That was Lamarck.Yes, but I thought that Darwin embraced it as the source of change upon which Natural Selection worked. Perhaps not.
S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium .Sorry, I knew it was Gould, but I'm always mixing up those two scientists with three names :-)
Did you know the cosmic microwave background radiation reveals that the universe was once quite evenly filled with a hot gas of hydrogen, helium, and a little lithium? Nothing else, just that? Would you say the information content of the universe has gone up or down since then?The cosmic microwave background radiation has been interpreted within the framework of the big bang theory as indicating an early, largely uniform universe. The radiation by itself tells us nothing. Furthermore, it does not compel us to accept the theory. Regardless, if I accept your premise that the information content of the universe has gone up since then, neither the big bang theory nor the existence of uniform microwave radiation explains how this occurred. The existence of more information simply begs the question. Where did it come from?
To the contrary, it tells a great deal. It's temperature is precisely what was predicted (before the background radiation was discovered), as the remnant of the big bang. Its uniformity and ubiquity provide information about conditions in the early universe. There is no other scienfific theory that is consistent with the background radiation. Its discovery ruled out the so-called "steady state theory," which was, until then, the major competition.
Furthermore, it does not compel us to accept the theory.
True. You are free to believe anything you like.
I'm reading into this the usual creationist foot-dragging refusal to make any inference that points to conclusions he doesn't like, no matter what the evidence. If you won't make inferences from a clear preponderance of evidence, there's no point pretending that you're arguing about science at all.
I think 1325 addresses your questions.