[[And concerning information theory and molecular biology, Yockey literally “wrote the book.” But he also does not argue for intelligent design.]]
Wouldn’t information theory necessarily be3 ID (unless one tries to argue that nature somehow creates information/metainformation? I don’t see how one can escape at least inferring the possibility that an ID is needed for metainformation unless they appeal to the ‘intelligent nature’ of nature itself?
[[Creationists often use combinatorics to argue there was not enough time for biological evolution.]]
Some argue that it’s biologically imposible regardless of how much time is thrown at it- impossible no matter what stage you start the proposed process of macroevolution at
[[Irreducible complexity is yet another theory for analyzing complexity. Personally I don’t care for it because it is backwards looking.]]
I think it also looks at hte problem from ‘start to finish’- just as Miller tried and failed to ‘build complexity naturally’ from the ground up when he tried to describe how complex mammilian blood clotting ‘could have evolved’ naturally, ID looks at systems, examines the natural aspects and sees whether they could have evolved fro mthe ground up (at least soem of them ore indepth articles from lesser known ID scientists do- As well, Demski and others on his site go from ground up- ISCID (.org I beleive) also takes this approach on many issues- Sites like IRC and AnswersinGenesis and others mostly do take the back to front approach, and a lot of their articles are not very indepth, but they do have some pretty technical articles- you just have to really look for them on the site- but most of hteir articles are less technical and more general speaking for hte public
[[The intelligent design “hypothesis” essentially observes that the best explanation for “certain features” is that a guide was intelligent.]]
I have to point out here that that is a bit of a generalization- as mentioned, when you realyl start digging, you find many terrific articles describing whther nature is capable of what is being examined from the ground up or not, and they also point out the impossibilities that nature faces, and why they are impossible naturally, and describe scientificaly, why an intelligent designer was needed behind certain key constructions- Evos poo poo this as ‘appealing to the supernatural’ yet Evos ignore the impossibilities, and and must appeal to a ‘supernatural nature’ if these impossibilities are to be overcome naturally
Shannon's model (information theory, successful communication) can be and is applied to molecular biology without having to first identify the origin of information (successful communication) in the cosmos. The mathematical model applies to each instance; it doesn't matter which message came first. There is as yet no known naturalistic origin for information in the cosmos.
Likewise, Einstein's theory of relativity is applied without having to first identify a naturalistic origin of space/time. A four dimensional space/time continuum is a postulate to special relativity. His theory is self-contained.
And likewise, even though there is no known naturalistic origin for inertia in the cosmos, Newton's theories apply to each instance of the phenomenum.
Unlike disciplines of science where physical causality and an arrow of time prevail and therefore raise the issue of origins, mathematical models often address organizations and systems as logically self-contained.
Rosen's model is like that, he entails final cause in a circular organization without addressing origins or time. Indeed, Rosen cites the Fibonacci series as one of the few exceptions where the future can be known in the present. And so his model closes the loop, entailing final cause instead and thereby, obviating the arrow of time.
My favorite example is Max Tegmark's level IV parallel universe wherein that which exists "in" space/time is a manifestation of mathematical structures which actually do exist outside of space and time. Origin of the mathematical structures are irrelevant to the model. It is self-contained. Indeed, it is the only closed cosmology known to me. And it is closed precisely because it is radical mathematical Platonism.
In all of these things, as a Christian I rejoice because I see them as God's copyright notice on the cosmos - the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Wigner, Vafa et al.)
But they are math, not theology. They don't need to address origins and they don't.
The second issue you raise, metainformation, is related not to the mathematics of successful communications (Shannon) but rather to the content of the message itself which is something completely irrelevant to Shannon's model!
This is why on previous threads I summarily rebuked Alex Williams' (et al) narrative. They rudely diss Shannon for not addressing the content of the message itself which is something a universal mathematical model must never do. If it did, it would not be portable among knowledge disciplines.
Message content goes to complex systems theory (or literature, video entertainment or whatever is being transmitted) - not communications (information) theory.
Or to put it another way, the very same computer can be used for child's play one minute, bookkeeping the next, serious writing the next, science research the next, etc. The very same computer can transmit Scripture and pornography. The content of the message being transmitted over its circuitry is irrelevant to the computer itself.
Metainformation speaks specifically to temporal displacement, that the biological entity does maintenance and repair before it has the awareness or intelligence to anticipate the need.
It is more appropriately addressed in the interdisciplinary investigation of complex systems theory.
Unlike the models previously addressed the theory involved is not self-contained. Again, complexity is measured either by least time or least description. Arguably, Rosen's model could fall under least description. But Williams' is obviously in the least time corner because in metainformation, physical causation is set on its head: effect>cause instead of cause>effect. That is what I mean by temporal displacement.
And again, as a Christian, I immediately rejoice over God's copyright notice on the cosmos.
Nevertheless, temporal displacement is not theology. Geometric physicists (Vafa, Wesson, et al) would point out that temporal displacement (including violations of Bell's inequalities at distance or quantum entanglement, superposition, etc.) could point to additional expanded temporal or time-like dimension(s.)
There are many questions I strongly believe science will never be able to answer to most people's satisfaction. Nevertheless, they are still "on the table" for future researchers, e.g.