The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

self | January 26, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

By Jean F. Drew

“The commonly cited case for intelligent design appeals to: (a) the irreducible complexity of (b) some aspects of life. But complex arguments invite complex refutations (valid or otherwise), and the claim that only some aspects of life are irreducibly complex implies that others are not, and so the average person remains unconvinced. Here I use another principle—autopoiesis (self-making)—to show that all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations. Autopoiesis provides a compelling case for intelligent design in three stages: (i) autopoiesis is universal in all living things, which makes it a pre-requisite for life, not an end product of natural selection; (ii) the inversely-causal, information-driven, structured hierarchy of autopoiesis is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry; and (iii) there is an unbridgeable abyss between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environmental and the perfectly-pure, single-molecule precision of biochemistry.”

So begins Alex Williams’ seminal article, Life’s Irreducible Structure — Autopoiesis, Part 1. In the article, Williams seeks to show that all living organisms are constituted by a five-level structured hierarchy that cannot be wholly accounted for in terms of naturalistic explanation. Rather, Williams’ model places primary emphasis on the successful transmission and communication of relevant biological information.

Note here that, so far, science has not identified any naturalistic source for “information” within the universe, biological or otherwise. And yet it appears that living organisms remain living only so long as they are “successfully communicating” information. When that process stops, the organism dies; i.e., becomes subject to the second law of thermodynamics — the consequences of which the now-deceased organism had managed to optimally distance itself from while alive.

Evidently Williams finds Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity arguments insufficiently general to explain biological complexity and organization, and so seeks a different explanation to generically characterize the living organism. Yet his proposed autopoietic model — of the “self-making,” i.e., self-maintaining or self-organizing and therefore living system — itself happens to be irreducibly complex. That is to say, on Williams’ model, any biological organism from microbe to man must be understood as a complete, functioning “whole,” transcending in the most profound way any definition of a particular organism as the “mere” sum of its constituting “material” parts.

Further, the idea of the “whole” must come prior to an understanding of the nature and function of the constituting parts. Williams terms this idea of the “whole” as inversely causal meta-information; as such, it is what determines the relations and organization of all the parts that constitute that “whole” of the living organism — a biological system in nature.

Just one further word before we turn to Williams’ autopoietic model. To begin with the supposition of “wholeness” flies in the face of methodological naturalism, the currently favored model of scientific investigation, and arguably the heart of Darwinist evolutionary theory. For methodological naturalism is classical and mechanistic (i.e., “Newtonian”) in its basic presuppositions: Among other things, it requires that all causation be “local.” Given this requirement, it makes sense to regard the “whole is merely the sum of its parts” as a valid statement — those parts being given to human understanding as the objects of direct observation of material events. The presumption here is that, given enough time, the piling up of the parts (i.e., of the “material events”) will eventually give you the description of the whole. Meanwhile, we all should just be patient. For centuries if need be, as a collaborator once suggested to me (in regard to abiogenesis. See more below).

Yet subsequent to classical physics came the astonishing revelations of relativity and quantum theory, both of which point to “non-local” causation. The transmission of information across widely spatially-separated regions (from the point of view of the biological organism as an extended body in time) so as to have causative effect in the emergence of biological life and its functions is decidedly a “non-local” phenomenon. Indeed, non-local causation seems ubiquitous, all-pervasive in the living state of biological organisms, as we shall see in what follows.

Williams’ Autopoietic Model
Williams lays out the five-level, autopoietic hierarchy specifying the living system this way (parenthetical notes added):

(i) components with perfectly pure composition (i.e., pure elements)
(ii) components with highly specific structure (i.e., molecules)
(iii) components that are functionally integrated (i.e., components work cooperatively toward achieving a purpose or goal)
(iv) comprehensively regulated information-driven processes (DNA, RNA)
(v) inversely-causal meta-informational strategies for individual and species survival (we’ll get to this in a minute)

Pictorially, the model lays out like this:

Figure 1 summarizes the five-level, hierarchical specification of any living organism, microbe to man. But how do we get a handle on what this hierarchy actually means?

An interesting way to look at the problem, it seems to me, is to look at the available potential “information content” of each of the five “levels” or “manifolds” of the hierarchy.

You’ll note that Figure 1 depicts an ascending arrow on the left labeled “complexity.” For our present purposes, we’ll define this as “algorithmic complexity,” understood as a function that maximally yields “information content.” If we can find complexity measures to plug into the model, we might gain additional insight thereby.

Fortunately, algorithmic complexity measures have been obtained for certain levels of the hierarchy; i.e., Level (i) and Levels (iv) and possibly Level (v). For the latter two, the measures were taken with respect to the living human being. Figure 1 can thus be expanded as follows:

Notes to Figure 2:

¹ Gregory Chaitin: “My paper on physics was never published, only as an IBM report. In it I took: Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s laws, the Schrödinger equation, and Einstein’s field equations for curved spacetime near a black hole, and solved them numerically, giving ‘motion-picture’ solutions. The programs, which were written in an obsolete computer programming language APL2 at roughly the level of Mathematica, were all about half a page long, which is amazingly simple.”

On this basis, Chaitin has pointed out that the complexity we observe in living systems cannot be accounted for on the basis of the chemical and physical laws alone, owing to the paucity of their information content.

² George Gilder: “In each of the some 300 trillion cells in every human body, the words of life churn almost flawlessly through our flesh and nervous system at a speed that utterly dwarfs the data rates of all the world’s supercomputers. For example, just to assemble some 500 amino-acid units into each of the trillions of complex hemoglobin molecules that transfer oxygen from the lungs to bodily tissues takes a total of some 250 peta operations per second. (The word “peta” refers to the number ten to the 15th power — so this tiny process requires 250 x 10¹⁵ operations.)

A Word about Abiogenesis
Darwin’s evolutionary theory does not deal with the origin of life. It takes life for granted, and then asks how it speciates. Moreover, the theory does not elaborate a description of the constitution of the individual living organism, such as Williams’ irreducibly complex/autopoietic (“IC/AP”) model proposes.

It’s important to recognize that neither Darwin’s theory, nor Williams’ model, deals with the origin of life. It seems to me that evolution theory and ID are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. One deals with the species level, the other the biological structure of living individuals, the “building blocks” of species, as it were.

Yet there is tremendous hostility towards intelligent design on the part of many orthodox evolutionary biologists, which has gotten so bad in recent times that the more doctrinaire Darwinists have run to the courts for “protection” of their cherished beliefs (and interests personal and institutional), insisting that ID “is not science.” Judges are not scientists; in general they are ill-equipped to make judgments “on the merits” of scientific controversies. Yet they render judgments all the same, with profound implications for how science is to be taught. I fail to see how this redounds to the benefit of scientific progress.

If science is defined as materialist and naturalist in its fundamental presuppositions — the currently-favored methodological naturalism — then ID does not meet the test of “what is science?” For it does not restrict itself to the material, the physical, but extends its model to information science, which is immaterial. The problem for Darwinists seems to be that there is no known source of biological information within Nature as classically understood (i.e., as fundamentally Newtonian — materialist and mechanistic in three dimensions).

The problem of abiogenesis goes straight to the heart of this issue. Abiogensis is a hypothesis holding that life spontaneously arises from inert, non-living matter under as-yet unknown conditions. Although evolution theory does not deal with the problem of the origin of life, many evolutionary biologists are intrigued by the problem, and want to deal with it in a manner consistent with Darwinian methods; i.e., the presuppositions of methodological naturalism, boosted by random mutation and natural selection. That is, to assume that life “emerges” from the “bottom-up” — from resources available at Levels (i) and (ii) of the IC/AP model.

There have been numerous experiments, most of which have taken the form of laboratory simulations of “lightning strikes” on a properly prepared chemical “soup” (e.g., Urey, Miller, et al.). At least one such experiment managed to produce amino acids — fundamental building blocks of life (at the (ii) level of Williams’ hierarchy). But amino acids are not life. On Williams’ model, to be “life,” they’d need to have achieved at least the threshold of Level (iii).

For it is the presence of “functionally-integrated components” that makes life possible, that sustains the living organism in its very first “duty”: That it will, along the entire extension of its complete biological make-up (whether simple or highly complex), globally organize its component systems in such a way as to maximally maintain the total organism’s “distance” from thermodynamic entropy. An “organism” that couldn’t do that wouldn’t last as an “organism” for very long.

And so in order for the materialist interpretation of abiogenesis to be true, the “chemical soup” experimental model would have to demonstrate how inorganic matter manages to “exempt” itself from one of the two most fundamental laws of Nature: the second law of thermodynamics.

From cells on up through species, all biological organisms — by virtue of their participation in Levels (i) and (ii) — are subject to the second law right from creation. Indeed, they are subject to it throughout their life spans. A friend points out that the second law is a big arguing point for Macroevolutionists, who try to argue that the second law is irrelevent, i.e., doesn’t apply to living systems, because “it only applies to closed systems and not to open ones.” Thus they say that living systems in nature are “open” systems. But what this line of reasoning does not tell us is what such systems are “open” to.

And yet we know that every cell is subject to the second law — simply by needing to fuel itself, it subjects itself to the effects of entropy, otherwise known as heat death. And although it can and does stave off such effects for a while, doing so requires the cell or species constantly to deal with maintaining distance from entropy in all its living functional components, organized globally. Entropy plays a big part in all life — from cells to completed species.

When the successful communication of meta-information begins to slow down and break down, cells and species then begin to succumb to the effects of entropy, to which they have been subjected all their entire life. This is because they can no longer combat, or stay ahead of the “entropy curve,” due to inefficient communication processes and, thus, degradation of the maintenance procedures communicated to the cells via the meta-information system that is specific to each particular biological entity and to each particular species. After all, any species description is necessarily an informed description.

Yet another origin-of-life approach — the Wimmer abiogenesis experiment — is highly instructive. He managed to “create” a polio virus. He did so by introducing RNA information into a “cell-free juice,” and the polio virus spontaneously resulted.

Wimmer used actual DNA to synthesize polio RNA based on information about the polio virus RNA which is widely available, even on the internet. The RNA information was truly “pulled” from the DNA, which “resides” at the next-higher level. He could not synthesize RNA directly; he first had to synthesize the DNA from the raw information and then synthesize the polio RNA from the synthetic DNA.

Yet RNA information, like all information, is immaterial. In terms of the Williams’ hierarchy, clearly Wimmer had obtained an organism functioning at about Level (iii) — because it had sufficient information to propel it to that level, as “pulled” by the information available at the next-higher level where DNA information “resides” — Level (iv).

Unlike biological organisms expressing all five levels of the Williams model, the polio virus, though fully autonomous as an information processor (leading to its “successful communication” in Wimmer’s laboratory), somehow still doesn’t have everything it needs to be fully “autonomous” as a living being. A virus, for instance, is dependent on a living host in order to execute its own life program. As such, it is a sort of “quasi-life.” Shannon Information Theory helps us to clarify such distinctions.

Before we turn to Shannon, it’s worth mentioning that, according to H. H. Pattee and Luis Rocha, the issue of autonomy (and semiosis — the language and the ability to encode/decode messages) is a huge stumbling block to abiogenesis theory. For that kind of complexity to emerge by self-organizing theory, in the RNA world, the organism would have to involuntarily toggle back and forth between non-autonomous and autonomous modes, first to gather, and then to make use of information content as an autonomous living entity. The question then becomes: What tells it how and when to “toggle?” Further, it appears the source of the information content that can toggle non-life into life remains undisclosed.

Shannon Information Theory
The DNA of any individual life form is exactly the same whether the organism is dead or alive. And we know this, for DNA is widely used and proved reliable in forensic tests of decedents in criminal courts of law. And so we propose:

Information is that which distinguishes life from non-life/death.

Information, paraphrased as “successful communication,” is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in a receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. It is the action which facilitates any successfully completed communication. Thus Shannon’s model describes the universal “mechanism” of communication. That is, it distinguishes between the “content” of a message and its “conduit”: The model is indifferent to the actual message being communicated, which could be anything, from “Don’t forget to put your boots on today — it’s snowing,” to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The value or meaning of the message being transmitted has no bearing on the Shannon model, which is the same for all messages whatever. Pictorially, the Shannon communication conduit looks like this:

Information is further defined by its independence from physical determination:

“I came to see that the computer offers an insuperable obstacle to Darwinian materialism. In a computer, as information theory shows, the content is manifestly independent of its material substrate. No possible knowledge of a computer’s materials can yield any information whatsoever about the actual content of its computations. In the usual hierarchy of causation, they reflect the software or ‘source code’ used to program the device; and, like the design of the computer itself, the software is contrived by human intelligence.

“The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of ‘news.’ Information is defined by its independence from physical determination: If it is determined, it is predictable and thus by definition not information. Yet Darwinian science seemed to be reducing all nature to material causes.” — George Gilder, “Evolution and Me,” National Review, July 17, 2006, p. 29f.

Referring to the Shannon diagram above, we can interpret the various elements of the model in terms of biological utility, as follows:

Note the head, “noise.” Biologically speaking, with respect to the fully-integrated, five-leveled biological organism, “noise” in the channel might be introduced by certain biological “enigmas,” which broadly satisfy the requirements of Williams’ model and, thus, are living organisms. Shannon Information Theory describes such “enigmas” as follows:

Bacteria — typified by autonomous successful communication; bacteria are single-cell organisms. Because they are autonomous entities, communications follow the normal flow in Shannon theory — source, message, encoder/transmitter, channel, decoder/receiver. The bacteria’s messages are not “broadcast” to other nearby bacteria but are autonomous to the single-cell organism.

Bacterial Spores — typified by autonomous successful communication. Bacterial spores, such as anthrax, are like other bacteria except they can settle into a dormant state. Dormant bacterial spores begin regular successful communication under the Shannon model once an “interrupt” has occurred, for instance the presence of food. Anthrax, for instance, may lay dormant for years until breathed into a victim’s lungs, whereupon it actively begins its successful albeit destructive (to its host) communication, which often leads to the death of its host; i.e., the bacterium’s “food source.”

Mycoplasmas — typified as an autonomous bacterial model parasite successfully communicating. Mycoplasmas are akin to bacteria except they lack an outer membrane and so often attach to other cells, whereby they may cause such events as, for instance, the disease pneumonia. In the Shannon model, mycoplasmas are considered “autonomous” in that the communications are often restricted to the mycoplasma itself; e.g., self-reproduction. But because they also act like a parasite, they might alter the host’s properties and thus result in malfunctions in the autonomous communication of the host by, for instance, interfering with the channel.

Mimivirus — typified as an autonomous virus model parasite successfully communicating. Mimiviruses are gigantic viruses. They are viruses because they are parasites to their host, relying on the host for protein engineering. But the mimiviruses (unlike regular viruses) apparently do not need to be a parasite, and thus they are “autonomous” with regard to the Shannon model. But like the mycoplasmas, the presence of mimiviruses can alter properties of the host and thereby result in malfunctions in the autonomous communications of the host by, for instance, interfering with the channel.

Viroids — typified as non-autonomous virus-like noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication. Viroids have no protein coat. They are single strands of RNA that lack the protein coat of regular viruses. They are noise in the channel under the Shannon model; i.e., messages only that are not communicated autonomously within the viroids themselves. They can also be seen as “broadcast” messages, because viroids may cause their own message (RNA) to be introduced into the host.

Viruses — typified as non-autonomous virus noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication. Viruses feed genetic data to the host. They are strands of DNA or RNA that have a protein coat. Viruses are parasites to the host, relying on the host for communication; e.g., reproduction. In the Shannon model, viruses are either noise or broadcasts that are not autonomous in the virus and appear as noise messages to the host. It is possible that, unlike the polio virus which is destructive, there may be some viruses (and viroids) whose messages cause a beneficial adaptation in the host.

Prions — typified as non-autonomous protein noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication (protein crystallization). Prions are protein molecules that have neither DNA nor RNA. Currently, prions are the suspected cause of bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Mad Cow Disease. In the Shannon model, prions would be incoherent in the channel because they have no discernable message; that is, neither DNA nor RNA. Thus the prion would lead to channel or decoding malfunctions.

So far there is no known origin for information (successful communication) in space/time. This should be visualized as activity represented by the arrows on the above illustration. Possible origins include a universal vacuum field, harmonics, geometry.

Shannon’s mathematical theory of communications applied to molecular biology shows genuine promise of having some significant implications for the theory of natural selection in explaining the rise of information (successful communication), autonomy, and semiosis (language, encoding/decoding). — S. Venable, J. Drew, “Shannon Information and Complex Systems Theory,” Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy, Lulu Press, 2006, p. 207f.

It seems worthwhile to note here that, under Shannon’s model, the thermodynamic “tab” is paid when the “molecular machine” goes from the before state to the after state. At that moment, it dissipates heat into the surroundings. Level (v) meta-information successfully communicated to the organism provides it with strategies to counter and compensate for local thermodynamic effects. Ultimately, when the organism reaches a state in which it is no longer successfully communicating, the entropy tab must be paid by ordinary means. And so eventually, the living organism dies.

Putting Williams’ IC/AP Model into Context
So far, the autopoietic model — though it provides an excellent description of the information flows necessary to establish and maintain an organism in a “living state” — seems to be a bit of an abstraction. Indeed, in order to be fully understood, the model needs to be placed into the context in which it occurs — that is, in Nature.

Each living entity as described by the model is a part and participant in a far greater “whole.” Niels Bohr put it this way: “A scientific analysis of parts cannot disclose the actual character of a living organism because that organism exists only in relation to the whole of biological life.” Including the species-specific meta-information unique to any particular species, which also controls and dictates how the entire biological system works as a “whole”; i.e., at the global level. And arguably, not only in relation to the entirety of biological life, but to the physical forces of nature, to inorganic entities, and to other biological beings, including the “enigmas” described above, which appear to be a sort of “quasi-life.” For even though they may be autonomous communicators, some of these “quasi-life” examples suggest an organic state that is somehow not “sufficiently informed” to stand on its own; i.e., they exemplify a state that needs to latch onto a fully-functioning biological entity in order to complete their own “program” for life — the very definition of a parasite.

The single most telling point that Williams’ model makes is that information is vital to the living state; that it flows “downward” from the “top” of his model — Level (v), meta-information — and not from the “bottom” of the model flowing “upwards” by the incremental means characterizing Levels (i) and (ii) — not to mention orthodox Darwinist expectation. On this model, Levels (i) and (ii) “do not know how to fit themselves” into the “biological picture.” For that, they need the information available at Levels (iii) to (v).

Many questions relevant to our exploration of the fundaments of biology have not been touched on in this article — e.g., what is the meaning of “emergence?” What is the manner in which “complexification” takes place in nature? What do we mean by “open” and “closed” systems? What do we mean by “self-ordered” or “self-organizing” systems in nature? (And what does the prefix “self” mean with respect to such questions?)

But since we’re out of time, we won’t be dealing with such problems here and now, though I hope we may return to them later. Instead, I’ll leave you, dear reader, with yet another depiction of Figure 1, this time elaborated to show the total context in which the irreducibly complex, autopoietic model is embedded:

Note the model now sits, not only with respect to its natural environment, but also with respect to the quantum domain of pure potentiality, and also with respect to a (proposed) extra-mundane source of biological information.

I think for the biological sciences to actually progress, a model such as Williams’ IC/AP model is worthy of serious consideration. Remember, Darwin’s theory is wholly classical, meaning dimensionally limited to 3-space, to local, mechanical, largely force-field-driven material causation. Relativity and quantum theory have both moved well beyond those precincts. It’s time for the Darwinian theory of evolution to “catch up” with the current state of scientific knowledge — and especially with the implications of information science.

©2009 Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

It’s the way in which this world is ordered, that is, norms, standards, and consequences that gnostics detest.

Indeed. For them, somehow the world as ordered is an "objective evil." They try to escape it in every imaginable way possible.

In the "olden days" of not so very long ago, people of this inclination would likely have been diagnosed as having a psychopathological and/or sociopathical disorder and would have been detained in a safe place for the sake of their own personal safety and that of the larger society.

But nowadays, evidently frank insanity is a kind of badge of honor.... Irrationality is the new key to truth....

[TXnMA]

"At least their beliefs would not be handed down to the next generation."

The same proved to be true of the Shakers -- although they had many useful practical skills and ideas that should have been propagated...

[hosepipe]

[ Not sure the bible is specific on how this was accomplished- whether they remained angels or not ]

The mechanics(science) of many things in the bible are not detailed or explained..
As in spiritual possession.. What being possessed?..

What is "spirit/Spirit"?.. i.e. God, Angels, US, demons...
What "leaves" and "remains" when a human body dies?..

Gender seems so arbitrary.. incomplete.. primitive.. to me..
Could just be that gender is a second reality..
-OR- that gender speaks of something greater..
As an archetype(model) of something in us all..

Meaning; Maybe the female and male side of us all is spiritual reality..
That we're all greater than we seem.. all of us.. in many aspects..
EVEN (but not limited to) gender..

[CottShop]

[[That we’re all greater than we seem]]

We’re certianly greater than we realize- We only barely touch on the potential of our mind capabilities, that’s for sure.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I have a feeling this is at least part of the reason why so many scientists have such a huge problem with God. They want all the glory for their “discoveries.”

Yes. There are two kinds of science people to consider in this context. The ones who actualy do (or did) make a meaningful contribution to science, and the science-talking atheist, who is a parasite. The latter case is particularly interesting because we run into him frequently here. The science-talker is invariably a evolutionist and holds all the correct opinions: nothing can be proved, nothing is true, everything is relative, science can only falisfy things, materialism is synonymous with science, Christians are science-deniers, etc. The science-talker is much offended that Christians worship a Person who is not him. He says that we owe everything we have to science, and by implication, we owe veneration and worship to the science-talker. It's very astonishing and incredible to him that there should exist people who laugh at this and refuse to play along. He who talketh science bringeth us the words of enlightenment, howbeit we prostrate not and adore him? The science-talker is deprived of his rightful glory! Realizing that this is unlikely to ever change, a fuse in the science-talker's head blows, resulting in years spent posting anti-God and anti-Bible diatribes in whatever forum where there may be Christians hanging around.

[spirited irish]

Regarding the gnostic-Nassenes, Alamo Girl said, “At least their beliefs would not be handed down to the next generation.”

Spirited: Unfortunately, when gnosticism resurfaced prior to the Enlightenment, it returned as a fusion of all of the pre-Christian gnostic-cults. In addition, it had fused with openly satanic variants from India.

Theosophy is an example of satanic-gnosticism. Shortly after the UN was built, theosophists raised up a Luciferian-center called Lucifer Publishing, which would eventually be renamed Lucis Trust. Lucis Trust stands very near the UN and has been from its inception, intimately involved with the UN. They offer invocations monthly to the new ‘christ.’

Though the West’s deplorably decayed situation is most often compared to Weimar Germany and Germany under Hitler, a better comparison is to the USSR under Trotsky-Lenin-Stalin. Lenin and Trotsky were gnostics, Stalin was one as well, as was an unknown percentage of the Bolsheviks. Additionally, prior to the Revolution of 1917, Russia was a hotbed of sectarian and gnostic-cults. The gnostics in particular, were anxiously awaiting an apocalyptic-revolution that would utterly destroy the old order and usher in the new.

It was during the initial Trotsky-Lenin-Stalin regime that Nassene teachings were forcefully implemented. Divore and abortion were made easily attainable, the traditional family was forcefully attacked and almost destroyed, millions of children became wards of the ‘Mother-Father State,’ attacks were launched against the Biblical two-sex dichotomy with the intention of making androgyny the ‘new-norm.’ Churches and cathedrals were blasphemed, some became temples of atheism, and thousands of clergy were crucified-—literally.

The destruction unleashed was so catastrophic that Russia’s economy, culture, etc., were almost destroyed. After Lenin’s death Stalin took control and in an attempt at preventing the total destruction of Russia he took forceful steps to undo the worst of the gnostic-revolution. It’s because of this that America’s gnostic-New Left hates Stalin but reveres Lenin-Trotsky.

As we gaze upon the wreckage of America, we can see not only the immorality and subsequent chaos produced by gnosticism, but also its’ deadly outworkings upon the family,church, procreation, etc. America is a regime of gnostic-heresy.

[allmendream]

America is a “regime” of religious liberty not of gnosticism of any other religious ideology. As a nation our only national religious principle is religious liberty.

[hosepipe]

[ As we gaze upon the wreckage of America, we can see not only the immorality and subsequent chaos produced by gnosticism, but also its’ deadly outworkings upon the family,church, procreation, etc. America is a regime of gnostic-heresy. ]

WRONG.. the wreckage is because of socialism not gnostism..
Jesus never used the word or even the meme of heresy..
Heresy is a mental construct of the Sheep Pens..(John ch 10)..

Socialism murdered several hundred million people in the last hundred years..
and made billions more.... miserable..

For the next few years the socialists may be targeting BILLIONS to liquidate..
Because they are "warming" the earth..

Some people "think" non Roman Catholics are gnostics..
And others "think" all non orthodox are gnostics..
You know..... so-called "protestants"..

[Diamond]

Perhaps distinguishing different types of senders and receivers can help clarify the issue.

Types of Sender and Receiver

(a) Intelligent Sender and Intelligent Receiver

Clearly intelligent sender/receiver pairs exist, such as people.  The path between the sender and final target can, of course, involve intermediate sender/receiver pairs.  In addition, the message can be received and re-coded in various manners, preserving all or most of the original intended information.  Examples include the use of human translators or transmission across various media (voice radio waves tape recorder paper computer diskette).(b) Intelligent Sender and Non-Intelligent Receiver

Can an intelligent sender communicate with a non-intelligent receiver?  Sure.  Humans can interact with computers, for example.  The sender transmits a database query and the result is sent back.  The exchange can be interactive, such as working with a computer expert system.  Of course the message encoding (computer language) and additional infrastructure (hardware and communications devices) needs to be set up in advance by an intelligent agent.(c) Non-Intelligent Sender and Intelligent Receiver

Can a non-intelligent sender/receiver pair or sequence of pairs occur?  Certainly.  Automated production equipment can rely on a controller, which sends messages to on-line measuring devices to ensure the process is running as desired and corrective action can be taken.  Once again, this can only function if an intelligent agent, who knows the purpose of the system, sets up the whole arrangement.  The sender must be able to monitor the environment and interpret some kind of a signal.  The non-intelligent sender must then be able to automatically generate a message (e.g., ‘the pressure is rising’), which the receiver will be able to process (‘slow down the feed rate of X, increase the flow of cooling water, and send an alarm to Mrs Smith’).(d) Non-Intelligent Sender and Non-Intelligent Receiver

Now let’s consider an absolute extreme case.  The sender and receiver can only react mechanically.  Suppose the set-up must be fully automatic, meaning that when the sender or receiver is destroyed, a substitute has been provided for.

Compared to all the alternatives, this one requires the highest amount of intelligence from the agent who designed the system.  Eventualities need to be anticipated and all resources for repair and energy need to be prepared in advanced.  Do we find anything so enormously complex?  Yes—it is called life!

Careful analysis shows again and again that the process:  sender codes a message ® receiver decodes and uses the intended information, does not arise without the active involvement of a living intelligence at some point.  This has been systematically analyzed by Professor Gitt who showed that coded information cannot arise by chance.  Coded information obeys fundamental laws of nature, which in summarized form can be expressed as follows:^[72]
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

Cordially,

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for that insight, dear brother in Christ! How sad...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for this fascinating sidebar, dear brothers in Christ!

Whatever an angel might be in the spiritual realm, he must appear to be either male or female when on assignment here in the physical realm - or I suspect he'd stand out:

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. - Hebrews 13:2

To God be the glory!

[hosepipe]

Interesting subject to be sure.. is it possible for a "spiritual creature" to appear as whatever he/she/it wants to appear as... Possible?.. Shape shifters?..

Would (seem to) answer how a snake appeared in the Garden of Eden metaphor.. How Jesus walked on water.. and a good deal of other reported "happenings"..

Humans basic arrogance can/could assume all things happens on a scale of fleshly reality.. Effecting not only world view but understanding of physics and cosmology.. and even mathematics.. How could an ax head FLOAT(bible)?...

Gender may be illusionary.. or even allusionary...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so very much for sharing your insights on gnosticism and heresy!

Truly I hope the dispute is just a matter of semantics.

The sheep pens in John 10 are indeed an excellent metaphor for the theological boundaries of Judeo/Christian doctrines and traditions.

And of course, the more people add to and take away from the words of God - or the more they elevate particulars of their beliefs - the more walls they throw up between themselves, like sheep pens within sheep pens:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. – Deuteronomy 4:2

And the sheep in these various pens do tend to yell over the fences calling the sheep in the other pens - or in the open pasture - names including both "heretic" and "gnostic."

Since I'm one of those who particularly enjoys the open pasture (Psalms 23) I've been called both - also "apostate" "Jesus freak" "cultist" and even "Satanic."

It never offends me to be called such things. I write it off as yet another manifestation of the "observer problem." Indeed for me it is all joy even though it comes from a brother or sister in the faith, a fellow sheep.

Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. - Matthew 5:11-12

There is only One Good Shepherd.

And I pray that on this sidebar, there is no intent to invoke the terms "gnostic" and "heresy" within the various sheep pens of the Judeo and Christian sheepfolds - but rather in the historical and cultural context of Western civilization.

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for that beautiful essay, dear brother in Christ! Indeed, it should help clarify things for all of us in the sidebar.

[hosepipe]

[ And I pray that on this sidebar, there is no intent to invoke the terms "gnostic" and "heresy" within the various sheep pens of the Judeo and Christian sheepfolds - but rather in the historical and cultural context of Western civilization. ]

LoL.. me too(prayer)... Humans are now and have been busily sorting themselves into sheep pens and sheep pens within sheep pens for millenia.. Its a wonderful thing.. Pure genius actually.. After fully being sorted and convinced indoctrinated and settled, comfortable and relaxed in a sheep pen.. denying their selection(choice) would be hard to do..

Is God(in his plan) awesome or WHAT?..

[CottShop]

interesting article- funny htough, in it he declares Shannon’s model is ‘irrelevent’ to the discussion of creation evolution debate’ (Haven’t read through it yet, but will be interesting to see why- it would seem to me that there can be no message with out an intelligent designer designing it for both sender and receiver).

I see Dawkins is tryign to use hte model to argue agaisnt the designer.

truman says [[To understand how much information transfer between sender and receiver is occurring it would seem that what is encoded in the message alone is only part of the picture. There are cases where the receiver benefits from a multiplier effect when the transmitted information is augmented with existing knowledge on the part of the receiver.]]

Very interesting point. I think though the macroevolutionst/naturalist will then try to use htis ‘multiplier effect’ to mean that message alone could have arisen naturally’ because when you factor in multiplier effects, the simple message being sent could have numerous meanings for the receiver, and ‘given enough numerous meanings, then somethign resembling metainfo’ ‘could have arisen’ over millions of years, especially given the fact that mistakes in the genome change the message. (This is why I was not 100% satisfied that the arguments for naturally occuring metainfo were sufficiently dispelled in my earlier posts in the William’s article posted by GGG)

Will postm ore later tonight regarding Truman’s article

[CottShop]

Let me just add that I think though, at this point, that it would actually require an even greater predesigned metainfo on the part of cells, systems and ulitimately species as a whole in order to ‘intelligently’ receive, decode and use messages that contained a multiplier effect message- pointing more strongly to the need for, and utilization of, anticipation on the part of metainfo to decode not only hte message, but info outside of hte actual message. (Not sure ‘outside of’ is hte correct term- as additional message within the message itself would have to be forknown by hte receiver- however, this very point is where the macroevo will argue variety of decoding could have evovled in a by gosh by golly manner of accidental results- not sure this is a valid line of argument though). Will have to think htis through a bit more- if osmeone has somethign to add, I’d appreciate it- might spark another line of htought for one of us.

[CottShop]

[[All sender-receiver members need to be on the same ‘wavelength’ before it is possible to determine what needs to be transmitted in the coded message.]]

Another good point that probably should be developped more- This ‘same wavelength’ statement indicates that both sender and receiver NEED to be PREDESIGNED to utilize the message being transmitted in the first place- IF the receiver doesn’t understand code, the message is useless, and the sender is sending out nothign but goobeldygook which the receiver won’t be able to decode and utilize- the fact that cells can and do receive and understand the message and even hte miltiplier effects of the message indicate a designed assembly right form the get go- For the receiver to have waited aroudn millions of years while the sender and the receiver ‘got hteir act together’ in order to get themselves o nthe ‘same wavelength’ while nature manipulated the message via mistake after mistake is ismply an unreasonable position to take- hte ‘species’ would die off in very quick order awaiting this synchronization of decoding ability for hte receiver. Especially so when it comes to more andm ore complex information. Every minute change in the genome code would have to then wait millions of more years while the receiver got it’s act together so that it could properly understand the message and miltiplier effect of hte message, while it went htrough the tedious process of ‘mistake to sensible code’ via mutations, and again, the whole system would simply die off in very short order.

[CottShop]

[[In general, information theory as discussed in Part 4, is based on sender-receiver notions which assumes the sender can intelligently or instinctively evaluate the needs of the receiver and act accordingly.]]

The further I read- the more profound this issue becomes- This evaluation on the part of hte sender really, very strongly, indicates, once again, that an intelligent agent causation foreknew the reciever woudl need an ‘intelligent’ sender which could anticipate how hte reciever would receive the message, and how it would react- ie: It doesn’t just simpyl send hte message, it also takes into account how hte receiver will interprete the message, and what actions the receiver will likely take when the message is received. Like i nthe Bee analogy in the link posted by diamond- the sender bee sends hte mssage knowing that an additional set of messages will be utilized by the receiver bees who must make hte determination abotu whether or not the journey to hte food source is worth the effort. This sender, message. receipt, interpretation, action sequence plays out even at the very lowest levels of life in a deterministic manner that shows very strong signs of an intelligent construction- not some arbitrary mistake driven process.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thanks for posting the TrueOrigin article. I haven’t read it yet, but I most certainly will (especially since it delves into Shannon information theory, which I know next to nothing about).

Having said that, I thought you two might be interested to know that Royal Truman and Peter Borger have teamed-up to write some excellent stuff for CMI’s Journal of Creation. Here are a few examples. All the best—GGG

Ultraconserved sequences pose megaproblems for evolutionary theory

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_8-9.pdf

Genetic code optimisation: Part 1

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_90-100.pdf

Genetic code optimisation: Part 2

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_84-92.pdf

The HAR1F gene: a Darwinian paradox

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_55-57.pdf