-banning?

It's not about what I enjoy or don't enjoy, but about what is appropriate. Which is why I admonished both of you.

I agree John could write less about things of interest to very few people beside himself. OTOH, I cant see RG's comments add much of value to this thread either. Although I don't know about other threads.

Why not use e-mail?

So anyway, about Myers' so-called theory... a book that contains, as DA would say, a "strange usage of the word information I wasn't previously aware of", actually contains no new information whatsoever.

There's one for Alanis.

Oh dear. Meyer's. Sorry, PZ.

Did any of you even read Dr. Meyer's book?? He addresses all of the above issues in detail. Try reading the book then get back to me for some serious debate!

eq said: Try reading the book then get back to me for some serious debate!

eq said: Did any of you even read Dr. Meyer's book?? He addresses all of the above issues in detail. Try reading the book then get back to me for some serious debate!

Aw, you're too serious MrE. I was amused by the "serious debate" remark. Every time I hear a creationist say something along such lines I back up, since it's likely to be followed by the heel of his boot planted firmly midway between my hip joints.

MrG said: Aw, you're too serious MrE. I was amused by the "serious debate" remark. Every time I hear a creationist say something along such lines I back up, since it's likely to be followed by the heel of his boot planted firmly midway between my hip joints.

eq said: Did any of you even read Dr. Meyer's book?? He addresses all of the above issues in detail. Try reading the book then get back to me for some serious debate!

eq said: Did any of you even read Dr. Meyer's book?? He addresses all of the above issues in detail. Try reading the book then get back to me for some serious debate!