More about how evolution works: look at the video (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, October 26, 2015, 11:35 (3099 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In the context of how evolution works, you often use the (to me) obfuscatory term “intelligent information” in your determination to substitute automatism for autonomous intelligence in cells, whereas “intelligence” will do just fine for us humans.-DAVID: To repeat: DNA is a code that carries information, which obviously represents intelligent planning, or life wouldn't work. Only an intelligence can create a code. How do you view this or explain the presence of such a marvelous code? Certainly not by chance. Intelligence information is planned. Static information is about crystals.-You don't have to repeat the case for design. The context for this remark was the intelligence of cells, which you reject, opting instead for what you call “intelligent information”. This nebulous term is used to cover the claim that every single innovation, complex lifestyle and natural wonder was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or is the result of God's direct intervention - a theory even you admit is not accepted by most of your fellow ID-ers. That is why I regard the term as an obfuscation, and it has nothing to do with the argument for DNA being created by an intelligence.-dhw: I would suggest that his examples denote the subjective importance we attach to elements of our life in this universe. As he says elsewhere, “If the minds don't exist, then neither does meaning”. So how does that lead to “our universe must have meaning”? Sorry if this sounds ungracious. -DAVID: Life appears to be a miracle. Why not imply meaning to the universe as part of the overall considerations in deciding if theism is reasonable?-I was only pointing out the illogicality of Lightman's statement. As far as your own is concerned, I would reverse the thought: only if I decided theism was reasonable would I be able to attribute (not sure about "imply") meaning to the universe - but that would be objective meaning. I agree with Lightman that all of us have our own subjective meanings, if such things as light on the water or the birth of a child can be called “meaning”. In fact, I wouldn't use that word in such a context, as it has too many metaphysical connotations. “Subjective values” might be a better option.