Replies

I had hoped this line of inquiry would be important to the biologists and chemists on this forum, even though Pattee warned that such professionals would not be interested.

Any new technique has to prove itself. It proves itself by bringing new insight to a field, and making new predictions that could not be derived from existing methods. Information theory has, quite simply, not done this in biology or chemistry. When it proves itself useful, it will attract interest.

Couple that with the clear agenda of people like Yockey and Dembski, and the lack of respect for this branch of mathematics is heightened.

Thank you for your reply!

Information theory has, quite simply, not done this in biology or chemistry. When it proves itself useful, it will attract interest.

Indeed. There is tremendous interest among physicists, mathematicians and information theorists - but when they successfully employ their methods (perhaps as in the locating and analyzing of protein-binding sequence motifs in nucleic acids) then I imagine the biologists and chemists will take notice of its importance.

Couple that with the clear agenda of people like Yockey and Dembski, and the lack of respect for this branch of mathematics is heightened.

As far as I know, Yockey is not part of the Intelligent Design movement though they have been known to quote his research. Here is Yockey’s reaction to such claims Chowder society:

Subject: My views on Intelligent Design
Dear Brian:

Thank you for your e-mail this morning. I am well thank you and I hope the same for you.

I have been aware for some time that creationists have cited my work to support their views. This may be because I have shown in my publications and in my book that materialist-reductionist scenarios of formation of life by chance, self-organization or epitaxy on clay particles can not form a genome in a prebiotic soup. There is no geological evidence that a primeval soup ever existed. I quote the Bible, especially Hebrews 11:1, when I think it appropriate but I also quote other literature as well.

[...]

Both Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable [W. W. Norton & Co. 1996] and Dembski's book distort the theory of probability.

There is nothing in my publications that indicates I support Intelligent Design.

Brian Harper adds:

Hubert also mentioned that he has a new paper coming out soon in which he includes some remarks about ID. I'll try to let people know when this is published.

My question now to ID'ers is whether they can justify their appeal to Hubert Yockey's work and, if they cannot, if such appeals will end? IMHO, this is very unfair to Hubert.

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University