Intelligent Design

Coyne compares Dembski to a Holocaust denier

Spread the love

University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne twice emailed the academic who invited Dr. William Dembski to speak at a UC seminar on August 13, comparing Dr. Dembski to a Holocaust denier: “Would you invite a Holocaust denier to speak to a history department? For this is exactly what you are doing by inviting Dembski… And yes, seeing lies purveyed as truth, and creationists paraded out as if they were academically respectable researchers, is painful to me, and in similar ways that Holocaust denialists are painful to Jews like me.”

The quotation above is a conflation of Jerry Coyne’s remarks in two separate emails, but as readers of Coyne’s latest post on the seminar can readily verify for themselves, it accurately conveys the tenor of Coyne’s thought.

In his email protesting UC’s inviting Dr. William Dembski to speak at its upcoming “Computations in Science” seminar, Coyne also stated that “the ‘no free lunch’ theorem he’s going to talk about has been debunked several times.” In an earlier post on the seminar, he provided references: “(see here, here, and here for the debunking).” Unfortunately, all of these critiques are over a decade old. And they’re not even the best critiques: Coyne neglected to cite the work of Felsenstein (see here and here) or Häggström, (see here) or Meester (see here). In his latest post, Coyne belatedly mentions the work of Felsenstein, but only because one of his regular readers alerted him to it. Nor does he mention the fact that most of these criticisms already have been addressed by Drs. William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II in their 2009 paper, Life’s Conservation Law: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information (in Bruce Gordon and William Dembski, editors, The Nature of Nature, Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2009 – see especially pages 5, 8, and 30-32 of the online version of the paper).

It gets worse. Apparently Professor Coyne doesn’t even know who authored the ‘No Free Lunch’ theorem, in the first place. In both his latest post and his earlier post, Coyne refers to “Dembski’s NFL theorem,” even though Dembski himself has never claimed to be the author: indeed, he explicitly credits William Macready and David Wolpert in the 2009 paper he co-authored with Robert Marks II: “In the 1990s, William Macready and David Wolpert proved several theorems to which they gave the descriptive tag ‘No Free Lunch’ or ‘NFL'” (p. 23, online version).

I might add that as Professor Coyne has no mathematical qualifications whatsoever, he is hardly qualified to express a professional opinion about the ‘No Free Lunch’ theorem, let alone declare it “debunked.”

In his first email to the academic who invited Dr. Dembski to speak at the University of Chicago seminar, Professor Coyne concluded on a scathing note:

It does not speak well of you or your seminar to invite a purveyor of creationism to speak to an academic audience at Chicago, and then characterize that creationism as an “intelligent opinion.” It is exactly as intelligent as homeopathy or the view that the Holocaust is a ruse. Your invitation to Dembski is an embarrassment to this University.

However, it appears that the academic who invited Dr. Dembski to speak at the seminar is a former Ph.D. supervisor of Dembski’s, who is himself Jewish, judging by a remark made by Coyne and by comments left on Coyne’s own post (see here, here and also here). If that is indeed the case, then I find it quite extraordinary that Coyne would write to a fellow Jew in terms like that.

Foot in mouth, anyone? Coyne should immediately apologize for his unprofessional behavior to Dr. William Dembski and to his former supervisor.

42 Replies to “Coyne compares Dembski to a Holocaust denier

  1. 1
    Chimera says:

    Hardly unexpected to be honest, this is just what many evolutionists are like because of their strong underlying metaphysical beliefs. What’s new ?

  2. 2
    Box says:

    It must be obvious to anyone that, for Coyne and his friends, this is not not a matter of reasonable disagreement, but an apparent case of panic and existential struggle.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:


    we have long seen “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked,” as an attitude or assertion.

    Moral equivalent of a holocaust denier is an outrage and indeed should be apologised for and retracted. This is also attempted outright censorship by well poisoning, an academic crime.

    Further to this, the namecalling, “Creationist,” is also an attempt by a leading Darwinist apologist, to associate Creationism psychologically with Holocaust denial, which is an affront, especially as a very large proportion of those most deeply committed to the protection of the Jewish homeland, and the most reliable ideological allies of the Jewish people today are Bible believing Christians, most of whom would be classed as Creationists.

    Dr Coyne has stepped beyond the pale of civil conduct, and in any jurisdiction other than the US (with is deeply messed up libel and lander law), such remarks would be actionable — for cause.


    PS: I would like to see Dr Coyne et al provide empirically grounded evidence that FSCO/I can and does originate per our observation, by blind chance and mechanical necessity. Unless and until that is done, we are fully entitled to point out the abundant, readily accessible only known source, design. And, to highlight the implications of the needle in haystack search across config spaces — namely, a supertask to search within accessible atomic resources of solar system (500 bits) or observed cosmos (1,000 bits) — leading to injection of active information by an intelligence as the most plausible explanation of the solution to such a challenge, is warranted by simple and accessible mathematics. For instance, 2^1,000 = 1.07*10^301, and the search limit of 10^80 atoms at 10^14 searches per second for 10^17 s gives 10^111 tries. If each atom of our observed cosmos were given 1,000 coins tossed and examined 10^14 times per second (a rate comparable to fast ionic reactions and generous for organic reactions) we would have 10^111 observed trials, a factor of 10^190 short. As FSCO/I requires correctly, specifically arranged and coupled components (WLOG these can be represented as strings, given what AutoCAD does etc), there is a tight constraint on possible configs to be functional and so we have the islands of function in a sea of non function that for instance we can observe for protein folding and functioning domains in amino acid space. With organic chemistry space beyond. A blind search for needles that are deeply isolated in a haystack of that order that is on such a relatively minute scope, is not credibly plausible as an answer. Intelligences compose designs based on insight and creative imagination, which is most likely not a Turing computational process — i.e. we have an oracle machine. I fail to see how pointing out this or the like, can be civilly compared to holocaust denialism.

  4. 4
    Andre says:

    Right so a biological system (me) passes his information to another biological system (my wife) and through a list of processes creates a brand new biological system (my son), this news system has both my wife and my information his unique system and all this is the result of pure dumb luck over 3 billion years of evolution?

    Oh ok Jerry whatever fancies your boat!

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: In reply to Dr Coyne’s challenge and implied moral accusation [ –> BTW, how does he ground morality on his worldview, other than on might and manipulation make ‘right’ . . . ], I raise the warning words of Plato in The Laws Bk X, c 360 BC, on the issue of evolutionary materialist philosophy turned into a worldview and cultural agenda:


    >> [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[ –> i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [[ –> In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily “scientific” view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . .

    [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ –> Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[ –> such amoral factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . >>

    I put it to defenders of evolutionary materialism that this behaviour as headlined in the OP — well-poisoning, slanderous censorship and bigotry — constitutes a case in point of ruthless, domineering amoral factionalism that seeks to crush, abuse and manipulate, rather than live in a civil fashion in accord with duties of care to truth, reasonableness, fairness and innocent reputation. KF

  6. 6
    DavidD says:

    Why would anyone be surprised here ? Most of the leadership within the Evolutionary religious crusade starts out with a career at the bottom and goes down from there. There is no other alternative but new lows from then on.

  7. 7
    humbled says:

    Coyne is headed, if not already there, in the same direction to that of Dawkins. Started out with some interesting, albeit flawed, arguments but his blind adherence to materialism, and his hate for all things God, has impaired his ability to think critically. His posts these days amount to nothing more than emotional rants, flawed arguments, poor reasoning and terrible science.

    One issue I have noticed with a number of these older scientists is that they never have anything new to offer / argue. In fact a lot of the arguments they put forward are old and thoroughly refuted. It is almost embarrassing listening to them, especially when we all realise they haven’t kept up with the latest advancements and developments in related fields of study.

  8. 8
    Silver Asiatic says:

    in similar ways that Holocaust denialists are painful to Jews like me.

    I can only conclude that Holocaust denial must not be very painful to him because there is nothing that Mr Dembski teaches that causes reasonable people that much pain.

    That kind of rhetoric only cheapens the Holocaust and is disrespectful to the Jewish people.

    I also don’t know what to make of the spectacle of the ‘atheist Jew’ except that it seems a misuse of the idea of Judiasm as if it is limited to an ethnicity alone.

  9. 9
    DiEb says:

    It gets worse. Apparently Professor Coyne doesn’t even know who authored the ‘No Free Lunch’ theorem, in the first place.

    You should be aware that there are quite a few NFL theorems out there. Calling one of them “Dembski’s NFL theorem” doesn’t mean to ignore the fact the Wolpert and Macready created the first one, but emphasizes the particular way Dembski uses NFL theorems. His formulations are different from those of Wolpert and Macready!

  10. 10
    awstar says:

    It does not speak well of you or your seminar to invite a purveyor of creationism to speak to an academic audience at Chicago, and then characterize that creationism as an “intelligent opinion.” It is exactly as intelligent as homeopathy or the view that the Holocaust is a ruse. Your invitation to Dembski is an embarrassment to this University.

    Wasn’t the book on creationism written by a Jew?

    Here’s UC’s Medical School’s requirement to act professionally.

    Professional Relationships
    Establishing productive and respectful relationships with patients, faculty, residents, staff, and colleagues is an essential component of providing the best possible health care. To strive for professionalism and kindness in all of my daily encounters, I will:
    1. Maintain appropriate relationships with patients, teachers, peers, residents and faculty.
    2. Treat all members of the UCMC and Pritzker community, patients, and their families with
    respect, compassion, and dignity.
    3. Be mindful to avoid intentionally embarrassing or deriding others.
    4. Provide feedback to others (both colleagues and superiors) in a constructive manner, with the goal of helping them to improve.
    5. Treat those who participate in my education (e.g. standardized patients) with dignity and respect.
    6. Actively work to create an atmosphere in classrooms, clinical settings and in laboratories that is conducive to optimal, interactive learning.
    7. Help and support my peers during difficult times in their academic, professional, and personal lives.
    8. Attend to my own physical and emotional well-being.

    So who is the real embarrassment to UC?

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    As to Coyne’s remark:

    “Would you invite a Holocaust denier to speak to a history department? For this is exactly what you are doing by inviting Dembski… And yes, seeing lies purveyed as truth, and creationists paraded out as if they were academically respectable researchers, is painful to me, and in similar ways that Holocaust denialists are painful to Jews like me.”

    This statement is interesting. The reason this is interesting is on several levels. First off, as historian Richard Weikart has meticulously noted in Hitler’s Ethic, Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ reasoning provided the ‘moral ethic’ for the holocaust.

    Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress Paperback – April 12, 2011
    Excerpt: In this fascinating follow-up to From Darwin to Hitler, Richard Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating that the infamous dictator’s immorality flowed from a seemingly coherent ethic. Hitler was inspired by evolutionary theory to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race, and this ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics, euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination. This groundbreaking study provides truly fresh insights into one of the darkest chapters of the twentieth century as well as the field of evolutionary studies.

    Of related note, David Klinghoffer, who himself has adopted the Jewish faith, recently asked Coyne this hypothetical question about the holocaust:

    For Jerry Coyne a Hypothetical Choice: You May Knock on One and Only One Door – David Klinghoffer July 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Now imagine you’re Jerry Coyne and you’ve been transported back about seventy years into the past, to Poland under German occupation.

    You’re on the run from the Nazis who don’t care whether, as a Jew, you’re a believer or an evangelizing atheist. You have the choice of two doors to knock on: one belonging to a Polish scientist, or even better an evolutionary scientist; the other to a priest or nun.

    Time is running out. You hear the scuff of pursuing boots behind you. What’s your choice, Jerry? I encourage Coyne’s readers to press for an answer.

    ,,,Who would Coyne ask???

  12. 12
    Neil Rickert says:

    Two points:

    (1) I strongly disagree with Jerry Coyne on this. The “No Free Lunch” theorems grew out of AI research and the importance of search in AI. I do not see any problem with inviting Dembski to talk about his own use of the NFL theorems to a U. of C. AI group. And, given that Dembski is a Ph.D. graduate of U. of C., this seem particularly appropriate.

    Even if Dembski is misusing NFL (as I believe he is), this still makes sense. Whether or not Dembski is misusing NFL is a question for biology. The issue for AI is how he uses NFL, not whether that use is appropriate. So I see Coyne’s complaints as out of line.

    (2) Can’t we avoid the personal attacks? Do you really need that “sinks to a new low” in your title? I see your title as out of line.

  13. 13
    vjtorley says:

    Hi Neil,

    OK. I’ve shortened it.

  14. 14
    stjones says:

    Coyne and Dawkins are running scared and reduced to buffoonery. Their own academic bastion under attack, they make absurd pronouncements about disciplines (mathematics and philosophy, respectively) where they have no credibility. Maybe it’s because they see a day when they will no longer have credibility in their own field.

  15. 15
    phoodoo says:

    Really Neil, saying Coyne has sunken to a new low is a personal attack?

    Wouldn’t that be the equivalent of saying you are making a personal attack by saying the title is “out of line”?

    Pointing out Coyne’s personal attacks is not in and of itself sinking to his level.

  16. 16
    Heartlander says:

    I realize Coyne’s birthday is Dec. 30, but Dr. Dembski should save this message and send it to him when appropriate:

    Love, Ahmadinejad

  17. 17
    Axel says:

    ‘It must be obvious to anyone that, for Coyne and his friends, this is not not a matter of reasonable disagreement, but an apparent case of panic and existential struggle.’ – Box #2

    Anyone else fancy a stiletto between the ribs?

    What is it about Chicago? Such shame and ignominy … from the mean streets of Al Capone and his speak-easies to Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys at UC. Will even Dembski’s presence be enough to exorcise the place? Take some garlic, a small wooden cross and some holy water with you, Professor. Just a precaution.

  18. 18
    jstanley01 says:

    Neil Rickert @ 12

    (2) Can’t we avoid the personal attacks? Do you really need that “sinks to a new low” in your title? I see your title as out of line.

    One point.

    My objection to the old title does not revolve around whether its metaphor, which likened someone doing evil to a sinking ship, can be correctly characterized as a “personal attack.”

    My objections is more along technical lines. That when morality and ethics are set metaphorically in terms of up (good) and down (evil), it is impossible for Coyne or anyone of his ilk to fall off the floor.

  19. 19
    conceptualinertia says:

    As a Jew, I find Coyne’s comparison of evolution denial with holocaust denial to be particularly ridiculous.

    The reason why holocaust denial is offensive is because you are by definition calling all of the survivors liars and participants in a vast conspiracy. There were hundreds of thousands of people who experienced the holocaust and survived. Holocaust denial turns these victims of a terrible persecution into greatest criminal hucksters who ever lived.

    Evolution denial is a disagreement as to the weight of the evidence and the explantory power of a theory. By denying evolution, no ID advocate is calling all evolutionary biologists liars or cads. It is simply saying that they are mistaken. It is a matter over which there can be civil disagreement.

  20. 20
    OldArmy94 says:

    And, I might add that even IF we are calling Darwinists liars, then that is hardly comparable. But, I agree with your sentiment that it is vincible ignorance that drives the average Darwinist.

  21. 21
    Collin says:

    Let’s pretend the majority of biologists adopted creationism. Would that be as bad as another holocaust in Jerry Coyne’s mind? If so, I’d say he’s a tad too emotional about this issue. Unless, of course, he is afraid that he’d have to believe in God, which terrifies him. Maybe, then, he is exactly as terrified as he ought to be. However, he should consider that Jesus is a forgiving God and that believing in Him isn’t so bad.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    CI, I’d amend that to one reason if you don’t mind, there are ever so many others. Such as, the lessons of history paid for in the most precious commodity, blood — rivers of it in this case [6 mn Jews, 5 mn others in death camps etc, about 20 Mn Russians many deliberately starved and frozen to death [“only” ~ 5 mn on the battlefield] — and there was a plan to depopulate Ukraine], was it 40 mn nearly altogether in the Europe-centred fighting, a devastated continent. The destructive nature of nihilist totalitarianism disguised as “science” and the like. The existential danger of devaluing the fellow human being, through racism, eugenics, abortion on demand, deeming people social burdens unworthy of life, etc. What the agitprop of hate can do. How patently absurd ideologies can seize power in even advanced and educated countries. How economic crisis and myths taken as facts feeding the politics of hate can do. The fecklessness of people unwilling to acknowledge dangers before they are on them and it is too late to stop the juggernaut. And so forth. All the things we seem ever so determined NOT to learn, and refuse to see that if we don’t learn from History we are doomed to relive its worst chapters. We are, collectively, mad. KF

  23. 23
    Joe says:

    Collin, before one adopts Creation one has to understand it. 🙂

  24. 24
    jstanley01 says:

    These so-called educational institutions, like where Coyne enjoys tenure, need to be massively pared down, snipped back, and cut off from the teats of the government. Why in the world, in an age when two or three outstanding professors could handle the lectures for the undergraduate biology courses of the entire country, does the academy need all this redundancy?

    Subsidizing the likes of the University of Chicago and its biology department by way of federally-guaranteed student loans — debts that will burden students and their families for the foreseeable future in a way that no generation of college grads has ever been burdened before — taken on to pay the institution’s massively-bloated tuition rates, is beyond ridiculous.

    Especially so when the ill-gotten gains are expended in large part to keep creepy individuals like this Coyne fellow — who have clearly missed their true calling as fast-food restaurant manager/tyrants — ensconced in gated neighborhoods, the affluence of which belies their lack of any real productivity or other contribution to society.

    It is beyond ridiculous I tell you. Beyond. Ridiculous. Wake up, America.

  25. 25

    Fred Astaire is looking for a special girl in London among the millions of women who live there. It’s “like looking for a needle in a haystack.”

    Is Astaire suggesting that his girl is a tool made of steel, has a hole in her head and has a sharp tip suitable for penetrating fabrics? That she possesses other attributes of needles? Is he hinting that the woman of London have been cut, dried and stored for consumption of grazing cattle, horses, goats and sheep? That they’re useful as animal bedding?

    None of the above. The simile is at a higher level of abstraction: his girl stands in the same relation to the women of London as do needles in relationship to enclosing haystacks: they are hard to find. No other similarity is intended or implied.

  26. 26
    vjtorley says:

    Hi kairosfocus,

    Thank you very much for your comments. They really hit the nail on the head. It is indeed deeply offensive when creationists and/or ID supporters are compared to Holocaust deniers – especially when the comparison is made by people who insist that we’re nothing more than meat machines.

  27. 27
    vjtorley says:

    Hi everyone,

    Professor Larry Moran has a post up on Coyne’s latest actions:

  28. 28
    Dionisio says:

    Collin @ 21

    However, he should consider that Jesus is a [The] forgiving God and that believing in Him isn’t so bad.

    Actually, it’s infinitely much better than best.

  29. 29
    Andre says:

    Well if ID people are like holocaust deniers then it can safely be said that the average materialist is like a Jihadist…..

    Convert or die! It is plain for everyone to see that if people like Coyne where in charge of the world every religious person would be dead now …….

    I guess that is why atheist regimes in the 20th century has such a dismal humanitarian record….. What’s the figure 158 000 000 people dead at the hands of atheist dictators?

  30. 30
    kairosfocus says:

    RB: A doubly intelligent search motivated by the general mutual seeking of men and women for one another is first not comparable to blind searches in haystacks. Second, such a search is utterly disparate from the invidious, well poisoning association that Coyne made, which is utterly irrelevant save it reflects the degree of deep seated hostility and loathing involved. He has tried to associate Dr Dembski with the taint of one of the ugliest events in modern history, and he has also sought to do so with people who are simply not to be compared to racist genocidal Nazis. But, that does precisely align with the sort of Village Atheist 2.0 smears that are commonly projected by New Atheism spokesmen, smears that many of them seem not to realise are implicitly anti-Semitic, as came out in Boteach’s dignified reply to Hitchins’ ill advised projections against Jews in Israel . . . and indeed I don’t doubt that some of that sentiment lies behind how many are willing to entertain the propagandistic smear that the state of Israel is an Apartheid state in the teeth of blatantly obvious easily accessible evidence that there is no legalised racism in Israel (which is what Apartheid was). This sort of scapegoating stereotyping and bigotry — precisely as the history of Nazism and that of Stalinism show — are precursors to grave injustices. But then, the evidence is, that collectively, we are insane by virtue of insistently insisting on refusing to learn painful lessons from the past. KF

  31. 31
    kairosfocus says:


    While Moran is willing to be entertained and presumes that Dembski et al are guilty of fatal errors, I find his easy equating of design theory with Religion by way of failing to correct the “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo” smear, having highlighted separation of Uni and Religion as a key motive for Coyne.

    The design inference stands or falls on its own as a matter of inductive reasoning backed by the sort of analysis that grounds population sampling in statistics.

    Until one can reasonably show on empirical evidence that FSCO/I can and does emerge from blind chance and mechanical necessity on our observation, one is not entitled to indulge in dismissive speculation about motives. For, to motive monger without addressing the inductive, empirical challenge in the teeth of the commonplace experience that the source of FSCO/I is design, is to set up and knock over a strawman. One that, by virtue of the patent loathing for “Religion,” is tainted with ad hominems. Where, Coyne’s smears are in effect an extension of that pattern. (And of course, Weikart’s summary of the evidence on the way Darwinist thought came to be integral to the social-ideological basis for Nazism, has been repeatedly shouted down, but not actually cogently refuted.)

    BTW, Dembski’s chat and interaction on NFL in 2002, here is well worth a glance:

    If I had to say that NFL is about one thing, it is about distinguishing real possibilities from mere conceptual possibilities. Specified complexity is the key in this regard, and things get dicey when specified complexity becomes an issue in biology . . . . we have some basic intuitions about intelligence. And deliberation certainly seems part of it in our ordinary experience. Yet when we try to make sense of intelligence in a scientifically rigorous way, it seems that we have to do some operationalizing of the concept. This happens in physics, for instance, when intuitive notions of energy get replaced with more precise notions, but also notions that may not seem so intuitively obvious.

    For me, the key defining feature of intelligence is the ability to output specified complexity. There is some precedent for this in the literature. Also, there is a sense in which intelligence is a primitive notion. Indeed, we can’t even do science without it, and our understanding of the world depends on the world’s intelligibility. But here it seems we’re back to a more intuitive notion.

    At any rate, I’m not sure that we do ourselves much good trying to define intelligence too closely. I don’t mean this as an evasion, but all dictionaries are finite, and all definitions must ultimately circle back on themselves. I think the important thing is to resist a reductive account of intelligence where intelligence becomes something crass like computations or emergent physical processes. And regardless what view of intelligence one takes, specified complexity still is well-defined and a basis for scientific inquiry . . . .

    When we find specified complexity, say, in the genetic code, we know that an intelligence was involved. But how much more do we know? It seems the best we can do is see where the specified complexity first becomes evident. But where specified complexity first becomes evident need not say anything about where it was first inputted. An example I give is of a computer program in which random numbers are generated for a while and then suddenly sublime poetry gets outputted. At what point was the specified complexity “put in” in Donald’s manner of speaking? Well, it was put in in the writing of the program and not at the point where the output of the program jumped from random gibberish to sublime poetry. But without the program in hand, and if we didn’t know we were dealing with a program, we might just as well think that the specified complexity was inputted at the point we saw the output jump from random gibberish to poetry. So it seems the best we can do scientifically is trace informational pathways (i.e., pathways of specified complexity) back as far as possible. But at some point we shall always reach a discontinuity or boundary condition at which we can’t push the specified complexity further back. The Big Bang would be the ultimate discontinuity/boundary condition in this regard, but it may just be that in practice we can only trace it back within the history of planet earth . . . .

    [in response to a suggestion: Is it not true that “the ability to choose with intent so as to produce function” is fundamental to any concept of intelligence?] the ability to choose is fundamental, but I think requiring a function is too specific. Certainly in our experience intelligences act on purposes. But it seems that purposes can be without function. Take beauty, for instance. An artist may create an object for no function (at least not in the mechanical sense), but simply for the joy of it. There would be a purpose here, but no function, at least not in the sense in which the term is used in biology. And what about a capricious intelligence that does things so that they don’t seem to have any purpose. “Darwin’s God,” which is getting a lot of play these days, might be such an intelligence. I’m not saying that natural selection is an intelligence substitute. But Darwin’s God, when cited by people like Ken Miller, is the intelligence that set up the system of nature in which Darwin’s mechanism could play itself out. But that mechanism is crude and wasteful and violent. What would such a God/intelligence’s purposes be? I’ll leave this question hanging . . . .

    Natural laws simply don’t have the information in them to produce specified complexity. Michael Polanyi and Hubert Yockey have been making such arguments for some time. So the issue is the contraints in terms of boundary conditions, initial conditions, and fundamental constants. And just where those constraints are inputted is not clear. What is clear is when we become aware that such constraints embodying specified complexity become evident. So the focus needs to be on where we first see specified complexity and how far we can trace it back . . . .

    [Also, this seems a key point:] The problem is that if some form of mind or intelligence is not metaphysically basic, one never recovers it later . . . .

    {In response to: Are not natu[r]al laws a form of Kolmogorov algorithmic compression? Compression is possible because of a high degree of ordering rather than a large amount of information.:] I think I’ve seen John Barrow take that approach to natural laws. And Ernst Mach, with his 19th century positivism also took that approach, seeing natural laws, and mathematics in particular as a way of summarizing (i.e., compressing) vast amounts of data. But in the act of compression, let’s not forget, a lot of information is lost. So compression is not a way of generating novel information. Natural laws just don’t contain much information. You can’t, for instance, from a universal Turing machine reconstruct a Shakespearean sonnet. Universal turing machines can be extremely simple (Greg Chaitin has some particular simple ones, and Steve Wolfram has some simple ones in the form of cellular automata). But for UTMs to do anything interesting, they need to be programmed . . . .

    [In reply to: what about the information being selected from the environment by a natural algorithm versus an intelligent designer. Choise merely is selecting from available options, whether it be intelligent or not. Algorithms do not have information in them but neither does ID.:] It’s an interesting question just how much information is in the environment for a Darwinian mechanism to try to exploit. The problem at this time seems too complex even to get a handle on it empirically. That’s where my appeals to conservation of information and “no free lunch” come in — even if the Darwinian mechanism is the conduit for outputting specified complexity, it first had to be properly programmed. But there’s the other question of whether the Darwinian mechanism is indeed the conduit for specified complexity witnessed in biological systems. Here is where irreducible complexity comes in (ch. 5 of NFL). The only way around irreducible complexity is through indirect Darwinian pathways, but as I’ve argued lately on ISCID, this breaks down for lack of causal specificity.

    (WmAD’s reply to a Talk Origins hostile review of the NFL argument here, is also worth a read.)


  32. 32
    Box says:

    Larry Moran does not object to Coyne comparing Dembski to a holocaust denier. Larry regards the comparison quite apt. “In fact”, Larry continues to build on the comparison, “I think it might be informative for history students to hear the views of a holocaust denier (…)”. Further Larry speaks of “fatal flaws” in Dembski’s “speculations”, without any reference.
    So, set aside his willingness to debate, illustrated by his acceptance of “holocaust deniers” speaking at universities, Moran isn’t doing much better than Coyne.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Not too many years ago on UD, I remember materialists regularly arguing that information was not ‘really’ in life. Arguing that life was ‘merely chemistry’. And in the materialistic worldview, information in life would have to be ’emergent’ from, secondary to, and even illusory of, a materialistic basis. In fact, I think Arcadia_Bogart recently still argued that line of thought (i.e. that life was ‘merely chemistry). More than once in the past these following cites were used in response to the materialists’ claim that information in life was merely illusory:

    Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life – Hubert P. Yockey, 2005
    Excerpt: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”;ss=exc

    Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life – Hubert P. Yockey, 2005
    “The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter. If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” (Let me provide the unstated conclusion:) But they don’t.

    Every Bit Digital: DNA’s Programming Really Bugs Some ID Critics – Casey Luskin
    Excerpt: “There’s a very recognizable digital code of the kind that electrical engineers rediscovered in the 1950s that maps the codes for sequences of DNA onto expressions of proteins.”

    The denial that information was ‘really’ in life was so strong from materialists that the following court decision actually made headlines on UD:

    United States Supreme Court Holds that Life is Based on Information – December 21, 2013
    ,,” Sequences of DNA nucleotides contain the information necessary to create strings of amino acids, which in turn are used in the body to build proteins.”,,
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2111 (2013)

    For the most part, materialists on UD no longer argue against information ‘really’ being in life. Now, on the rare occasions that they do, I usually just use this following cite to refute the claim that information is not ‘really’ in life,,

    Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute – video
    Quote from preceding video:
    “The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA.”
    Sriram Kosuri PhD. – Wyss Institute

    Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram – Sebastian Anthony – August 17, 2012
    Excerpt: A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.,,, Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored.

    It is certainly hard to argue, and be taken seriously, against such a astonishing result produced by George Church’s team at the Wyss Institute. Thus, for the most part, the fact that information ‘really’ is in life is not even debated any more on UD.

    Now as to the more important question of, ‘Is information primary to material, or secondary to material, in physical reality?’ i.e. ‘Which comes first, material or information?’ Or better yet, ‘Is information emergent from a material basis or is, of all things that could be heretical to a materialist, material emergent from an information basis?’

    To answer that question it is important to note that information simply does not fit easily in the materialistic worldview. For the die-hard materialist of old, (long before the new, I don’t have to show you no stinking empirical support, multiverse materialist came along),

    We don’t need no stinking badges! – video

    ,,,long before the new, ‘I don’t need no stinking empirical support’, multiverse materialist came along, if something could not be physically weighed or measured is was not considered real for him. But information does not comport to this materialistic view of reality. i.e. There simply is no weight or length to the number seven. Nor does the number seven reside in any particular location in the universe. Berlinski puts the relation between material and information like this:

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.

    As well, Dr. Dembski, in his forthcoming book, is going to rigorously develop the argument, sans John Wheeler, that information is foundational to physical reality .

    Conversations with William Dembski–The Thesis of Being as Communion – video

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    I much look forward to Dr. Dembski’s book.

    As well, there is a ’empirical way’ to show that information is primary, and that material is secondary, in the hierarchy of physical reality.

    In this endeavor it is important to learn that ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.

    And by using this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘spooky action at a distance quantum information channel’ of quantum entanglement, physicists have reduced material to quantum information. (of note: energy is completely reduced to quantum information, whereas matter is semi-completely reduced, with the caveat being that matter can be reduced to energy via e=mc2).

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.

    How Teleportation Will Work –
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”

    In fact an entire human can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:

    Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video

    Will Human Teleportation Ever Be Possible?
    As experiments in relocating particles advance, will we be able to say, “Beam me up, Scotty” one day soon? By Corey S. Powell|Monday, June 16, 2014
    Excerpt: Note a fascinating common thread through all these possibilities. Whether you regard yourself as a pile of atoms, a DNA sequence, a series of sensory inputs or an elaborate computer file, in all of these interpretations you are nothing but a stack of data. According to the principle of unitarity, quantum information is never lost. Put them together, and those two statements lead to a staggering corollary: At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics say you are immortal.

    Thus not only is information not reducible to a energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality both energy and matter ultimately reduce to a information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism (John1:1).

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    More intriguing still, this quantum entanglement/information channel, by which both matter and energy can ultimately be reduced to information, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale. In every DNA and protein molecule.

    Quantum entanglement in hot systems – 2011
    Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules.

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.

    Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009
    Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.
    per daily galaxy

    DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011
    Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property.

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video

    Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73
    Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state.

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way.
    Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from.
    To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.


    Along the interesting finding of ‘quantum protein folding’, one of the more interesting proofs that quantum information resides long the entirety of the DNA molecule is by taking a look at the method by which DNA accomplishes repair before cell replication.

    Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion – March 2010
    Excerpt: “How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field,” he said. “It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It’s akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour.” Dr. Bennett Van Houten – of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot.

    DNA repair machines ‘Fixing every pothole in America before the next rush hour’ is analogous to the traveling salesman problem. The traveling salesman problem is a NP-hard (read: very hard) problem in computer science; The problem involves finding the shortest possible route between cities, visiting each city only once. ‘Traveling salesman problems’ are notorious for keeping supercomputers busy for days.

    NP-hard problem – Examples
    Excerpt: Another example of an NP-hard problem is the optimization problem of finding the least-cost cyclic route through all nodes of a weighted graph. This is commonly known as the traveling salesman problem.

    Yet it is exactly this type of ‘traveling salesman problem’ that quantum computers excel at:

    Speed Test of Quantum Versus Conventional Computing: Quantum Computer Wins – May 8, 2013
    Excerpt: quantum computing is, “in some cases, really, really fast.”
    McGeoch says the calculations the D-Wave excels at involve a specific combinatorial optimization problem, comparable in difficulty to the more famous “travelling salesperson” problem that’s been a foundation of theoretical computing for decades.,,,
    “This type of computer is not intended for surfing the internet, but it does solve this narrow but important type of problem really, really fast,” McGeoch says. “There are degrees of what it can do. If you want it to solve the exact problem it’s built to solve, at the problem sizes I tested, it’s thousands of times faster than anything I’m aware of. If you want it to solve more general problems of that size, I would say it competes — it does as well as some of the best things I’ve looked at. At this point it’s merely above average but shows a promising scaling trajectory.”

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Since it is obvious that there is not a material CPU (central processing unit) in the DNA, or cell, busily computing answers to this monster logistic problem, in a purely ‘material’ fashion, by crunching bits, then it is readily apparent that this monster ‘traveling salesman problem’, for DNA repair, is somehow being computed by ‘non-local’ quantum computation within the cell and/or within DNA;

    That quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the non-local quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,

    etc.. etc..

    In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    ,,,And here is the evidence that quantum information is in fact ‘conserved’;,,,

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.

    Also of note:

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.

    So where does this ‘conserved’ quantum information go upon death? Well, I think the implications as to where it goes are fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.

    Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description)

    Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    In salute to Robin Williams

    What Dreams May Come Ending Theme – music

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    supplemental notes:

    ‘classical’ digital information, such as what William Dembski and Robert Marks demonstrated the conservation of,,,

    Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II

    classical ‘digital’ information is found to be a subset of ‘non-local’ (i.e. beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”

    Also of note:

    Are humans really beings of light?
    Excerpt: “We now know, today, that man is essentially a being of light.”,,, “There are about 100,000 chemical reactions happening in every cell each second. The chemical reaction can only happen if the molecule which is reacting is excited by a photon… Once the photon has excited a reaction it returns to the field and is available for more reactions… We are swimming in an ocean of light.”

    Biophotons – The Light In Our Cells – Marco Bischof – March 2005
    Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism.

    Proteins ‘ring like bells’ – June 2014
    As far back as 1948, Erwin Schrödinger—the inventor of modern quantum mechanics—published the book “What is life?”
    In it, he suggested that quantum mechanics and coherent ringing might be at the basis of all biochemical reactions. At the time, this idea never found wide acceptance because it was generally assumed that vibrations in protein molecules would be too rapidly damped.
    Now, scientists at the University of Glasgow have proven he was on the right track after all.
    Using modern laser spectroscopy, the scientists have been able to measure the vibrational spectrum of the enzyme lysozyme, a protein that fights off bacteria. They discovered that this enzyme rings like a bell with a frequency of a few terahertz or a million-million hertz. Most remarkably, the ringing involves the entire protein, meaning the ringing motion could be responsible for the transfer of energy across proteins.
    The experiments show that the ringing motion lasts for only a picosecond or one millionth of a millionth of a second. Biochemical reactions take place on a picosecond timescale and the scientists believe that evolution has optimised enzymes to ring for just the right amount of time. Any shorter, and biochemical reactions would become inefficient as energy is drained from the system too quickly. Any longer and the enzyme would simple oscillate forever: react, unreact, react, unreact, etc. The picosecond ringing time is just perfect for the most efficient reaction.
    These tiny motions enable proteins to morph quickly so they can readily bind with other molecules, a process that is necessary for life to perform critical biological functions like absorbing oxygen and repairing cells.
    The findings have been published in Nature Communications.
    Klaas Wynne, Chair in Chemical Physics at the University of Glasgow said: “This research shows us that proteins have mechanical properties that are highly unexpected and geared towards maximising efficiency. Future work will show whether these mechanical properties can be used to understand the function of complex living systems.”

    Strange! Humans Glow in Visible Light – Charles Q. Choi – July 22, 2009
    Schematic illustration of experimental setup that found the human body, especially the face, emits visible light in small quantities that vary during the day. B is one of the test subjects. The other images show the weak emissions of visible light during totally dark conditions. The chart corresponds to the images and shows how the emissions varied during the day. The last image (I) is an infrared image of the subject showing heat emissions.

    ‘I was in a body and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head. It had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And ‘it’ was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.’ –
    Vicky Noratuk
    Coast to Coast – Vicki’s Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3

    Scientific hypotheses on the origin of the body image of the Shroud – 2010
    Excerpt: for example, if we consider the density of radiation that we used to color a single square centimeter of linen, to reproduce the entire image of the Shroud with a single flash of light would require fourteen thousand lasers firing simultaneously each on a different area of linen. In other words, it would take a laser light source the size of an entire building.

  38. 38
    Joe says:

    Box, Larry Moran is a proven lowlife too. You really can’t expect any civility from either of them. Neither of them have the courage to explore the fatal flaws in their position.

  39. 39
    Box says:

    Larry Moran may think that posting a photo of him and Behe makes him look open-minded or even … compassionate. However all the credits go to Behe who, despite relentless lies, insults and persecutions, finds it in himself to stand next to Moran and smile.

  40. 40
    Axel says:

    The very existence in the modern world of atheist scientists, holding down good jobs, moreover, is surreal, considering that their world-view does not allow for mysteries impenetrable by the human mind, to logic.

    Were it not for the deists/IDers, the old Newtonian mechanistic, reductionist paradigm would still reign in solitary splendour, and 70 % of current manufacturing industry would be defunct, relying, as it does, in the event, on the impenetrable mysteries of quantum mechanics; mysteries which deists/IDers have no problem in incorporating in their world-view and physical analyses.

  41. 41
    Axel says:

    Sorry. Should have read, ‘by logic’ at the end of the first sentence.

  42. 42
    Axel says:

    Never a dull moment with Joe and mapou, punctuating the polite, occasionally even courtly, but ever recondite scientific discourse, to which they also contribute, with occasional outbursts of brutally dismissive invective!

    ‘Why you dirt-worshipping, proven low-life SOB’s!’

    I wonder if it will be possible to compile a reference page; perhaps in the form of a lengthy, fictional diatribe of some kind.

Leave a Reply