Replies

I still think that your use of the word "information" is being improperly imbued with enough subtle characteristics to load the dice in favor of a conclusion that something more than chemistry is going on.

PH, it is obvious that something more than chemistry is going on. If I might try to explain this elusive point, chemical effects seem to be quite local phenomena that occur at the molecular level. But an astronomically complex thing like a human body has a virtually uncountable plethora of parts, all of which must work together in synergy in order for the organism to exist as a living system. There is nothing in the laws of chemistry of which I am aware that can account for this ordered complexity that must exist for life to emerge and maintain itself.

This is not "dice-loading," this is a simple observation. From the purely scientific standpoint, it is really a matter of little consequence that I happen to believe that God created the universe which, thus, had a beginning in time. Or that I believe that God did not set up a random, accidental system, but had a purpose in view which has been evolving from the beginning, towards a goal for mankind and the universe.

Whether or not my belief is true, the "facts on the ground" would still be the same: The laws of chemistry, together with all known fundamental physical laws, do not possess the "information content" necessary to explain the vastly greater information content needed to coordinate all the activity that goes on at the atomic, molecular, cellular, and organic levels necessary to the emergence, coordination, and sustenance of even the simplest living organism.

Perhaps these lines from Dean Overman (Op. cit.), referencing the thought of Michael Polyani, might shed the necessary light for you to grasp this point:

"The structure of machines and their workings are made by human beings and are not the random results of physical or chemical laws, even though their material and forces obey those laws. The design, shape, and operation of the machines are not due to physical and chemical forces and cannot be explained only by chemical and physical laws. Polyani noted that the workings of a living organism have been compared to the workings of machines with physiology interpreting the organism as a complex network of mechanisms. For example, the various organs of the body such as the stomach and liver function in a manner similar to a machine. As a machine can never be reduced to the laws of physics and chemistry, so a living organism can never be reduced to these laws. In his words, 'when I say that life transcends physics and chemisitry, I mean that biology cannot explain life in our age by the current workings of physical and chemical laws.' It is interesting to note that once Polyani discovered his irreducible principles, he concluded that consciousness could never be reduced to physics and chemistry. But, again, once it is recognized...that life transcends physics and chemistry, there is no reason for suspending recognition of the obvious fact that consciousness is a principle that fundamentally transcends not only physics but also the mechanistic principles of living beings." [itals added]

IOW, to build a machine you have to "add intelligence" to the physical components in order for its structure to come together in such a way as to serve the purpose for which the machine was designed. Therefore, life is more than physical components; and "intelligence" is a property of consciousness (or sentience), which itself is a feature of all living beings to some degree.

The truly great mystery, for me, is consciousness itself. For consciousness is not only not subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, it appears in a certain sense to transcend them altogether. We know it is strongly associated with physical life; Christians believe, however, that it is not dependent on physical life, in the sense that it survives physical death.

But I probably shouldn't have mentioned this last here, as it is not directly germane to the issues you have raised quoted at the top of this reply, and probably unnecessarily complicates the picture I am trying to convey.

Thanks for writing, Patrick.

p.s.: BTW, I am still not a creationist....

Ah, BB ... we do have our little disagreements. But this is a big one, and we've both nibbled at it from time to time, without ever reaching any common agreement. You are assuming, incorrectly I think, that the whole is nothing more than a collection of its parts, and cannot naturally have properties which are different from them separately. In logic, this is known as a "category error", discussed (among many other places) HERE (you gotta scroll down about half way to find it).

Permit me to give you some quotes from Stephen J. Gould [gasp!] which come from this website: HERE

The primary fallacy of this argument has been recognized from the inception of this hoary debate. "Arising from" does not mean "reducible to," for all the reasons embodied in the old cliche that a whole can be more than the sum of its parts. To employ the technical parlance of two fields, philosophy describes this principle by the concept of "emergence," while science speaks of "nonlinear" or "nonadditive" interaction. In terms of building materials, a new entity may contain nothing beyond its constituent parts, each one of fully known composition and operation. But if, in forming the new entity, these constituent parts interact in a "nonlinear" fashion—that is, if the combined action of any two parts in the new entity yields something other than the sum of the effect of part one acting alone plus the effect of part two acting alone — then the new entity exhibits "emergent" properties that cannot be explained by the simple summation of the parts in question. Any new entity that has emergent properties — and I can't imagine anything very complex without such features—cannot, in principle, be explained by (reduced to) the structure and function of its building blocks.
Please note that this definition of "emergence" includes no statement about the mystical, the ineffable, the unknowable, the spiritual, or the like—although the confusion of such a humdrum concept as nonlinearity with this familiar hit parade has long acted as the chief impediment to scientific understanding and acceptance of such a straightforward and commonsensical phenomenon. [snip]
I can't think of an earthly phenomenon more deeply intricate (for complex reasons of evolutionary mechanism and historical contingency)—and therefore more replete with nonlinear interactions and emergent features—than the human brain. [snip]