David Gelernter, by Doc Searls (Flickr: 2010_08_05_techonomy_154) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Earlier today, we noted that Jeffrey Shallit had attacked Jonathan Bartlett, author of Jonathan Bartlett is the author of Calculus from the Ground Up, asking why creationists can’t do math:
A commenter noted that he had not seemed to mention computer science prof David Gelernter’s defection from Darwinism. But that “defect” has recently been remedied:
One of the most popular crank topics is evolution, and that’s the subject of today’s blog. Yes, it’s David Gelernter again. Prof. Gelernter, who teaches computer science at Yale, recently wrote a review for the far-right Claremont Review of Books entitled “Giving up Darwin”. All the warning signs are there:
– Gelernter is not a biologist and (to the best of my knowledge) has no advanced formal training in biology. That’s typical: the crank rarely gets cranky in subjects of his own competence. (I say “his” because cranks are almost always male.)
– Gelernter has basically done almost nothing in his own field for the last 20 years (according to DBLP, he’s published only two papers in CS since 1998). That’s also typical:
– intellectually-fulfilled academics are usually happy to contribute more to their own fields of competence, and don’t have the time for bizarre detours into other fields.
– Gelernter is also a devout theist, and has written books praising the wisdom of his particular religious sect. Nearly all the intellectual opposition to evolution comes from theists, who “find in the theory of evolution a disturbing and mysterious challenge to their values” (to quote Anthony West).
– Gelernter pals around with other anti-evolution cranks, like Stephen Meyer and David Berlinski. …
Jeffrey Shallit, “David Gelernter Makes a Fool of Himself Again” at Recursivity
And much more.
Re “Gelernter is not a biologist and (to the best of my knowledge) has no advanced formal training in biology,” we did not realize that math prof Jeffrey Shallit, who defends Darwinism, had biology credentials himself. Well, he must, mustn’t he? But none are listed in the post. But then, if you defend Darwinism, perhaps no credentials are needed.
See also: Darwinist Jeffrey Shallit asks, why can’t creationists do math? Referring to calculus textbook author Jonathan Bartlett, he writes, “What surprises me is that even creationists with math or related degrees often have problems with basic mathematics.” Bartlett will answer shortly.
David Gelernter warns against Darwin mob. You take your life in your hands”? Okay, then they leave us with few options but getting tougher with nonsense. We’ll take the Darwinbird of pop science hostage!
The College Fix LISTENS TO David Gelernter on Darwin! It’s almost as though people are “getting it” that Darwinism now functions as an intolerant secular religion. Evolution rolls on oblivious but here and there heads are getting cracked, so to speak, over the differences between what really happens and what Darwinians insist must happen.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Geeeeeeeeeeeewwwwhhhhhhhiiiiiiizzzzz another religiously atheistic atheist (often male) Criticizing people on a subject he probably knows nothing about (religion/god) Often extending his professional basis in mathematics or biology into a theological basis which again he knows nothing about
This anti-religious crank whom which I have heard nothing about Has made no major headlines whatsoever in his entire career until I read about him on this site
Yes a blog about intelligent design and often religion was the site that I actually heard about this guy and I have never heard about him before hand hmmmmmm ever!
Much similarly to all atypical anti-religious atheists whom believe that evolution is infallible, He makes overreaching claims about the individuals he’s criticizing, a typical trait is how belittling he is and how little respect he shows any other colleagues other than himself and other people that believe in evolution
So since he likes to call anybody that doesn’t agree with his perspective cranks, I should go forward and generalize everybody who doesn’t agree with my perspective as assholes because they all stink and shit keeps coming out of their mouths
Geewhiz I can be sarcastic to, jackass, And this moron doesn’t understand why there’s no real dialogue at all between so-called creationist and themselves. No shots were fired at him from what I can see on any sites including the sites like mind matters which criticized him, they certainly didn’t name called him and they certainly didn’t belittle him
This message is directed at people like Shallit And others that decide they want to act like a jackass including myself
This excludes pretty much everybody on the site
Only if Shallit was becoming a crank: his argument is that stepping outside one’s area of training is one sign (of several) of being a crank. And when Shallit tackles the substantive points of Gelernter’s post, he provides links to experts and the actual evidence.
.
Is that right Bob?
Lurking behind one of Shallit’s links is an ‘expert with evidence’ that explains “the flagrant appearance of design in nature” – er – like the establishment of coded construction that Gelertner describes, i.e. a way to specify a protein from a heritable memory store?
No Bob. You are mistaken. It’s not there. Shallit has zilch.
.
Bob O’ Hara states:
Link to experts??? Links to actual evidence??? Really???
To wit:
Wow, just wow. Talk about a huge let down. Not one piece of real time empirical evidence in the whole lot. For instance, he referenced a evidence-free 2007 article by Art Hunt to supposedly debunk Doug Axe’s empirical work on the rarity of proteins..
But anyways, rather than just debunking piece by piece his imaginary debunking of the Cambrian explosion, functional proteins and functional information, I will instead show that Shallit does not even understand the ontology of his own, (supposed), area of expertise, i.e. Mathematics, and thus Shallit is certainly not qualified to comment on any other area of study that may lay outside his own, supposed, area of expertise. Like say for instance, molecular biology.
Mathematics, which provides the backbone for all of science, engineering and technology, exists in a unchanging, transcendent, i.e. beyond space and time, realm which is not reducible any possible materialistic explanation.
As David Berlinski states in the following article, “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…. 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.”
And as M. Anthony Mills states in the following article, “The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.”
This timeless and unchanging mathematical realm which is not reducible to any possible temporal materialistic explanation has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world.
As the following article points out, ‘Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics.,,, and that arguments for mathematical platonism typically assert,,, that mathematical entities are not constituents of the spatio-temporal realm.’
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, exists in some sort of timeless realm that does not change and thus mathematics certainly does not need the temporal material world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond the physical realm exists exists, need this transcendent and unchanging world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent and unchanging immaterial world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent and unchanging immaterial world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview.
In fact, Einstein and Wigner are both on record as to regarding the correct explanation for the applicability of mathematics to the universe as a ‘miracle’:
Since Einstein and Wigner, when it comes to the applicability of mathematics to the physical world, apparently believe in ‘miracles’, perhaps Shallit now wants to claim that Einstein and Wigner do not understand mathematics?
Moreover, like abstract mathematics, abstract logic itself does not exist in the space-time continuum,,,
Perhaps Shallit will now claim that anyone who disbelieves the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution on account of the timeless, unchanging, and immaterial realm of logic does not understand logic? ,,,
Yet, might I be so bold as to point out, again, that it is Shallit himself who does not even understand the ontology of his own, (supposed), area of expertise, i.e. Mathematics (and logic),
Many theoretical physicists today believe they can construct a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ without recourse to God, Yet Godel, via logic, was able to prove that mathematics itself is ‘incomplete’. As the following article succinctly puts it, Godel proved that “Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous.”
Even Hawking himself conceded that, “Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.
Thus in conclusion. Shallit own supposed, area of expertise, mathematics (and logic) is dependent on the reality of God. And since Shallit does not even understand the ontological necessity of God in order to provide a (timeless and unchanging) foundation for the mathematics and logic that he prides himself in, then it directly follows that Shallit is disqualified from ever commenting on anyone else who may comment outside their own area of expertise. As the Bible says, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Verse and quotes:
AaronS1978, friendly language warning here.
It’s true, we do not encourage a jackass-a-rama around here. We trust every well-meaning person to understand our position.
We’re one of the few ID-related sites that allow comments. Others don’t because they would have to pay a staff member to boot trolls and it is hard to raise money for that in the donor marketplace. (You know, “help make the other side of the story available” vs. “boot a troll”?)
We, on the other hand, are mostly volunteer. Also, we don’t really represent anyone but our own watering hole. So it is a bit more relaxed and we can offer the service.
But it is only a bit more relaxed. Your mod here, for example, is a traditionalist Catholic. Profanity, blasphemy, needless detraction … anything that would make a person less welcome in a traditional family diner… nah. Thanks all for your understanding.
Note: David Gelernter was brought up because a commenter was under the impression that Jeffrey Shallit had ignored him. He had not.
LoL! Shallit just blindly accepts the saddest arguments as long as they appear to debunk ID or what IDists say. For example, Arthur Hunt does not have any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce proteins. So there is no way he has debunked what Doug Axe has written.
@News
I apologize it is something that really angers me when somebody like that mocks other people like they do
I will correct myself in the future
Secondary Default Darwinist position: If you can’t argue facts, ad hominem.
Tertiary Default Darwinist position: If you can’t argue facts, declare “debunked elsewhere”.
Bob O’H @ 2
When you say evidence, what evidence are you referring to? Has a transitional fossil been discovered that I haven’t read about? Has a positive mutation been witnessed? Has the mechanism been discovered, or is it still a guess? Has macro-evolution been witnessed? It seems to me like evolutionists are the ones that lack any real evidence.
BobRyan:
The evidence in the links that Shallit provided.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
I have no idea what you mean – the mechanism for what?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
Please don’t confuse your ignorance for actual ignorance.
Bob O’H @ 10
A transitional fossil would show the mutations, as they occur. Not something that has millions of years worth of gaps. That is a transitional fossil and none have been discovered, as you well know. It’s little more than slight of hand from a rather poor magician.
The link for positive mutations doesn’t include evidence for positive mutations. All organisms adapt or die, but a mutation is far different from adaptation, as you well know.
The mechanism for macro-evolution to occur. You know full well what I meant and you have no answer.
The macro-evolution was simply stating that it will never be seen, because it takes too long. It is a lazy answer, because, at minimum, the e coli study should have shown some sign of success. They closed up shop after 3 decades.
I’ll ask again, where is the evidence to support your emotional attachment to evolution?
BobRyan –
Really? Where do you get this idea from? Fossils don’t have DNA so they can’t show mutations.
All organisms die. Populations adapt. This is basic.
I’m afraid I now have no idea what you mean by “positive mutation”. I had thought it was one that increased the fitness of the organism carrying it, but perhaps not.
Thank you for explaining that, but I’m afraid your mind-reading skills are off. As it happens, I have alink for that too: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
How long do you think should macro-evolution take? 3 decades in an environment that doesn’t change much doesn’t seem to be a long time for macro-evolutionary changes to occur.
I’ve already provided some links. I’m afraid it’s clear you don’t understand the ideas, so I’d suggest you try to educate yourself first.
Bob O’H
Fossils don’t have DNA so they can’t show mutations
Which means you can’t say there’s any genetic link at all. Since you have a hard time understanding, I’ll simplify things for you. Each phase of macro-evolution should show a slight change in the fossil records. There should be a gradual change of going from gills to lungs. Those would be real transitional fossils, but not one has been discovered. How can every line that Darwinists point to show millions of years worth of gaps?
I’m just a little curious, since the basics seem to be lost on you. Have you done any research yourself, or do you simply rely on others to do the work for you?
As for your quip about e coli and three decades, take into account the lifespan of e coli and you end up with one million years equivalent to humans.
Shallit and, by default, Bob O’Hara both lean heavily on the Talk Origins website for their supposed empirical evidence to support their unwavering faith that unguided material processes can generate all the life we see around us, in all its unfathomable complexity, and in all its wondrous diversity.
To say the Talk Origins website is misleading on the science would be an understatement. Propaganda masquerading as science would be a much more fitting classification of the Talk Origins website.
Here are a few websites that debunk the Talk Origins website in detail:
In the several years that I have been debating Darwinists I have found that each and every example of empirical evidence, (that Darwinists have tried to put forth as supposedly irrefutable proof for Darwinian evolution), falls apart upon closer scrutiny. There is not a single piece of empirical evidence that I know of that Darwinists can produce that does not fall apart upon closer empirical scrutiny.
Moreover, besides all the supposed irrefutable proofs for Darwinian evolution that fall apart upon closer scrutiny, that are many lines of solid empirical evidence, (i.e. lines of evidence that withstand empirical testing), that directly, or semi-directly, falsify Darwinian evolution and the reductive materialistic premises that undergird Darwinian thought. Yet Darwinists completely ignore these many lines of falsifying evidence.
That the substantiating evidence for Darwinian evolution is far weaker than Darwinists pretend that it is, and yet Darwinists ignore the many lines of robust falsifying evidence that directly refute Darwnian evolution, is interesting because, as Karl Popper made clear, the gold standard for determining whether a theory is even scientific or not is whether that theory is falsifiable or not
Karl Popper stated that “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
Here are a few falsification of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications for their theory
Verse:
Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposed scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science in the first place, Darwinism fails to meet those criteria as well:
Simply put, Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than being classified as a real science.
In fact, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by atheistic Darwinists.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, (i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Thus, although the Darwinian atheist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Thus in conclusion, Shallit’s and Bob O’Hara’s claim that Darwinian evolution is well supported by empirical evidence, and their literature bluff via the talkorigins website, is found to be an empty claim that amounts to nothing more that bluff and bluster on their part that falls apart upon closer scrutiny. Whereas the falsifying evidence against Darwinian evolution is found to be robust and strong in its ability to withstand empirical scrutiny. Yet, (even though in science it is falsifying evidence that is far more important than substantiating evidence; K. Popper), Shallit and Bob O’Hara refuse to accept (and even ignore) the many lines of robust falsifying evidence against their claims.
Bottom line, whatever Shallit and Bob O’Hara may be doing, they certainly are NOT practicing good science.
Verses:
BobRyan –
Any genetic link between/with what?
Assuming the phenotypic change is slight, of course, AND that the fossils are preserved and have been found.
Really? Here’s just one example of a transitional fossil ,with both gills and a primitive lung: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Yes, I have done research, including collaboration with actual palaeontologists.
i.e. little evolutionary time. In the last 1m years, H. erectus changed in relatively minor ways (e.g. smaller teeth, more erect) to become H. sapiens.
(editted to close blockquote correctly)
ba77 @ 14 – I love the arguments against transitional fossils on that creationist wiki page:
I’m not sure the best argument against something existing is to admit it exists.
Bob O’H- seeing that your position doesn’t have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes, what mechanism do you propose produced Tiktaalik?
And science already knows that macroevolution is NOT just an accumulation of microevolution. That is because science has found out that different genes are involved. But even that is moot because no one knows what DETERMINES what type of organism will develop- and your side can’t even account for the existence of developmental biology.
So clearly Bob O’H is just a true believer and will accept anything that he thinks will support his position. Desperation is calling on talk origins as it is not a science site. far from it.
Bob, take your examples of transitional fossils, Tiktaalik and Home erectus, like all other evidence put forth by Darwinists, these examples also fall apart upon closer scrutiny
As to the supposed science of ‘lining up’ fossils to match what you imagine evolution must have looked like:
Whenever you decide that you want to talk about real science instead of telling bedtime stories to others and to yourself, drop me a note Bob:
We know that is not true. Eye color is microevolution. New body plans and new body parts is macro. And we know that different genes are involved in each- well we do NOT know if altering any genes can produce new and viable body plans. We have no idea how to test for such a thing.
It is just pure ignorance and desperation that says macro is an accumulation of micro.
Bob O’H:
Except for the fact there isn’t any evidence that supports blind watchmaker evolution at those links. So clearly you will just accept anything as long as you believe it goes against ID.
ba77 @ 18 – those first two quotes you give argue that Tiktaalik isn’t a transitional fossil because it’s not the first in the sequence. I hope you can see the problem with that logic.
Bob O’H- Please sow us where in the alleged ToE it says that transitional forms can survive for millions of years AFTER the transition occurs. And then produce a mechanism capable of producing Tiktaalik starting with populations of finned fish.
Good luck with that but it could lead to a Nobel Prize if yours has merit.
Bob o H – Bob seeing we all love the scientific method, how exactly do you test any given fossil to see is it transitional between two groups , and if no testing method exists how scientifically can we know said fossil is a transitional one.
Bob: “I hope you can see the problem with that logic.”
Ha ha ha.
I assure you that it is not me that is having a problem with logic.
Shoot, your materialistic Darwinian worldview cannot even ground logic! So it might behoove you to find a worldview that can ground logic in the first place before you want to ponder the question of exactly who is thinking logically.
Contrary to what Bob O’Hara would like to assert with his appeal to Tiktaalik and Homo erectus, the fossil record is far more antagonistic to Darwinian presuppositions than he is willing to honestly admit. In fact, the fossil record is basically ‘upside down’ to what Charles Darwin himself predicted.
First off, the Cambrian explosion obliterates the Darwinian notion of gradualism:
Moreover, as Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.
But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.
Dr. Meyer notes that there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern for what Darwin himself predicted for the fossil record, is not just an anomaly of the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Moreover, much contrary to Charles Darwin’s belief that increasing resolution of the fossil record, (i.e. the discovery of more fossils), would alleviate his problem with the fossil record, the fact of the matter is that increasing resolution of the fossil record has only made this disparity preceding diversity ‘problem’ worse for Darwinists since Darwin’s day
Thus the overall fossil record directly refutes what Darwin himself predicted for the fossil record. And yet, although these facts about the overall fossil record are certainly no secret, Darwinists, such as Bob O’Hara, simply refuse to acknowledge that the overall fossil record is completely discordant to what their ‘theory’ predicts.
This lack of honesty on the part of Bob O’Hara and other Darwinists to admit the obvious falsification of Darwin’s theory by the fossil record, (as well as failing to be honest about numerous other lines of falsifying evidence against Darwin’s theory), besides being a personal character flaw on their part, is a major impediment to the good practice of science. For empirical science to be successful, it is important for the people participating in it to tell the truth about the evidence especially if a particular truth about the evidence may ‘inconvenience’ any a-priori biases we may have about the evidence. Needless to say, refusing to follow the evidence where it leads is NOT good science.
Darwinists, from the best I can tell, and for the vast majority of instances, (as Bob O’Hara himself gives witness to), simply lack the integrity to be rigorously honest with the evidence.
Bob O’Hara referenced this in regards to himself in post 15
That Bob O’Hara, a Darwinian materialist, earns his bread and butter by working with mathematics is very interesting since, as was pointed out in post 4, the very existence of mathematics itself refutes the reductive materialism of his Darwinian worldview,,,
That Bob O’Hara’s own occupation, i.e. mathematics, refutes the reductive materialism of his Darwinian worldview, and yet Bob O’Hara apparently cannot see it, is a shining example of what is known as ‘cognitive dissonance’:
Semi-simply put, the ontological priority in science of immaterial mathematics refutes the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution as a ‘science’. This ontological priority of the immaterial realm also plays into scientifically refuting Darwinian evolution on a more direct, i.e. a more empirical, level.
The main debate between ID advocates and Darwinists is over the inability of material processes to generate information. Darwinists simply have zero scientific evidence that material processes can generate non-trivial levels of information. Whereas, on the other hand, ID advocates have a veritable infinity of examples that they can point to of intelligent minds generating massive amounts of information.
What is interesting about information, and one of the primary reasons that material processes will never be able explain to origination of information, is the immaterial nature of information. As Dr. Stephen Meyer explains, “information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?
And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce.”
In further establishing the immaterial nature of information, it is interesting to note that immaterial information can be encoded on a virtual endless variety of material substrates, and yet the meaning of the information never changes from one material substrate to the next. i.e. Immaterial information is simply not reducible to a materialistic explanation!
George Ellis further elucidates the immaterial nature of information and of mind in the following excellent article,,
Moreover, one of the primary presuppositions of Darwinists is that they hold that information to be merely emergent from a material basis. Yet, contrary to that primary presupposition of Darwinists, immaterial information is now shown to be its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy, A distinct physical entity that has, of all things, a ‘thermodynamic content’.
In the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, it was demonstrated that knowledge of a particle’s location and/or position converts information into energy.
And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”
In fact, in a very exciting breakthrough that holds much promise, researchers have now built “ an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics.”
Although the preceding is certainly very strong empirical evidence for the physical reality of immaterial information, the coup de grace for demonstrating that immaterial information is its own distinct physical entity, separate from matter and energy, is Quantum Teleportation:
On top of all that, as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
Again to repeat that last sentence, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,”
Think about that statement for a second.
These experiments completely blow the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution, (presuppositions about information being merely ’emergent’ from some material basis), out of the water, and tie the creation of immaterial information directly to the knowledge of the ‘observer’ in quantum theory.
In other words, contrary to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, immaterial information, particularly this ‘thermodynamic positional information’, is now experimentally shown, via quantum information theory, to be its own distinct physical entity that, although it is immaterial, it can, none-the-less, interact with matter and energy,,, and is even shown to be its own independent, ‘non-local’ beyond space and time, entity that is separate from matter and energy. On top of all that, this immaterial ‘thermodynamic positional information’ is found, via quantum information theory, to be, of all things, “a property of an observer who describes a system.”
The following videos, in a bit more detail, touch upon how consciousness, quantum information theory, and molecular biology correlate
In other words, Intelligent Design, and a semi-direct inference to God as the Intelligence behind life, (via infinite regress to the omniscient Mind of God), has, for all intents and purposes, achieved experimental confirmation.
Of related note to the unavoidable “infinite regress” of information that leads to the necessity of omniscience, specifically to the necessity of the omniscient Mind of God,,
Also of important note to the relationship between quantum entanglement and immaterial information, i.e. “quantum entanglement can be used as a quantum information channel”
And whereas atheistic materialists are at a complete loss to explain how particles can be instantly correlated, via quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology, or instantly correlated anywhere else for that matter,,,,
And whereas atheistic materialists are at a complete loss to explain how particles can be instantly correlated in molecular biology via quantum entanglement/information, on the other hand Christian Theists readily have a beyond space-time, matter-energy, cause that they can appeal to in order to explain the pervasive quantum non-locality within molecular biology:
The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and even ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following video, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Verse:
Here is an interesting supplemental note:
Darwinian materialists, with their reductive materialistic framework, have no clue why our temporal material bodies, conservatively estimated to contain at least a billion trillion molecules, should remain unified as single entity for precisely a lifetime.
As Stephen Talbott succinctly puts it, “the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
The Christian Theist, of course, has a ready answer for that question of “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? “. The answer, as Christians have been saying for two thousand years now, is, of course, that it is the soul that holds that power off “precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer”.