Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

George Gilder in the Jerusalem Post


Ruthie Blum interviewed George Gilder in the Jerusalem Post late last month. Here’s a sample from the interview:

RB: How do you explain how this “incredibly improbable world could exist”?

GG: Creation. I see creation in economics; I see creation in computer science. You can know everything there is to know about the physics and chemistry of a microchip, without having the slightest inkling of what function it’s performing, let alone what content it is processing. The same goes for network theory. You can know every electron or atom across a fiber-optic network, without having any idea of what contents are being transmitted.

In network theory, you have seven layers of abstraction. Those same seven layers also apply, in slightly different form, to a computer system. Both are exhaustively and intelligently designed, with elaborate and extraordinarily complex equipment, which itself is exhaustively designed, and not intelligible unless you know the “source code.” The theory that governs design in the microchip – invented 28-9 years ago by Carver Mead and Lynn Conway – is called “hierarchical design.” It is a top-down design, the crux of which is that it is independent of its material embodiment.

SOURCE: Jerusalem Post.

A huge population in the world today worships a higher power, has great aspirations and commits mass murder in their pursuit. What they're worshiping is the devil. People who go around killing and beheading other people in the name of God are pursuing Satan. I guess we may see a fatwa coming soon. Or perhaps a knighthood. Well, someone has to tell the truth :-) Robo
Exactly! That last sentence hit the nail on the head. A.E. Wilder-Smith had a lot to say about this in his book, "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing Of Evolution". In the book, he points out how materialists often confuse the fact that while things in biology may *bear* information, they don't *constitute* information. Further, materialists don't take into account, language convention. For instance, if I were to write the word "Hello", most of the people reading this blog would understand what that meant, but if I were to show it to someone in China or India, those letters would be unintelligible to them. It's only when you have an agreed upon language convention that the information in "Hello" makes since...and that's something that people who oppose ID will never be able to account for (like the information in DNA for instance). More recently, Nancy Pearcy has briefly touched on this in her book "Total Truth" as well: "The realization that life is about information completely turns older arguments about evolution on their head. Why? Because information is independent of the material medium used to store and transmit it. In a book, the words are printed with ink on paper, but they could also be written with crayon or paint or chalk, or even scratched into sand with a stick. The message remains the same, no matter what you use to write it. And the obvious implication is that the message was not created by the matter used to write it. The words in a book were not created by chemical forces within the ink and paper. If you see a message on a chalkboard -- "Science Test Today!" -- you do not think it arose from the chemical properties of calcium carbonate. What does this mean for the origin of life? It means the message in DNA was not created by the chemical forces within the molecule itself. This explains why all the experiments to create life have failed - because they all try to build a living form from the bottom up, by assembling the right materials. But the material medium does not write the message. As astrophysicist Paul Davies says, "Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level." This is a devastating critique. To suggest that matter could give rise to life is not just mistaken; it addresses the question "at the wrong conceptual level." It is beginning to look like the best key to interpreting the organic world is not natural selection but John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word," the Logos -- language, information." You can read a longer excerpt from that book online: http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/01/post_50.php nickmanderson
A fun article that relates is Jonah Goldberg this morning ("The wealth between our ears") at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah070507.php3. Rude
"Mead and Conway were merely the selection pressure on the microchip. “but it arose suddenly” you say? Well, that’s just punctuated equilibrium right there!" Collin, maybe you should reread the article, George Gilder seems to be suggesting Intelligent Design and Specified Complexity. I hate it when Darwinists spin articles like this. "It is a top-down design, the crux of which is that it is independent of its material embodiment." - George Gilder DarwininianIgnorance
Collin How can this be an example of punctuated equilibrium if the article is talking about top-down design? Please take your Darwinist sunglasses off and read what the actual article is saying. DarwininianIgnorance
Mead and Conway were merely the selection pressure on the microchip. "but it arose suddenly" you say? Well, that's just punctuated equilibrium right there! Collin

Leave a Reply