There are two axiomatic statements about the origin of the universe.
1. Matter (the universe) has always existed and is the first cause – the atheistic belief system
2. Matter (the universe) was made by a supernatural agent (God) who is the first cause – the theistic belief system
Darwin’s theory of evolution is held by atheists to be a vindication of their belief system as it purports to demonstrate that complex forms such as living organisms are not produced by deliberate design by an intelligent agent but rather by random undirected forces.
Charles Darwin was a great scientist who lacked the luxury of knowledge – specifically knowledge of information processing – so he could be indulged for thinking that changes in organism produced without a sculptor laying hands on the organism represented an un-intelligent undirected process.
Foolish persons such as atheist charlatan Professor Richard Dawkins cannot be so indulged. Professor Dawkins understands that living organisms are the products of pure information processing
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin,Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. It is pure information. It’s digital information. It’s precisely the kind of information that can be translated digit for digit, byte for byte, into any other kind of information and then translated back again. This is a major revolution. I suppose it’s probably “the” major revolution in the whole history of our understanding of ourselves. It’s something would have boggled the mind of Darwin, and Darwin would have loved it, I’m absolutely sure.
The Stanford Encylopaedia of Philosophy discusses the only known source of information at :
At this point, however, it is important to note that there are two ways in which richer notions of information can be introduced. One possibility is to argue that genes and other biological structures literally carry semantic information, and their informational character explains the distinctive role of these structures in biological processes. Another possibility is to treat the appeal to meaning and information as an analogical one. Here the idea is that language, coding systems, computer programs and other paradigmatically information-exploiting systems can serve as useful models for biological systems. If we take this second route, our task then is to identify the similarities between the cases of semantic phenomena used as models and the biological systems we seek to understand, and to show how those similarities are informative. If we think of genes or cells as literally carrying semantic information, our problem changes. Paradigm cases of structures with semantic information — pictures, sentences, programs — are built by the thought and action of intelligent agents. So we need to show how genes and cells — neither intelligent systems themselves nor the products of intelligence — can carry semantic information, and how the information they carry explains their biological role. We need some kind of reductive explanation of semantic information (arguably, we need this to understand cognition, too). One place we might look for such an analysis is naturalistic philosophy of mind.