Australian Reply to Hubert Yockey’s Critique of ID

Though Yockey's bias against ID is overflowing, it affirms to me that his critique of the origin of life is by someone who is sympathetic to naturalism. His theoretical background in physics and information theory have caused him to be negative on OOL research. He rightly says biological information is non-material. This leads to the question, "if biological information is non-material, can it ultimately then have a material source". Phil Johnson rightly identified the problem, and the answer is, no. One can demonstrate mathematically through algorithmic information theory that it would lead to a contradiction to assume material causes create large scale artifacts of specified information. Salvador scordova

Thanks for the post. I have heard quotes that Yockey declares that "IC didn't happen." Thanks for saving me the need to buy the book to find out what he really said. Kinda a cool solution, use a different definition, and prove that the different definition didn't happen. Very smooth. bFast

Hey Dr. Yockey, If life didn't arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes. (Joe's 1st Law of common sense) I truly believe that most people who are "against" ID do so because of the implications- ie religious implications- of the inference. I say embrace the inference and reject the religious nonsense... Joseph