Replies

You will note that he restates the proposition that the origin of life is not relevant to the way it behaves once it exists.

That's a point I've been making on this thread, js1138. Why do you expect I would find it controversial?

You quote Yockey:

'Once life has appeared,... genetic messages will not fade away and can indeed survive for 3.85 billion years without assistance from an Intelligent Designer'"

I don't find that statement controversial either, js1138. As I pointed out earlier, Yockey does not regard himself as an IDer, and I explained why I thought that was the case: he seems to connect ID with special creation, or a God constantly interacting with the physical universe. I disagree with this definition, but he's entitled to his own view here, and it doesn't bother me at all.

To the extent that Yockey's science is built on information theory and cryptology, these being "noncorporeals," I'd classify him as someone working within the domain of intelligence and "design."

FWIW.

To the extent that Yockey's science is built on information theory and cryptology, these being "noncorporeals," I'd classify him as someone working within the domain of intelligence and "design."

Indeed, it is a strange phenomenon that the mathematicians and physicists who have been invited to the biology table are asking the same questions as the intelligent design fellows. But most of them eschew the label.

That's ok with me, as long as the questions are being asked progress will be made.

Thank you for your insightful post!