Atheism : charlatans and a universe of incoherence

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

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

 

    

Richard DawkinsAn 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.
— Richard DawkinsThe Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

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.
— Richard DawkinsLife: A Gene-Centric View Craig Venter & Richard Dawkins: A Conversation in Munich (Moderator: John Brockman) “This event was a continuation of the Edge ‘Life: What a Concept!’ meeting in August, 2008.”

The  Stanford  Encylopaedia  of  Philosophy  discusses  the  only  known source  of information  at  :

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/

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.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Atheism, Darwin, Design, evolution, incoherence, information technology, Information Theory, Richard Dawkins. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s