Reasons: Yockey knows in the first case that the origin of life and the universe are either unknowable or undecideable according to scientific methodology -- though perfectly consistent with the physico-chemical laws. In the latter case, he has bought into the idea widely current these days that ID is synonymous with "special creation." I agree with him on the first point, but disagree on the second.
Still, Yockey is transfixed by the mathematical problems involved in the genetic code; just to speak of a code is to speak of an intelligence.... (Codes don't construct themselves.)
WRT anything else he says in these passages (regarding an earlier work, not the 2005 work that I've been citing), I have no disagreement at all.
I think his email speaks for itself, without interpretation. Sorry about the boldface. Some people might not otherwise read past the first sentence.
I do not personally consider myself smarter than Yockey, so I find nothing wrong with his characterization of the origin of life as completely natural.
And I think he is correct that recent DNA studies have put "Darwinian" evolution beyond doubt.
He's a good man. Thank you for convincing me to check him out.
He's a bright man, and honest. I trust his judgement that the origin of life is natural.
A heavy(weighty) statement that(above) except for crystals.. Crystals have "a" "code".. Many things crystalize according to their "code".. An almost "intelligent" code.. Crystalography is extremely interesting.. Un-intelligent "matter/energy" that displays a code.. How this relates to this conversation I dunno but it somehow seems resonant to me.. I "feel" it relates.. Something about crystals intriques me spiritually.. Totally inanimate matter/energy crystals are, but as you say, "codes don't construct themselves"
Do you mind not shotgun pinging me to posts that are not replies to my posts, are not about me, and are not about something I've been talking about?