DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

dhw: One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

DAVID: It all comes because of the existence of the different forms of information present.

dhw: I have listed them as you have presented them, in all their muddled confusion. Do you believe that information is the source of life?

DAVID: No, God is the source of life and supplied all the passive and active information to have life emerge and keep itself running.

dhw: Then let’s drop this subject, at least until the next time you start telling us about information using information to translate information into information.

It is there in life, no matter how it is described. Its source is the question at hand.

dhw: One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

DAVID: It all comes because of the existence of the different forms of information present.

dhw: I have listed them as you have presented them, in all their muddled confusion. Do you believe that information is the source of life?

DAVID: No, God is the source of life and supplied all the passive and active information to have life emerge and keep itself running.

Then let’s drop this subject, at least until the next time you start telling us about information using information to translate information into information.

DAVID: Life is constantly remaking and replacing cells in exact copies with exact functional information. God supplied all the information needed for life to be functional.

dhw: Cells make exact copies of themselves, and cells also form brand new structures (evolutionary innovation). You believe God designed the cells to do both, and he programmed or dabbled all the changes. Here is the continuation of the discussion:

DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

dhw: One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

DAVID: It all comes because of the existence of the different forms of information present.

dhw: I have listed them as you have presented them, in all their muddled confusion. Do you believe that information is the source of life?

No, God is the source of life and supplied all the passive and active information to have life emerge and keep itself running.

DAVID: Your three items are correct as far as they go. Life makes cells from information it contains, and it has translating information that allows it to do that manufacturing.

dhw: Life doesn’t make cells! Life IS cells, and the question is how inanimate matter comes to life. You say information did it. So is information meant to be another name for your God?

DAVID: Life is constantly remaking and replacing cells in exact copies with exact functional information. God supplied all the information needed for life to be functional.

Cells make exact copies of themselves, and cells also form brand new structures (evolutionary innovation). You believe God designed the cells to do both, and he programmed or dabbled all the changes. Here is the continuation of the discussion:

DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

dhw: One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

DAVID: It all comes because of the existence of the different forms of information present.

I have listed them as you have presented them, in all their muddled confusion. Do you believe that information is the source of life?

dhw: There are three factors in the debate: 1) passive, non-creative information; 2) the intelligence that uses it, either autonomously (cellular) or automatically (your God’s instructions); 3) the source of that intelligence (atheistic chance or your God). What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?

DAVID: All of this, the manufacture of the proteins, the reactions themselves and the coordination of all reactions is the result of instructions. Only a designing mind can provide this.

dhw: Your conclusion shows that you have totally lost sight of the subject, which is the confusion created by your use of the word “information”, in which we have passive or descriptive information, instructional or operative information, information which translates the instructional information into something or the other which ends up as biological information. I can only repeat the request I made above, since you have forgotten what we are arguing about:

dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

DAVID: Your three items are correct as far as they go. Life makes cells from information it contains, and it has translating information that allows it to do that manufacturing.

dhw: Life doesn’t make cells! Life IS cells, and the question is how inanimate matter comes to life. You say information did it. So is information meant to be another name for your God?

Life is constantly remaking and replacing cells in exact copies with exact functional information. God supplied all the information needed for life to be functional

DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

dhw: One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

It all comes because of the existence of the different forms of information present

DAVID: This is a point of view ID presses all the time. For some reason pointing out the need for underlying information bothers you. Why? It doesn't complicate the discussion. It is just another way of looking at the complexity.

dhw: It is the need (frequently not met) to distinguish between multiple forms of information that bothers me, especially when they make a complicated mess out of a simple argument. Meanwhile, as far as I can see from your response, the only thing missing from my summary is bias in favour of theism over atheism.

I fully expect you to stay on your picket fence.

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

dhw: If cells are intelligent, then “mind at work” can refer to their minds. That puts paid to Darwin’s random mutations. But we are not arguing about belief and bias. I am merely stating that the above paragraph favours Shapiro’s theory (for which there is “mounting evidence”), to which you are opposed. If you can’t see that, so be it.

DAVID: I am not opposed, nor is ID from a mind-supplied set of instructions making the cell acting intelligently.

dhw: You are not opposed to your totally fudged version of Shapiro’s theory, as correctly summarized in the quote above. There is no mention of a “mind-supplied set of instructions”. The theory is categorically that cells have an autonomous intelligence of their own. I have previously repeated the relevant quotes from your excellent book The Atheist Delusion, (pages 142-143).

DAVID: Shapiro showed bacteria can modify their DNA, nothing more and we all accept it as a great contribution to evolutionary research. You use your individual bias to stretch the concept to suit what you would like to believe. Still 50/50 odds.

dhw: “You use your individual bias” to pretend that I am stretching Shapiro’s theory. You force me to quote what you quoted in your book: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities….Evolutionary innovation arises from the production of new cells and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” (James A Shapiro). Now please tell me how I have stretched his concept. And if the odds are 50/50, it would be totally irrational to reject the theory.

I don't reject his theory but his interpretation of what he observed. All he saw could just as easily be intelligent instructions onboard, provided by God. That is the ID view of him. And I would note my books never rejected God on the basis of quoting Shapiro, whom I admire.

Please reread Shapiro from 2017 at Royal Society:

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view 2017 (Evolution)
by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 07, 2020, 20:31 (77 days ago) @ David Turell

Not exactly what you think about him. His book has hyperbole which sells books, not his scientific thoughtful presentation.

DAVID: All of this, the manufacture of the proteins, the reactions themselves and the coordination of all reactions is the result of instructions. Only a designing mind can provide this.

dhw: Your conclusion shows that you have totally lost sight of the subject, which is the confusion created by your use of the word “information”, in which we have passive or descriptive information, instructional or operative information, information which translates the instructional information into something or the other which ends up as biological information. I can only repeat the request I made above, since you have forgotten what we are arguing about:

dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

DAVID: Your three items are correct as far as they go. Life makes cells from information it contains, and it has translating information that allows it to do that manufacturing.

Life doesn’t make cells! Life IS cells, and the question is how inanimate matter comes to life. You say information did it. So is information meant to be another name for your God?

DAVID: Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this.

One moment information is passive and non-creative, the next it is active and creative, and we have information using or translating information to produce biological information, which apparently makes information the source of life. If you want impressive evidence for a designing mind, how about the complex biochemistry of all living organisms?

DAVID: This is a point of view ID presses all the time. For some reason pointing out the need for underlying information bothers you. Why? It doesn't complicate the discussion. It is just another way of looking at the complexity.

It is the need (frequently not met) to distinguish between multiple forms of information that bothers me, especially when they make a complicated mess out of a simple argument. Meanwhile, as far as I can see from your response, the only thing missing from my summary is bias in favour of theism over atheism.

dhw: If cells are intelligent, then “mind at work” can refer to their minds. That puts paid to Darwin’s random mutations. But we are not arguing about belief and bias. I am merely stating that the above paragraph favours Shapiro’s theory (for which there is “mounting evidence”), to which you are opposed. If you can’t see that, so be it.

DAVID: I am not opposed, nor is ID from a mind-supplied set of instructions making the cell acting intelligently.

You are not opposed to your totally fudged version of Shapiro’s theory, as correctly summarized in the quote above. There is no mention of a “mind-supplied set of instructions”. The theory is categorically that cells have an autonomous intelligence of their own. I have previously repeated the relevant quotes from your excellent book The Atheist Delusion, (pages 142-143).

DAVID: Shapiro showed bacteria can modify their DNA, nothing more and we all accept it as a great contribution to evolutionary research. You use your individual bias to stretch the concept to suit what you would like to believe. Still 50/50 odds.

“You use your individual bias” to pretend that I am stretching Shapiro’s theory. You force me to quote what you quoted in your book: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities….Evolutionary innovation arises from the production of new cells and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” (James A Shapiro). Now please tell me how I have stretched his concept. And if the odds are 50/50, it would be totally irrational to reject the theory.

dhw: There are three factors in the debate: 1) passive, non-creative information; 2) the intelligence that uses it, either autonomously (cellular) or automatically (your God’s instructions); 3) the source of that intelligence (atheistic chance or your God). What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?
And
dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

DAVID: I see you recognize the varying aspects of the information life contains, no matter how they are given descriptive terms. For life to emerge as life, many millions of amino acid molecules make huge protein molecules which run coordinated reactions, so all the reactions work in concert with each other. The largest molecules of all are the enzymes, many many, many thousand amino acids put together with areas that hold two different molecules in close proximity to force them to react making a new protein product. Without the enzymes a reaction could take thousands of years, instead of milliseconds. All of this, the manufacture of the proteins, the reactions themselves and the coordination of all reactions is the result of instructions. Only a designing mind can provide this.

dhw: Your conclusion shows that you have totally lost sight of the subject, which is the confusion created by your use of the word “information”, in which we have passive or descriptive information, instructional or operative information, information which translates the instructional information into something or the other which ends up as biological information. I can only repeat the request I made above, since you have forgotten what we are arguing about:

dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

Your three items are correct as far as they go. Life makes cells from information it contains, and it has translating information that allows it to do that manufacturing. Your question: "What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?" it creates much more impressive evidence a mind had to design all of this. This is a point of view ID presses all the time. For some reason pointing out the need for underlying information bothers you. Why? It doesn't complicate the discussion. It is just another way of looking at the complexity.

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

DAVID: I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

dhw: Yes, he does indeed suggest this. And he supports the theory of cellular intelligence, to which you are vehemently opposed and which you completely ignored in your comments. So on the one hand he supports your theory, and on the other he also supports Shapiro’s. Yes or no?

DAVID: Remember he was asked to take over a Darwin evolution course, and after reading ID literature he became a total Darwin skeptic due to the issue of mind presenting itself. He takes proper notice of Shapiro as ID does. Interpretation is based on the bias of the viewer on all sides. I recognize your hopeful bias. I have mine.

dhw: If cells are intelligent, then “mind at work” can refer to their minds. That puts paid to Darwin’s random mutations. But we are not arguing about belief and bias. I am merely stating that the above paragraph favours Shapiro’s theory (for which there is “mounting evidence”), to which you are opposed. If you can’t see that, so be it.

I am not opposed, nor is ID from a mind-supplied set of instructions making the cell acting intelligently. Shapiro showed bacteria can modify their DNA, nothing more and we all accept it as a great contribution to evolutionary research. You use your individual bias to stretch the concept to suit what you would like to believe. Still 50/50 odds.

DAVID: I see you recognize the varying aspects of the information life contains, no matter how they are given descriptive terms. For life to emerge as life, many millions of amino acid molecules make huge protein molecules which run coordinated reactions, so all the reactions work in concert with each other. The largest molecules of all are the enzymes, many many, many thousand amino acids put together with areas that hold two different molecules in close proximity to force them to react making a new protein product. Without the enzymes a reaction could take thousands of years, instead of milliseconds. All of this, the manufacture of the proteins, the reactions themselves and the coordination of all reactions is the result of instructions. Only a designing mind can provide this.

Your conclusion shows that you have totally lost sight of the subject, which is the confusion created by your use of the word “information”, in which we have passive or descriptive information, instructional or operative information, information which translates the instructional information into something or the other which ends up as biological information. I can only repeat the request I made above, since you have forgotten what we are arguing about:

dhw: Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

DAVID: I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

dhw: Yes, he does indeed suggest this. And he supports the theory of cellular intelligence, to which you are vehemently opposed and which you completely ignored in your comments. So on the one hand he supports your theory, and on the other he also supports Shapiro’s. Yes or no?

DAVID: Remember he was asked to take over a Darwin evolution course, and after reading ID literature he became a total Darwin skeptic due to the issue of mind presenting itself. He takes proper notice of Shapiro as ID does. Interpretation is based on the bias of the viewer on all sides. I recognize your hopeful bias. I have mine.

If cells are intelligent, then “mind at work” can refer to their minds. That puts paid to Darwin’s random mutations. But we are not arguing about belief and bias. I am merely stating that the above paragraph favours Shapiro’s theory (for which there is “mounting evidence”), to which you are opposed. If you can’t see that, so be it.

dhw: There are three factors in the debate: 1) passive, non-creative information; 2) the intelligence that uses it, either autonomously (cellular) or automatically (your God’s instructions); 3) the source of that intelligence (atheistic chance or your God). What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?

DAVID: All I can say is ID touts the presence of all types of information very strongly. Descriptive information is a minor part of their argument. It is the information that shows life how to function and the information that allows translation of the instructions, for them strongly supports their idea that a designing mind exists. I don't see all three in your discussion above. We all agree it the information exists, no matter how it is defined or described. It is your constant disturbance over it that surprises me.

dhw: I’m glad you’ve now dropped your claim that Shedinger uses the information argument in his excellent article. So let’s look at the current state of your argument. We now have descriptive or passive information, information that shows life how to function, and information that allows translation of the instructions…..Hold on, I thought the instructions were what you called “instructional” or “operative information”, so what do you call the information that translates “instructional” or “operative information”, and what does this translate the instructional information into? Ah, was that the “biological” information you mentioned the other day, or was biological information the complete collection of descriptive or passive information, instructional or operative information, and unnamed information that translates the operative information into biological information? I’m surprised that you are surprised that I find all this disturbing. And how do all these forms of information support the idea that a designing mind exists? Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

I see you recognize the varying aspects of the information life contains, no matter how they are given descriptive terms. For life to emerge as life, many millions of amino acid molecules make huge protein molecules which run coordinated reactions, so all the reactions work in concert with each other. The largest molecules of all are the enzymes, many many, many thousand amino acids put together with areas that hold two different molecules in close proximity to force them to react making a new protein product. Without the enzymes a reaction could take thousands of years, instead of milliseconds. All of this, the manufacture of the proteins, the reactions themselves and the coordination of all reactions is the result of instructions. Only a designing mind can provide this.

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

DAVID: I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

dhw: Yes, he does indeed suggest this. And he supports the theory of cellular intelligence, to which you are vehemently opposed and which you completely ignored in your comments. So on the one hand he supports your theory, and on the other he also supports Shapiro’s. Yes or no?

Remember he was asked to take over a Darwin evolution course, and after reading ID literature he became a total Darwin skeptic due to the issue of mind presenting itself. He takes proper notice of Shapiro as ID does. Interpretation is based on the bias of the viewer on all sides. I recognize your hopeful bias. I have mine.

DAVID: All I can say is ID touts the presence of all types of information very strongly. Descriptive information is a minor part of their argument. It is the information that shows life how to function and the information that allows translation of the instructions, for them strongly supports their idea that a designing mind exists. I don't see all three in your discussion above. We all agree it the information exists, no matter how it is defined or described. It is your constant disturbance over it that surprises me.

I’m glad you’ve now dropped your claim that Shedinger uses the information argument in his excellent article. So let’s look at the current state of your argument. We now have descriptive or passive information, information that shows life how to function, and information that allows translation of the instructions…..Hold on, I thought the instructions were what you called “instructional” or “operative information”, so what do you call the information that translates “instructional” or “operative information”, and what does this translate the instructional information into? Ah, was that the “biological” information you mentioned the other day, or was biological information the complete collection of descriptive or passive information, instructional or operative information, and unnamed information that translates the operative information into biological information? I’m surprised that you are surprised that I find all this disturbing. And how do all these forms of information support the idea that a designing mind exists? Wouldn’t you say the complexity of living organisms makes for clearer evidence that a designing mind exists? Now please tell me what is missing from the list of three factors I have compiled above.

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

DAVID: I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

Yes, he does indeed suggest this. And he supports the theory of cellular intelligence, to which you are vehemently opposed and which you completely ignored in your comments. So on the one hand he supports your theory, and on the other he also supports Shapiro’s. Yes or no?

dhw: Once more: Our author never once refers to information in his article, and it is the confusing use of this term which is the subject of our discussion. He is referring to the case for design, and the case against Darwinian evolution. Not the case for using the term which leads to information using information, and information being the source of life, and other linguistic tangles you keep getting yourself into.

DAVID: Your view of ID is on the surface. The books and articles are filled with references to the use of information. There are long articles on Shannon information theory analysis of information in DNA. I've mentioned that before. The author has read the material, I'm sure, based on his comments.

dhw: Information theory has been around for donkey’s years, but its application to religion and ID has resulted in confusion, both in articles you have quoted and especially in those you have written. No doubt Robert Shedinger has read the material, which is why I’m delighted that he has avoided using the terminology and has presented his case with such unencumbered clarity. I don’t know why you are so keen on having information using information, and on silly statements such as “Information as the source of life”, when distinctions can be drawn without any of these unnecessary pseudo-scientific linguistic contortions. There are three factors in the debate: 1) passive, non-creative information; 2) the intelligence that uses it, either autonomously (cellular) or automatically (your God’s instructions); 3) the source of that intelligence (atheistic chance or your God). What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?

All I can say is ID touts the presence of all types of information very strongly. Descriptive information is a minor part of their argument. It is the information that shows life how to function and the information that allows translation of the instructions, for them strongly supports their idea that a designing mind exists. I don't see all three in your discussion above. We all agree it the information exists, no matter how it is defined or described. It is your constant disturbance over it that surprises me.

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

DAVID: Our difference in looking at the bolded proof is I see the words 'mind at work', as the key part of the quote, indicating God designed everything and is still at work.

dhw: I have no problem accepting the logic of the design argument. Now please take off your blinkers and look at the whole paragraph you have just quoted.

DAVID: I know the entire quote and what possibility is raised is that a mind is at work as a result of the discussion. The obvious odds are 50/50, but only one possibility is correct. I've made my choice. And the author says: 'if true Darwin is gone". He's on my side, and he was quoted by the ID website with enthusiasm. All depends on your mindset how he is interpreted! Your blinkers are showing! One final point: McClintock and Shapiro were not allowed to keep their careers if God comes into view.

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

DAVID: Your view of ID is on the surface. The books and articles are filled with references to the use of information. There are long articles on Shannon information theory analysis of information in DNA. I've mentioned that before. The author has read the material, I'm sure, based on his comments.

Information theory has been around for donkey’s years, but its application to religion and ID has resulted in confusion, both in articles you have quoted and especially in those you have written. No doubt Robert Shedinger has read the material, which is why I’m delighted that he has avoided using the terminology and has presented his case with such unencumbered clarity. I don’t know why you are so keen on having information using information, and on silly statements such as “Information as the source of life”, when distinctions can be drawn without any of these unnecessary pseudo-scientific linguistic contortions. There are three factors in the debate: 1) passive, non-creative information; 2) the intelligence that uses it, either autonomously (cellular) or automatically (your God’s instructions); 3) the source of that intelligence (atheistic chance or your God). What do you think your different uses of the term “information” add to this?

DAVID: Our difference in looking at the bolded proof is I see the words 'mind at work', as the key part of the quote, indicating God designed everything and is still at work.

dhw: I have no problem accepting the logic of the design argument. Now please take off your blinkers and look at the whole paragraph you have just quoted.

DAVID: I know the entire quote and what possibility is raised is that a mind is at work as a result of the discussion. The obvious odds are 50/50, but only one possibility is correct. I've made my choice. And the author says: 'if true Darwin is gone". He's on my side, and he was quoted by the ID website with enthusiasm. All depends on your mindset how he is interpreted! Your blinkers are showing! One final point: McClintock and Shapiro were not allowed to keep their careers if God comes into view.

Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.