Intelligent Design

KF: Darwinists, not ID Proponents, Have Minds Clamped Tightly Shut.

Spread the love

This exchange between lastyearon, KF and Eric Anderson is too delish to leave in a combox:

LASTYEARON:

What the ID proponents (specifically Eric Anderson and KD) are saying is that evolution isn’t science because it lacks sufficient detail at the molecular level. In order for them to accept that the eye evolved by accident (which is highly unlikely) you need to show exactly how it happened, molecule by molecule. However, personally I don’t even think that’s enough. We all know that organic molecules are extremely complex entities that are made of lots of atoms. And we also know that the atoms in those organic molecules are extremely complex themselves, and are made of lots of electrons, neutrons and protons. And protons and neutrons are themselves complex entities made of quarks and gluons. And I’m sure those guys are made of even smaller stuff. So basically, what I’m asking is: where is the evolutionary explanation of quarks and gluons? And why should I accept that the eye evolved by accident if you can’t tell me how those quarks and gluons did it?

KF RESPONDS:

Perhaps it has not caught your notice that Quantum theory has allowed us long since to understand organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry and polymer/materials science. That is not the level of concern we have.

Developments in molecular biology since the 1940′s and 50′s have allowed us to see the molecular machines at work in the living cell, and that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, based on what we already know, is what is posing the challenge for the fundamentally pre-quantum, C19 Victorian era theories in biology.

Just as, the spectroscopic study of black body radiation at end of C19 led to a crisis in physics resolved by the development of quantum theory over the period from 1900 – 1930 in the first instance, the development of our understanding of what is happening at molecular levels in cells is raising serious questions about where such can come from. For, we already have a known capable mechanism for creating FSCO/I, and reason to see that the preferred mechanisms implied in darwinist narratives, do not meet that threshold of known capacity to cause the phenomenon.

In short we know that FSCO/I is created by designers, directly and indirectly, but the same cannot be said for fundamentally blind forces of chance and mechanical necessity. That is what has to be resolved, to arrive at a satisfactory answer. And, contrary to your suggestions of closed mindedness, if it can be shown observationally that forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity can and do create FSCO/I relevant to cell based life and to the rise of novel body plans, the whole design theory project in the world of life would collapse because of the decisive impact of such evidence; but — never mind those who project their own make/break anxieties unto others — that is not a critical concern for design thinkers. (Yes, that’s right, just keep on reading to see why.)

What you are doing, then, is little more than trying to twist about the circumstances, where there is evidence on the table, but it cuts across the a priori materialist ideology, which is evidently being desperately clung to. Why do I so freely say such? Simple. Ironically, it would not — repeat, NOT — have a fundamental impact on design thought if it were to happen that FSCO/I could be shown to originate by forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity, as there is a world of evidence on the source of a fine tuned cosmos set up to an operating point suitable for cell based life. That is, design thinkers do not have a critical worldview issue on the origins of life and body plans; it is the materialists who do. (Yes, I mean exactly what you just read.)

So, we are free to go with the evidence where it leads; it is simply a matter of what the evidence warrants — currently, strongly, design — not a make/break worldview level issue. For us. For you, it seems the matter is quite different. Per a priori materialist ideology, blind chance and mechanical necessity HAS to account for everything, no exceptions, from hydrogen to humans. No wonder there has been an attempt to redefine science as a search for such blind causes, to ease the pressure by blocking serious consideration of alternatives. Which easily explains a lot of the rhetorical patterns we so often, so drearily predictably see. So, please think again and do better next time. KF

(emphasis added)

Update:  And Eric Anderson adds:

lastyearon:

I don’t believe I’ve said in this thread that evolution is not science (or that, properly applied, it cannot be science), so your accusation is a misrepresentation of my position.  (We could have an interesting discussion about what “evolution” means, but that is a separate issue for now.)

But I’ll go ahead and call your bluff:

Are you suggesting that quarks and gluons and atoms contain complex specified information?  Do they contain sequences of particles that store a code for construction of an organism?  I didn’t think so.  So your insincere attempt at analogy fails.

In contrast, organisms are dependent on the biochemical information stored in, for example, DNA.  Indeed, Nick has stated that all the information for an organism is contained in its DNA.  So under Nick’s view, by definition, the explanation for something like the eye must be, at the end of the day, a sequence of nucleotides.  And it remains true that neither Nick nor anyone else knows precisely what sequence of nucleotides is needed to construct an eye, nor what changes in nucleotides were needed to go from a light-sensitive spot to a camera-lens eye.  But we have good reason to believe that a good many changes would be needed and that such changes could not occur within the timeframe of the known universe.

But I’m not even that picky.  I’m not even demanding precise details about what actually occurred in the remote historical past.  I’d be happy with an engineering-quality analysis of what is needed and what might have occurred, as long as it is a reasonably complete analysis that can be seen to have a chance of operating in the real biological world.

Instead, we are treated to hand-waving just-so stories that, even when dressed up in fancy scientific language, go little beyond Kipling’s children’s stories.  And when someone like Berlinski makes the perfectly reasonable observation that many coordinated changes, including those in skull structure, are required to get to where we are today, we get the laughable response: “Nuh-uh, because the skull came later; and besides, some creatures don’t have skulls.”  Right.  And some creatures don’t have arms, so I suppose we don’t need to explain how arms came about.

What a joke.

So your comment fails and your attempt at saving Nick & Co. from the hard work of actually coming up with an explanation for vision on the basis of chance and necessity just underscores yet again that they have no such explanation

 

33 Replies to “KF: Darwinists, not ID Proponents, Have Minds Clamped Tightly Shut.

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to LYO saying:

    ,,are saying is that evolution isn’t science because it lacks sufficient detail at the molecular level.,,

    Actually neo-Darwinism isn’t ‘science’ because, besides its stunning failure at establishing empirical validation in the lab, it has no mathematical basis, and furthermore neo-Darwinism can have no mathematical basis because of the atheistic insistence for the ‘random’ variable postulate at the base of its formulation:

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) –

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8

    quote from preceding video:

    “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!”
    Dr. David Berlinski

    Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

    Moreover neo-Darwinism isn’t science because the random variable postulate at the base of its formulation, when it is pushed to the limits of its explanatory power for our ability to comprehend reality through science, winds up driving the entire enterprise of science into epistemological failure:

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video
    http://vimeo.com/34468027

    And Dr. Gordon’s astute observation in his last powerpoint is here:

    The End Of Materialism?
    * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
    * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
    * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
    * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

    Moreover,,,,

    Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
    Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    This ‘lack of a guarantee’, for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism (neo-Darwinism) itself;

    Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:).
    Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga’s nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states:
    “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.”
    Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305.
    http://blogs.christianpost.com.....ism-12421/

    Alvin Plantinga – Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8

    Philosopher Sticks Up for God
    Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12.....wanted=all

    “Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.”
    ~ Alvin Plantinga

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    Moreover Darwinism isn’t science because math, as far as math is able to be put to Darwinian claims through population genetics, falsifies Darwinian claims,,,

    Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008
    Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
    Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/techn.....Theory.pdf

    ,,, Yet Darwinists refuse to accept falsification through mathematics.

    “However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is.”
    – On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to ‘fix’ the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.

    Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test – Douglas Axe – July 18, 2012
    Excerpt: “For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be ‘neutral’). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
    My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they’re in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be.” Doug Axe PhD.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62351.html

    Michael Behe on the theory of constructive neutral evolution – February 2012
    Excerpt: I don’t mean to be unkind, but I think that the idea seems reasonable only to the extent that it is vague and undeveloped; when examined critically it quickly loses plausibility. The first thing to note about the paper is that it contains absolutely no calculations to support the feasibility of the model. This is inexcusable. – Michael Behe

    “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.”
    Leonardo Da Vinci

    Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE

    Despite its failure in population genetics, there are a few ‘mathematical’ relationships for Darwinists that do seem to hold up quite well:

    “The perception of evolution’s explanatory power is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion.”
    – Eric

    ,,,Subsequently the tactic was to attack individuals who doubted Darwin by calling them “creationists” — meaning “crackpots.” As one historian writes, the Darwinists’ attacks “have been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory.”
    Terry Scambray

    Moreover neo-Darwinian evolution isn’t science because, as LYO smirked, ‘it lacks sufficient detail at the molecular level’

    “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”
    Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician/logician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Christian Theist!

    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 with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Brandon Heath – The Light In Me
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....dAKabU3nOM

  3. 3
    Shogun says:

    where is the evolutionary explanation of quarks and gluons? And why should I accept that the eye evolved by accident if you can’t tell me how those quarks and gluons did it?

    The answer is very simple, living cells contain specified complex information while by comparison quarks and gluons have not such specificity.

    And by the way, drawing an analogy between the evolution of the eye and subatomic particles is not a convenient escape hatch for Darwinism. Nobody is asking Darwinists to show how evolution happened molecule by molecule, we ask that at the very least show us that random mutations can generate new functional proteins. If the eye did evolve by Darwinian mechanisms then at some point mutations must have given rise to proteins that can react to light, right?

    This alleged creative power of mutations is a central pillar of Darwinism, so is it too much to ask for proving it?

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Actually Shogun, besides eyes, ears, brains, consciousness, and life itself, I actually do want materialistic atheists to give a ‘evolutionary’ (atheistic) explanation for how quarks and gluons (and the rest of the atom) ‘randomly’ came to be as well.

    First off atoms are certainly not ‘simple’

    Delayed time zero in photoemission: New record in time measurement accuracy – June 2010
    Excerpt: Although they could confirm the effect qualitatively using complicated computations, they came up with a time offset of only five attoseconds. The cause of this discrepancy may lie in the complexity of the neon atom, which consists, in addition to the nucleus, of ten electrons. “The computational effort required to model such a many-electron system exceeds the computational capacity of today’s supercomputers,” explains Yakovlev.
    http://www.physorg.com/news196606514.html

    It is important to note that constructing a ‘simple’ atom is certainly not as ‘simple’ as adding energy, a few quarks, gluons, and electrons, to the mix:

    Why is it impossible, at this point in time, to convert energy into matter?
    Excerpt: “Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.

    It’s not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with ‘matter’ in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various ‘conservation laws’ of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter/anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do.

    Also, Einstein’s equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter.
    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/d.....0724a.html

    Yet somehow shortly after the big bang, and in the nucleosynthesis of stars, all the pieces of the puzzle of the immensely complex atom ‘spontaneously’ fell together in just the right way to get these immensely complex atoms to form:

    Big Bang
    After its (The Big Bangs’) initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    The Elements: Forged in Stars – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861

    “Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe” (Remarkable balance of various key elements for life) – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_59-07_00

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    But if we ask the question as to where the energy came from in the Big Bang to form the gluons and quarks for these immensely complex atoms, we find that energy and mass both reduce to “infinite information”:

    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),,,
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    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.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    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.
    http://science.howstuffworks.c.....ation1.htm

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862

    Unconditional Quantum Teleportation – abstract
    Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,,
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cont.....6.abstract

    As well we find that the quantum wave state of a photon is actually defined as ‘infinite information’ in its uncollapsed state:

    Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
    Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler’s footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is ‘information’.

    “It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom – at a very deep bottom, in most instances – an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin.”
    John Archibald Wheeler

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation with many cutting edge breakthroughs under his belt:
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

    Thus we are to the point of asking where the infinite information came from that formed the energy in the big bang, that eventually formed the atoms in the neucleosynthesis of stars? But, as Dr. Zeilinger pointed out, Christian Theists have had an answer to that question all along!

    John 1:1-3
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    The same was in the beginning with God.
    All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    Music

    One Thing Remains – Kristian Stanfill
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY7OtDJLWlg

  6. 6
    Bateman says:

    Thanks BA77. I find your comments as useful and eye-opening (and long winded :)) as the articles. Keep it up!

  7. 7
    Shogun says:

    BA77,

    I agree with you that it’s nice to see if the atheist/materialist can come up with explanations for the formation of atoms. But let’s not be too harsh on our fellow Darwinists, lol. After all, their explanatory power diminishes as we go to smaller and smaller scales. Their Darwinism works best on the level of population dynamics where natural selection can be observed, but if we go to the level of the individual species we end up with pure speculation about it’s origin in the fossil record. And if we go to the level of organs we only find scarce amount of hand-waiving stories. Then if we delve into the molecular level all we hear from their side is the chirping of crickets. So imagine if we get into the sub-atomic level!

    On the other hand, ID is strengthened by the presence of information and follows a completely opposite trend. Each time we go into a smaller scale, we find more and more information underlying reality itself as you pointed out.

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    BA:

    You “firsted” me, I had intended to headline the comment myself. Thanks for the compliment.

    I should add, a link to a discussion on cosmological fine tuning and how it points to design. The ID Foundations post I made on that, here, along with the linked onward discussions will help, I believe.

    I would love to hear from objectors to FSCO/I etc, on why it is they seem to imagine that this is a make/break point for design theory and wider teleological thinking at worldview level.

    Apart from the self-confessed intent of Darwin to fly the flag of scientific enlightenment in pursuit of the agenda of making it appear that there is no job opening for God.

    As in, this Darwin letter of Oct 30, 1880, that deserves to be far better known and more stringently evaluated:

    . . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [–> NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [–> NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.

    It seems to me that a likely mechanism, is that this move was part of a programme that injected methodological naturalism increasingly into the concept of what science is and how it works, thus — given the rising prestige of science — creating the false impression that to explain by reference to design is “unscientific” and (to many minds) “irrational.”

    An apt expression is in this from Lewontin:

    . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated . . . [[“Billions and billions of demons,” NYRB, Jan 1997.] [cf. here on for a fuller quote and notes in reply to the dismissive, strawman and ad hominem tactic accusation of “quote mining]

    Philip Johnson’s retort is stingingly apt:

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

    KF

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: John Lennox ~Seven Days That Divide the World~ video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rME6446wFKE

    Eric Metaxas and Socrates in the City present(ed) an evening with John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, at the Union Club in New York City on January 31, 2013. Dr. Lennox explores a method for reading and interpreting the first chapters of Genesis without discounting either science or Scripture. Afterward Metaxas is heard asking, “Why didn’t I ever have any math teachers like this?”

  10. 10
    lastyearon says:

    Shogun,

    “The answer is very simple, living cells contain specified complex information while by comparison quarks and gluons have not such specificity.”

    Um, quarks and gluons are astonishingly complex entities. We’re only beginning to scratch the surface of how amazingly intricate these tiny machines are.

    And besides, some of them have to know how to build protons and neutrons, which build atoms, which build molecules, which build cells, which build us. Can you even begin to understand how much information must be stored in those Quarks and Gluons? The human mind boggles. Only an Intelligence much much greater than we can even imagine must have designed them.

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    LYO: Lay off it, you are trying to push the mechanical necessity dimension of the cosmos in the place of the molecular level information systems of life. Had you said, that the set-up of the cosmos that programs quarks, gluons etc to make a cosmos in which for instance per fine tuning the first four elements are H, He, O, C — just what we need to base life on, with N as a couple more elements down the list, making proteins, you might have had a point. One that is looking straight at a fine tuned cosmos set up for life. With all that this invites in terms of best explanation on a cosmos-building knowledgeable and skillful designing intelligence. KF

  12. 12
    Shogun says:

    lastyearon

    Um, quarks and gluons are astonishingly complex entities

    We know this, which is why I did not say they lack “complexity” but I said they lack “specificity”, and that is different.

    In the OP, Eric Anderson already said this:

    Are you suggesting that quarks and gluons and atoms contain complex specified information? Do they contain sequences of particles that store a code for construction of an organism? I didn’t think so. So your insincere attempt at analogy fails.

    By the way where exactly are you going with this? If atoms do have some sort of a built-in code for creating complex entities then we should thank you for bringing more support for ID. And if not, ID still firmly holds its ground nonetheless.

    Think of it this way: atoms are the building material, in order for them be used to create something complex such as life, intelligence is needed. A builder makes his bricks from mud and then uses them to build a house according to an intelligent plan. But whether the individual atoms of mud had been intelligently arranged in such a way as to end up as bricks in a house or not, either way we still have the house as an example of intelligent design.

  13. 13
    lifepsy says:

    Per a priori materialist ideology, blind chance and mechanical necessity HAS to account for everything, no exceptions

    I say again. 50,000+ generations of bacteria (which translates into roughly 1 million years in higher vertebrates) fails to produce even one new functional gene sequence. Yet the evolutionists believe a small land-dwelling ungulate morphed into a fully aquatic whale in only ~10x that duration… Red flags should go up for any skeptic.

    It is Darwinian Mysticism; the ancient conjuring of the mysterious temporal vortex of chance and blind forces to reshape and reconfigure any creature on the face of the earth, as many independent instances as necessary, by whatever magnitude necessary, as fast or as slow as necessary, no exceptions. No questions asked. Join the church or you’re a dumb IDiot creationist.

  14. 14
    Joe says:

    lastyearon has “evolved” into a mocking turd…

  15. 15
    lastyearon says:

    Shogun, atoms are complex and specified.

    Think of it this way. If you were shrunk down to the size of an atom, you’d see a whole lot of complexity and functional specificity. If even one quark or one gluon or one electron is out of place, even just slightly, or doing the wrong thing, the whole atom just falls apart and there’s no atom, no molecule, no life.

    Now how did it get to be like that? Atheists say it’s just by accident. And theistic evolutionists like Kairosfocus think that the Designer set up nature like that. But clearly Nature operating freely, which is really just Chance and Necessity, cannot make something with so much CSI as an atom, duh.

  16. 16
    Joe says:

    Yes mockingturd- your position cannot account for atoms. What’s your point?

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    LYO: Fail, atoms exhibit mechanical necessity governed by deterministic laws and some limited statistics, not high contingency [much less highly informational, coded organisation on wiring diagrams], they are programmed by the physics of the cosmos. THAT is fine tuned and points beyond it to something serious. Which you obviously do not wish to face. Next problem. KF

  18. 18
    Mung says:

    I had been posting at TSZ, but then someone accused me of child abuse. Well, yeah, but they are supposed to be grownups.

  19. 19
    Mung says:

    kf:

    I would love to hear from objectors to FSCO/I etc, on why it is they seem to imagine that this is a make/break point for design theory and wider teleological thinking at worldview level.

    I just can’t wait to hear what Alan Fox and Nick Matzke have to say. Gregory is a lost cause.

  20. 20
    Shogun says:

    If Darwinists wish to place their faith in chance and necessity then let’s see some proof. How did chance and necessity create life? Where is the proof that random mutations can create new functional proteins?

    These questions are central to atheistic Darwinism, but instead of giving us answers, they always deploy some sort of an escape hatch, in this case we get a silly analogy that has already been responded to enough times.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    lastyearon, I think you may appreciate this:

    The Flow – Resonance Film – video
    Description: The Flow, from inside a cell, looks at the supervening layers of reality that we can observe, from quarks to nucleons to atoms and beyond. The deeper we go into the foundations of reality the more it loses its form, eventually becoming a pure mathematical conception.
    http://vimeo.com/groups/7286/videos/25430131

  22. 22
    Joe says:

    Lizzie’s mind is clamped shut:

    But in any case – the real point is that ID is dead, not because it’s wrong, but because it’s a failed attempt to “prove” that God exists, coupled with the apparent assumption that “Darwinists” think that science “proves” that God doesn’t.

    What a joke. ID is NOT about God, Lizzie. So either you are ignorant of ID or you are just dishonest. I say it is both.

    Also, according to some evolutionists (maybe even most), evolutionism = no God.

  23. 23
    Alan Fox says:

    I had been posting at TSZ, but then someone accused me of child abuse. Well, yeah, but they are supposed to be grownups.

    Where’s the link?

    Post the link and let’s see if what you say is true.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    Dr Liddle (HT, Joe):

    I am a tad disappointed: ID is dead, not because it’s wrong, but because it’s a failed attempt to “prove” that God exists, coupled with the apparent assumption that “Darwinists” think that science “proves” that God doesn’t

    First, the inference to design on empirical sign is an exercise in inductive logic, concerning cause. Proof is simply not relevant to inductive reasoning, cogency is.

    Further to this, you seem to have consistently dodged the well founded point that on a large observational base, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information is a tested and reliable sign of design. The very posts you try to use to dismiss the point, are further demonstrations in point.

    That is, per empirical investigation, there simply are reliable signs of design. And not a world of denials and dismissive talking points — nor endless chanting of drumbeat repetitions of such denials — will change that.

    All they do, is they reveal that the discovery of such signs is such a challenge to locked in ideologies that many are content to stand in denial of easily observed facts. Not for the first time in human history.

    Next, it is indisputable — as a matter of basic historical fact — that one of Darwin’s motivations in his science was to try to put a Creator out of a job. Yes, at the end of Origin he did toss a little sop, but that does not detract from say, this Oct 13, 1880 letter:

    . . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [–> NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [–> NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.

    No wonder, from the first, Darwinism was seized upon by those with anti-theistic agendas.

    And latterly, it is no accident that Dawkins openly avows as to how Darwin’s work and what followed makes it possible to be “an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Never mind, that what is often actually going on is on one side the injection of a priori materialism, even seeking to ideologically load the definition of science and its methods. On the other, there has been a lot of accommodation to what seems to dominate the academy.

    Strictly, Darwinism is not equal to materialism, but ideologically, it has been the thin edge of the real wedge problem in our civilisation. It is no accident that since Darwin, for the first time in history, atheism and its fellow travellers have become a mass movement.

    Nor, on history, should we simply shrug our shoulders.

    On history, this is what Plato warned 2,350 years ago in The Laws, Bk X:

    Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] 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.] . . . .

    [[Thus, they hold that t]he 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. (Cf. here for Locke’s views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic “every man does what is right in his own eyes” chaos leading to tyranny. )] 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; cf. dramatisation here], 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], and not in legal subjection to them.

    In our time, Provine, in his Keynote U Tenn 1998 Darwin Day address, put it in these terms:

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . .

    The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them . . .

    I would think, rather, that ID thinker Johnson, put it right:

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

    KF

  25. 25
    William J Murray says:

    Honestly, Dr. Liddle can only now be lying for whatever reason. There’s simply no way that she doesn’t know better.

  26. 26
    Joe says:

    Yaes William, Lizzie lies:

    Joe says he wasn’t banned for posting porn, but he was – it’s as simple as that.

    It wasn’t porn, Lizzie. Not by the standard and accepted definition of porn. However if what I posted was porn then what you posted- the statue of a naked man- was also porn.

    What I posted was disgusting, but it wasn’t porn. And I posted it because the ilk at the septic zone is disgusting.

  27. 27
    Joe says:

    And Lizzie thinks her opinion means something- maybe it means something to you Lizzie. NSFW? LoL!

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Notice, I spoke of atoms. When it comes to MOLECULES in the living cell that exploit the connector-block properties of C, here is Denton:

    To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter [[so each atom in it would be “the size of a tennis ball”] and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.

    We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines . . . . We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices used for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . . However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours [–> that is, we see here a molecular technology kinematic von Neumann self replicator integrated with a metabolising automaton] . . . .

    Unlike our own pseudo-automated assembly plants, where external controls are being continually applied, the cell’s manufacturing capability is entirely self-regulated . . . .

    [[Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler, 1986, pp. 327 – 331. This work is a classic that is still well worth reading. Emphases added. (NB: The 2009 work by Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute, Signature in the Cell, brings this classic argument up to date. The main thesis of the book is that: “The universe is comprised of matter, energy, and the information that gives order [[better: functional organisation] to matter and energy, thereby bringing life into being. In the cell, information is carried by DNA, which functions like a software program. The signature in the cell is that of the master programmer of life.” Given the sharp response that has provoked, the onward e-book responses to attempted rebuttals, Signature of Controversy, would also be excellent, but sobering and sometimes saddening, reading.) ]

    We know that FSCO/I can be and is routinely produced by intelligence. To date, afgter being asked hundreds of times over the course of years, advocates of the evolutionary materialist view have yet to come up with a clear and convincing case of blind chance and mechanical necessity giving rise to such. And, they face the issue of the scope of the configuration spaces for such large assemblages of highly contingent C-atom based complexes, with the challenges of the scope of search that the time and the number of atoms in our solar system or the observable cosmos pose.

    In response to this last, we find strawman rhetoric and evasions, not ready answers.

    Surely, at this time — today, six months from the time the Darwin Essay challenge was issued, with nary a serious response in prospect — we need to ask ourselves what that pattern is telling us.

    KF

  29. 29
    Upright BiPed says:

    #25,

    This is the same Dr Liddle who until recently was claiming that she could write a simulation showing the rise of information from purely stochastic processes.

    Apparently it never occurred to this esteemed partisan scientist that in order to show the rise of information it would first require the rise of a semiotic system in which to encode that information. She made that claim until an ID proponent demonstrated to her otherwise, at which time she strategically shrank from her claim without acknowledging the problem. Then on the back of that demonstration she started a blog under the auspices of asking ID proponents to contemplete their wrongness.

  30. 30
    Joe says:

    I guess Lizzie Liddle never heard of William Provine-

    HT to Pez.

    As if it had to be said-

    In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

    The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

    Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

    click here for a hint:

    ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

    Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.

    1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

    2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

    3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

    4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

    5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

    Now what Lizzie?

  31. 31
    Joe says:

    Allan Miller, another grand equivocator:

    In order to do a computer simulation you need a computer. In order to have evolution you need a replicator. Yes. We know.

    What kind of evolution, Allan? Intelligent Design Evolution, as we see in genetic and evolutionary algorithms? Or bind watchmaker evolution as we see when AVIDA is given realistic parameters?

    Unfortunately blind and undirected processes don’t seem to be capable of producing a replicator. And when humans create the replicating system and leave it be, nothing new evolves.

    Doesn’t it bother you that you will go to your grave and evolutionism will still have nothing but promissory notes?

  32. 32
    Mung says:

    Alan Fox:

    Where’s the link? Post the link and let’s see if what you say is true.

    Really Alan?

    I was accused of child abuse because I was abusing he children at TSZ.

    IT WAS A JOKE!

    sheesh.

  33. 33
    SteRusJon says:

    Mung,

    Really Alan?

    I was accused of child abuse because I was abusing he children at TSZ.

    IT WAS A JOKE!

    sheesh.

    Be a little forgiving. We all know that Alan cannot see there is meaning embedded in your quip. He has often said as much. How can we expect him to get the joke that is superimposed on the underlying information?

    Stephen

Leave a Reply