[[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.
This is the point that betty boop and I keep trying to drive home on threads involving "information theory and molecular biology."
Shannon's theory is about communications. It involves all of the elements: message, sender, encoding, channel, noise, decoding and receiver.
Under the Shannon model, information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it goes from a before state to an after state. It is the successful communication, not any particular element of it.
Dawkins - and ever so many others - want to cherry-pick from Shannon's model and decree what information "is." When we let them to get away with it, they change the focus of the debate to one of the elements - typically the message itself.
But when a person realizes the full import of Shannon's model to molecular biology - he will surely understand (as evidenced in Diamond's excerpt) - that all of the elements have to be there at the same point in time for communications to occur. And even then, it takes an event - like a desire arising in the sender to inform the receiver of something - to initiate a communication.
A message, sender, receiver, coding system (language, semiosis) or channel just sitting there does not accomplish a communication.
By some initiation event the sender has a message to transmit in order to reduce uncertainty in the receiver. It is purposeful. It is teleological per se.
Truly, the receiver must be prepared to receive the message, both must speak the same language (encoding/decoding) - and the medium (channel) of the transmission must be autonomous to the communication (that sender, that receiver) to cope with the noise.
BTW, betty boop and I have categorized the initiation events to these three types: 1) interrupt, something happens in the environment - like food to an anthrax spore, or the movement of a mouse on a PC, 2) cycle, an interval of time, a pinging or rhythm like a heart beat, and most importantly, 3) an act of will - such as a bird choosing to fly away when released from the top of a building (instead of unwillingly going "splat".)
Certainly, the Shannon model - being mathematics could care less the meaning of the message. For instance, the formula for the area of a rectangle doesn't change with the size or composition of it.
But of a truth, meaning is the point of the communication to both sender and receiver! Communications is purposeful.
The likes of Dawkins get tunnel-visioned on the information content of the received message. And no doubt atheism and naturalism deny purpose in nature as an article of faith. But the point of Shannon is that all the elements must be there, at the same time - and there must be an initiation.
It is also obvious that any "thing" which cannot communicate is not alive - and that any "thing" which can no longer communicate is dead.
When some of us Christians see Shannon's theory applied to molecular biology it is obvious that life could not emerge by happenstance, i.e. without God. It is also obvious that life need not be restricted to the physical, i.e. spiritual life, we are dead and alive with Christ in God (Col 3:3)