Jump to content

The Information Theory Argument


Recommended Posts

I rarely have original ideas, mainly because other people cover the topics of philosophical atheism SOOOO much better than me (namely, George H. Smith). However, this argument is all mine, and hopefully it passes the test.




The argument goes something like this...


"AAAAAAAAAA" is a string that is simple, as it can be compressed further into the simpler string "10 As"

"JQFHDFGWCX" is a string that is more complex, as it cannot be compressed into a simpler string.

"I LOVE YOU" is a string that is both complex (it cannot be compressed) and possesses semantic meaning.


Since DNA is a complex string and it has semantic meaning, it must be designed.  Therefore, God Exists.




My rebuttal:


While it is technically true that "AAAAAAAAAA" is a simple string in such a context as given in the argument, (that it can be compressed into a simpler string), this is ONLY because its "simplicity" is recognized at the cost of a more complex interpreting system. If you had the string "AAAAAAAAAA" and zipped it to be "10 As," the matter of simplification would require a ZIPPING PROGRAM that can transform the simple string and also unzip the simple string for interpretation. Such percieved simplification is recognized only at the cost of a more complex system. In a way, this "balances out."


First, biochemistry has no such system of zipping, so the argument is a moot point: all the strings in the argument, if taken to the context of DNA, are of the same complexity because they cannot be further simplified.


Second, ALL proteins (which are the result of DNA translation) have "semantic meaning." That is, all proteins have particular effects in particular circumstances. Some of those meanings just happen to "make a little more sense" than others in certain environments, and natural selection gradually improves the "semantic meaning" of such proteins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

Or you could just tell them to shut the fuck up.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good rebuttal, Spook. I should use that some time. Usually I just catch them on their own circularity. There is what I call "the glass ceiling of creationist thinking", which prevents them from taking design arguments to their furthest conclusion, which is that God must also be designed. They always stop at biology and the universe.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.