Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'

The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.

The article in Tuesday's editions of L'Osservatore Romano was the latest in a series of interventions by Vatican officials - including the pope - on the issue that has dominated headlines in the United States.

The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Darwin's theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution "represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth."

He lamented that certain American "creationists" had brought the debate back to the "dogmatic" 1800s, and said their arguments weren't science but ideology.

"This isn't how science is done," he wrote. "If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it's not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science."

Intelligent design "doesn't belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin's explanation is unjustified," he wrote.

"It only creates confusion between the scientific and philosophical and religious planes."

Supporters of "intelligent design" hold that some features of the universe and living things are so complex they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism - a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific language and say it does not belong in science curriculum.

Facchini said he recognized some Darwin proponents erroneously assume that evolution explains everything. "Better to recognize that the problem from the scientific point of view remains open," he said.

But he concluded: "In a vision that goes beyond the empirical horizon, we can say that we aren't men by chance or by necessity, and that the human experience has a sense and a direction signaled by a superior design."

The article echoed similar arguments by the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. George Coyne, who said "intelligent design" wasn't science and had no place in school classrooms.

Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed in off-the-cuff comments in November that the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticized those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Re: if it conflicts with science, the thing doesn't exist.

"This is a philosophical, not a scientific, statement. It is an a priori assertion. There is zero scientific evidence to support this assertion. You believe it in blind faith.

No. It conflicts with the science. The truth is singular, unique and there's no room for a dual here. When a conflict and contradiction is posed against something with scientific evidence, the unscientific loses. There's no need for apriori assumptions. The scientific evidence overrules the claim with no evidence. That's reality.

Example. Olf says, "lightning is the result of Thor tossing thunderbolts." Benjamin says, "lightning is atmospheric electricity caused by the breaking of ice crystals in the clouds and other effects of wind shear". Benjamin provides a theory of electricity, fully supported with evidence and all Thor can come up with is traditional stories. No evidence of Thor, or evidence of where, or how Thor obtains his bolts. Benjamin is justified in on scientific grounds that Olf's stories are a bogus reality.

Example 2) Cops shoot boy for rampaging in school with pellet gun. No one on the scene learns the gun is a toy until kid is shot. Father later says he told the cops before the kid was shot, that his son doesn't have a real gun. Father is overruled by phone records(the scientific evidence) that show his phone was never used.

Example 3) Man creates ID model that shows the laws of physics can't account for the observations. The man claims an unseen fifth force exists that directs all the others. The scientist notes that there is no evidence for the fifth force and that the modeler's claims regarding it are completely arbitrary. The scientist also notes, that the modeler's claims only apply to steps in a process that are presently of unknown mechanism, but not inconsistent with all else that is known about the process. The scientist is fully justified, on scientific grounds to say, "your model is wrong." He can also address the details of why it's wrong, but that isn't required for his conclusion to stand.

Example 4) The same applies to the the claim that a soul is required for intelligence in biological organisms. Science is rightly justified in saying that is not so. It is justifiied, because it can demonstrate the aciton attributed to intelligence and moral action, is inherent in the physics. "Soul", ocnflicts with science. It is not simply a dual, it's an arbitrary force that acts in contradiction to observable reality. That means the concept of soul must be revisted to determine what it really is.

" Therefore "The scientific method requires that science ignore it, not the individual" is false."

The "therefore" is unwarranted, because it does not follow. The statement w/o the label, applies in the case of the dual, where there is no conflict between science and some other claim not subject to the scientific method. In this case science has nothing to say. The individual doesn't have to ignore the claim. He can treat it as a rational problem.

Dear spunkets, you wrote: “The burden is not on science to show that what can not be demonstrated doesn't exist. The burden of evidence lies with the person claiming something does exist. Science is rightly justified in excluding those things, and the evidence for those things, which are in conflict with what it can clearly see and account for.”

You wrote this as part of your answer to my assertion:

"For one cannot claim that ontology (the philosophical study of being) is ‘measurable’ in any scientific sense. How do you put being under a microscope? Or how see it by means of a high-powered telescope?"

To which you replied: “Being is the equivalent of is. If the object physically exists in this world, it's amenable to scientific study.”

Well, sure. But this the same thing as saying that all real existents are amenable to scientific study. And therefore, existents not so amenable must therefore be fictions. Is this your position?

Actually, it seems you leave this point quite vague. But it is the very heart of the matter.

So, what do you really think?

Re:“Being is the equivalent of is. If the object physically exists in this world, it's amenable to scientific study.”

" But this the same thing as saying that all real existents are amenable to scientific study. And therefore, existents not so amenable must therefore be fictions. Is this your position?"

No. Existents not amenable to scientific study are not necessarily fictitious. Only those in conflict with the reality science knows and understands are. Otherwise, the matter is simply outside of science. It can stand as a dual, meaning that it stands as a perfectly logical possibility, along with a scientifically generated possibility. Or, the existent is simply not amenable to the scientific study and there's no relation to what science can address at all.

For instance. The beginning of this world appears to science as the equivalent of a phase transformation, regardless of particular details. As far as I know, the details within science will appear as duals. ie. several descriptions of the same thing. The idea that God created the universe stands as a dual. It can not be ruled out, because it does not conflict with science. In order to do so, science would have to rule out it's own duals and subject things outside this world to the scientific method. Hence, Matt 12:37-38. God's not dumb. The physics of this world play the role of the flaming sword wielding cherubim in Gen 3.

Thank you so much for the ping to your sidebar discussion! Just a few comments on spunkets’ example from post 224:

As I understand the example, when science arrives at its “best guess” about a thing it may be fully compatible with another interpretation – like the wave/particle duality – the electron is both a particle and a wave, species were both evolved and specially created, etc. Somehow, I cannot imagine the Dawkins, Lewontins, Singers and Pinkers of the world allowing any such alternate interpretation on their watch...

The physics of this world play the role of the flaming sword wielding cherubim in Gen 3.

You might find it interesting that some Jewish mystics understand the firmament in Genesis 1 as not being a geometric thing (here v there) but rather a boundary between the spiritual and the physical – and further that the firmament is the speed of light. Food for thought…

And one last point - phase transformation in the beginning of this world requires preexisting space/time, physical laws and physical causation – none of which can exist in the void. It is only one among several cosmological varieties. (Time before Time)

I notice that you offered no scientific evidence for these claims. They are in fact a priori, non-scientific, beliefs you hold. You cannot offer scientific evidence for them. There is none. In this statement and others like them you assert your beliefs about who loses, what exists etc. When you offer me scientific evidence, we can talk.

I find it mind-boggling that you simply make an assertion "when science and non-science conflict, non-science loses" with no scientific evidence to back it up. I don't doubt for a second that you believe to be self-evidently true. I believe it to be false. I do not claim that science proves it false; I claim that philosophical reasoning and observation of non-scientific data indicates it to be false.

Now, how will you go about scientifically proving your belief to be true or my belief to be false? You need either to provide scientific evidence for your claim that science explains everything and is always right or you need to admit that it is a philosophical/religious claim and argue for it on those grounds.

Please do not bother me with another "Spunkets says so, that's why," argument. That kind of philosophical reasoning is for 7-year-olds on the school playground.

Asserting something as fact based solely on Spunkets' beliefs is not good philosophy, nor is it science in any way, shape or form. That you somehow think this is scientifically established fact only shows how poor your science and your philosophy is.

" We ought not to declare what is possible vis-à-vis other worlds. After all, our vision and minds are limited to four, seemingly arbitrarily selected, perceptible dimensions although we can surmise the likelihood of additional spatial and temporal dimensions through mathematics."

Of course the physics of this world don't apply elsewhere, but they are part of the same consistent system.

" In sum, the metaphysical naturalist (or atheist) view relies on the plentitude argument, that anything that can happen, did. A finite past destroys that argument and they are left with the anthropic principle, that the past was sufficient though finite. Even so, a finite past means there was a beginning – and for that they have no rebuttal at all because there can only be one uncaused cause of all that there is, i.e. God."

The finite past doesn't destroy the fact that it is possible for this world to arise from within the physics alone. No one can say with certainty, that they can put their finger on the cause. From this world, the universe appears to come into existence as a phase transformation. Nothing limits claims for a cause, other than it be consistent with what can be shown to be true in and about this world.

" There is no space or time at all in the void – therefore there can be no autonomy, energy, physical laws or physical causation in the void."

There is. If this statement were true, then this world could not exist. The vacuum is space. It's physics determine the curvature of world lines. Even the dielectric constant and permittivty of free space depend on the physics of the vacuum. It's the physics of the vacuum that result in the constant speed of light. The lamb shift in the hydrogen atom is due to it. Hawking radiation is due to vacuum interaction. Dark matter and energy are probably due to the vacuum. So that, the physics of the vacuum determine the cosmological constant(small positive). String theory and Loop quantum gravity all have a quantum structure at the Planck scale.

The physics at that scale are quantized, but act in concert to provide a system that appears smooth. The only way to have a 4 space arise is to have a Planck structure of quantized elements that are arranged with the constraint of causation. So, the spin networks of loop quantum gravity, the stings and membranes of String theory, and Lorentzian lattice quant gravity" require both the restraint of causality and smoothness of space-time in their construction. The paper from the latter news article is here. The results show that the quantum structure of the vacuum is organized to preserve both energy and causality locally. So that, the dispersion expected from the quantum fluctuations of the space on the Planck scale, over long distances and times are not seen.

" Some physical cosmologies impose this universe’s space/time, physical laws, energy/matter and physical causation on previously existing worlds"

None of them do. The physics of other worlds, higher dimensions, strings and membranes are hypothesis, that can be called theory, if they accurately describe this world. This world is the only place observations can be made. This world includes the boundary, the vacuum, which is the connection between here and elsewhere. Elsewhere also includes the vacuum boundary. Note, the boundary of a boundary is zero.

"Moreover, whereas infinity is a very useful construct in mathematics, it does not translate well to the physics."

I looked at Vaas. Notice that all of the scientific models contain an eternal underlying physics. There is no point in any of them where the underlying physics begins, or ends. It needs to be said, that the underlying physics, although giving rise to this world, are not the physics of this world. This world is out of, not all there is.

The emergence of this world does have a beginning. The measure of that time must always be made with reference to some point in this world. In general, the timescale used is linear and has no preferred direction. Time itself has no preferred direction, processes do. So, there is no real arrow of time, only a process direction. Time itself is simply a measure of the persistence of an object. That's why nothing is ever timeless. Those things that are referred to as timeless, are simply time independent.

" Non-life and “now dead but previously alive” existents do not successfully communicate in nature. That is the difference between what is alive and what is non-life or death."

Information theory applies to any process. It applies to meson exchange between neutrons and protons in nuclear stabilization. It applies to equilibrium oscillaitons in chemical systems. In general, information theory can be applied to any thermodynamic system. So, defining life by noting a process R is useless.

" Your objections to Schneider’s use of a coin as a simplified (binary) example are noted"

I don't object to the use of a coin as an example. It was an excellent example to use for information theory. His thermodynamics was completely wrong. That's what I commented on. The thermodynamic entropy of the coin was the same, before and after the toss.

You live in a hopelessly self-contained scientistic world. You lecture me on the meanings words have in your world while making claims that apply outside your scientistic world.

I will ask once more: what is the scientific evidence for the claims you made in 224 and 227? You made claims about the nature of scientific knowledge and about the non-existence of things that are not subject to scientific evidence.

That is a philosophical claim. It is an epistemological and ontological claim about what exists and what does not exist. But you claimed it was a scientific claim. If you have scientific proof for it, please supply it. Otherwise it is an unsubstantiated solipsism.

You know an awful lot about science. You know less about how science relates to other ways of thinking and reasoning and knowing. Your self-referential world makes communication nearly impossible. This will be my last request for scientific proof for your claims in 224 and 227.

And to say that none is required is an evasion. Who says none is required? Science says? Spunkets says? But the question is whether science has the last word in everything or not. If not, then science cannot authoritatively say, "no evidence is needed." If science does have the last word on this, on what basis does that philosophical, epistemological claim (namely, that science gets to decide when evidence is needed) rest? If you say, "on science" you are going in circles. If you offer some other evidence from outside science for your claim, then you refute your own claim.

You see, if everyone were a pious believer in scientism like you are, you could appeal to the Authority called Science to settle such questions and everyone would bow and scrape to Science. But not everyone is a pious believer in the religion of Science, in the scientistic faith that you hold dear. So to those who do not share you faith in Science, your appeal to Science says so doesn't cut it.

Moreover, I don't think your solipsism is even good science. I understood genuine philosophy of science to recognize that science's ability to explain everything is limited to empirical things, to measurable things and that science qua science cannot rule on whether non-measurable things exist.

But you claimed that science does rule (negatively) against the existence of such things. Okay, show me the scientific evidence.

And you come back with one more scientistic pious solipsistic response.

I won't bother you anymore, asking you to clarify what you clearly do not understand (science/nonscientific epistemology questions).

Thank you for your reply!

Of course the physics of this world don't apply elsewhere, but they are part of the same consistent system.

Moreover, it is entirely a discretionary presupposition that the physics of this world must be the same for the overarching system of which it is a component.

The finite past doesn't destroy the fact that it is possible for this world to arise from within the physics alone.

To the contrary, that is exactly what it says because there can be no physics without space/time.

From this world, the universe appears to come into existence as a phase transformation.

You keep saying that, but it is not the determination of the entire body of knowledge – only your corner of it.

me: " There is no space or time at all in the void – therefore there can be no autonomy, energy, physical laws or physical causation in the void."

you: There is. If this statement were true, then this world could not exist. The vacuum is space. It's physics determine the curvature of world lines. Even the dielectric constant and permittivty of free space depend on the physics of the vacuum. It's the physics of the vacuum that result in the constant speed of light.

There is no vacuum in the void. There can be no vacuum in the absence of space and time. That is why a finite past means the first cause is the void, i.e. God.

Richard Lieu’s theory is yet another multi-verse theory which proposes that space/time and matter on the edge of a black hole was the physical causation for the big bang. The black hole itself was a component of a prior universe, etc. regressing all the way back to the beginning of space/time – the void.

We’ll have to wait for the 2007 launch of the Planck Mission satellite to see if his theories hold sufficiently to change the rate of the Hubble expansion and thus alter our estimate of the age and disposition of this universe.

The more interesting cosmologies are not multi-verse or multi-world but Tegmark’s Level IV parallel universe (which is the only closed one known to me) – the cyclic models and the brane collision theories. Even so – all of them require a beginning of space and time – geometry – for their physical causation. None of them can address the first cause.

me: " Some physical cosmologies impose this universe’s space/time, physical laws, energy/matter and physical causation on previously existing worlds"

you: None of them do. The physics of other worlds, higher dimensions, strings and membranes are hypothesis, that can be called theory, if they accurately describe this world. This world is the only place observations can be made. This world includes the boundary, the vacuum, which is the connection between here and elsewhere. Elsewhere also includes the vacuum boundary. Note, the boundary of a boundary is zero.

To the contrary, brane collision theories – the regressing multi-verse theories – impose this universe’s space/time, physical laws, energy/matter and physical causation on previously existing worlds.

And the eternal underlying physics envisioned by those physical cosmologies is none other than that which we have observed in this universe with our seemingly arbitrarily chosen four coordinates. That is anthropomorphizing the cosmology. However, many understand the problem and its import.

You are only considering a single temporal dimension or perhaps a three spatial dimension reality evolving over time.

Add a second time dimension (Vafa) and instead of time being a line, it is a plane. Likewise, a single particle in a fifth time-like dimension could be multiply imaged 10⁸⁰ times in this 4D block (Five dimensions, 2 times.)

Or as described on the mysteries of mass thread: ”It is possible that the particles we see are all actually massless, their apparent masses corresponding to extra-dimensional momentum components we can't as yet detect.”

To the contrary, there are specific elements of Shannon’s mathematical theory of communications which are not contained in the examples of non-living processes you have mentioned. The elements include message, sender, encoding, channel, decoding, receiver and noise. There is no semiosis in the examples you give.

Re:From this world, the universe appears to come into existence as a phase transformation.

" You keep saying that, but it is not the determination of the entire body of knowledge – only your corner of it."

A phase transformation is a general simplified way of encompasing any theory of the beginning. They're all included regardless of their particular details. In a nutshell, it means that at the first instant of conceptual time, space expanded, a symmetry was broken and the energy of the event could be described as dE = -dW. E is the energy that would later condense into particles(entropy enters the equation), and W(work) is an equal and opposite E of the gravitational field(space). The event can be visualized as a gas bubble forming in a boiling liquid.

"regressing all the way back to the beginning of space/time – the void."

I'm confused by your use of the term void. There is only a vacuum. What do you mean by void?

"There can be no vacuum in the absence of space and time."

The vacuum is everywhere, regardless of energy content or state. It was arranged to 4 space during and after inflation. During inflation the wavefront v was higher than c, so it was essentially a shock wave through a vacuum. Expansion at c occurred some ~100 time constants after that exponential inflation. Expansion would not occur at some fixed speed c, if the expanison was into nothing. Also, where would the energy to create new vacuum come from during expansion? Even though I'm a bit hazy on constructing vacuums out of branes, it still applies. The vacuum is a brane(s) with no strings on it. In general, the number of branes one contemplates is arbitrary.

" The elements include message, sender, encoding, channel, decoding, receiver and noise. There is no semiosis in the examples you give."

Semiosis refers to organisms, information theory does not. Information theory applies to any process. Take the case of the neutron and proton in nuclear stabilization.

message: meson/change identity
sender: the neutron
receiver: the proton
encoding/decoding: meson release/absorption

H_before = log₂(2) (proton can either be itself, or neutron.)
H_after = log₂(1)
R = log₂(2) - log₂(1) = 1

The neutron transmits a meson and becomes a proton. The proton recieves the meson and becomes a neutron. The process repeats itself indefinitely. Noise enters the picture in large nuclei, where the comms approach the channel capacity. The channel capacity primarily depends on the neutron/proton ratio. Noise could also enter the pic in high energy environments.

Thanks for your reply!

I know what you mean by phase transformation but it does not encompass all theories of the beginning and cannot encompass any theory of the cause of physical causation itself or of space/time.

I'm confused by your use of the term void. There is only a vacuum. What do you mean by void?

This appears to be our great stumbling block in communicating.

In the void there is no space and no time and therefore no vacuum, no energy, no matter, no physical laws, no physical constants, no events, no thing, no physics, no autonomy, etc. – which means no physical causation. That precludes any possibility of a phase transformation as a beginning of all that there is.

Once there is space/time then all other laws of physics (whatever they might be in a particular universe) can enter the picture – including phase transformation.

Space/time doesn’t pre-exist in our universe – it is created as the universe expands.

Semiosis refers to organisms, information theory does not. Information theory applies to any process. Take the case of the neutron and proton in nuclear stabilization.

Your example is a simplified signal process, a toggle, like a finite state machine which occurs in nature. In your example, the information source and transmitter functions – as well as the receiver and destination functions are merged. IOW, it does not entail message encoding/decoding. (Shannon’s Mathematical Theory of Communications).

Semiosis is not restricted to organisms – it is “any action or influence involving the establishment or perception of relationships between signs.” Transmitters and receivers – whether computers or communications systems or molecular machines - perform semiosis.

In the case of Shannon’s theory, it is the operation on the message which produces a signal suitable for transmission over a channel.

In biological systems, the message is the genetic message in DNA including tRNA. The encoder/transmitter is the transcription into mRNA. The channel code is mRNA. The decoder/receiver is the translation of the message into protein. And the noise is genetic noise — mutations and viruses, noise in genetic code (tRNA) and prions. The original message, the DNA, exists apart from the signal and thus, survives death.

" In your example, the information source and transmitter functions – as well as the receiver and destination functions are merged. IOW, it does not entail message encoding/decoding."

From your link to Shannon, "A transmitter which operates on the message in some way to produce a signal suitable for transmission over the channel." The transmitter in my example, will always be a neutron. The receiver will always be a proton. The templates are the 3 quarks in each. The channel is space and the encoding suitable for transmission and reception is the meson. Encoding/decoding also contains the possibility of compression, but here and in DNA transcription, there is no effective redundancy. The encoded signals are the meson, with the particular properties of E and spin containing the image of the neutron, and mRNA,containing an image of the DNA, in the 4 coded alphabet.

" Semiosis is not restricted to organisms – it is “any action or influence involving the establishment or perception of relationships between signs."

OK, so the proton perceives the action of the neutron. The relationship between the objects in the process and the signs, are inherent in the physics. My example can be extended, so that the neutron/proton system interacts with other like and unlike systems. for instance it can interact with electrons, the message is carried by the photons of the electromagnetic field. It applies to the particles that make up the neutron/proton beforehand. It can be extended to all the interactions that lead to creation of the cell itself, including the assembly of DNA in the first place. It can be extended all the way back to the beginning. The fundamental template, is the physics. DNA arises from the physics.

"And the noise is genetic noise — mutations and viruses, noise in genetic code (tRNA) and prions. The original message, the DNA, exists apart from the signal and thus, survives death."

The noise here contains a message of it's own. It simply uses other cells machinery to duplicate, or undo the final protein output in the image of itself, in the case of prions. In general these cells die and the DNA doesn't survive. This is more like co-opting channel capacity. The term noise would apply more to random errors in the process, rather than specific encoded messages co-opting the transmission system, or changing the output.

Life itself is a natural quasi-steady state, nonequilibrium open system, having some capacity to change on it's own, to maintain it's own processes, and to replicate itself. Quasi-steady state, instead of steady state applies, because of aging. Information theory applies to the processes. So, getting back to:

"" Non-life and “now dead but previously alive” existents do not successfully communicate in nature. That is the difference between what is alive and what is non-life or death.""

It can be seen that this definition of life, misses the important features of life and thus fails to make a real distinction.

" In the void there is no space and no time and therefore no vacuum, no energy, no matter, no physical laws, no physical constants, no events, no thing, no physics, no autonomy, etc. – which means no physical causation."

This is the idea of a real void in theoretical physics.

"Ayn Sof, for God as the Creator – which basically means “no-thing” — One without end from which all being emerges and into which all being dissolves. There is no autonomy in the void in which there is no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no physical laws, no physical constants, no physical causation – the void is both singular and transcendent - i.e. God understood as Ayn Sof."

Here is where I was confused. I do not believe God is a void, since I hold void to be defined as nothing at all. God is a person. The particular objects that are missing in the void that are required for the object person are, energy, physical laws for process, and causation. The physical laws may be the autonomous being's will over the energy, because he is in essence a closed, nonequilibrium system. He must be able to change matters on his own, according to his will. I can't see void, transcendent, or not, being the cause of anything.

Thank you for your reply!

God is a person, I've known Him personally for some 46 years now. God is a Spirit (John 4:24).

The Jewish mystics concept of Ayn Sof as God the Creator may be better understood this way: in the void, there are no autonomous entities, only the non-autonomous, transcendent, singular (the One). His existence must exist for there to be an uncaused cause of “all that there is” whether in heaven or earth – whether spiritual or physical.

The same Jewish mystics surmise that there was a beginning because God wanted to reveal Himself. After all, there is nothing of which anything can be made in the void - only His will.

Translating that Jewish mysticism to Christianity – Christ was in the beginning and everything that was made was made by Him and for Him. (John 1, Colossians 1). He is the First and the Last, Genesis to Revelation.

Thus the Father has revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ, in the indwelling Spirit, in Scripture and in Creation. And His purpose does not end with this heaven and earth but the next one, the perfected family in the perfected heaven and earth. Christ is the reason for “all that there is”. As hopepipe loves to quip, Christ came to establish a family not a religion.

The Jewish mysticism can also be translated to Christianity by considering Logos (John 1). God spoke everything into being, speaking is the creating force in the universe.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3

To me, the signal processing in particle physics can be no more than an impoverished reduction of Shannon’s mathematical theory of communications. Nevertheless it is signal processing.

And the cosmic microwave background radiation has recorded sound waves at the moment the universe cooled enough for photons to decouple from electrons, protons and neutrons and light went its way.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. – Genesis 1:3

Moreover, throughout living systems, the full Shannon model is readily apparent in nature. Truly, when a living organism ceases to successfully communicate, it is physically dead.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.