Comments on: George Gilder in the Jerusalem Post http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:02:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: Robo http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/comment-page-1/#comment-127240 Robo Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:59:02 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/#comment-127240 <b>A huge population in the world today worships a higher power, has great aspirations and commits mass murder in their pursuit.</b> <i>What they're worshiping is the devil. People who go around killing and beheading other people in the name of God are pursuing Satan. </i> I guess we may see a fatwa coming soon. Or perhaps a knighthood. Well, someone has to tell the truth :-) A huge population in the world today worships a higher power, has great aspirations and commits mass murder in their pursuit.

What they’re worshiping is the devil. People who go around killing and beheading other people in the name of God are pursuing Satan.

I guess we may see a fatwa coming soon. Or perhaps a knighthood. Well, someone has to tell the truth :-)

]]> By: nickmanderson http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/comment-page-1/#comment-127221 nickmanderson Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:01:27 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/#comment-127221 Exactly! That last sentence hit the nail on the head. A.E. Wilder-Smith had a lot to say about this in his book, "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing Of Evolution". In the book, he points out how materialists often confuse the fact that while things in biology may *bear* information, they don't *constitute* information. Further, materialists don't take into account, language convention. For instance, if I were to write the word "Hello", most of the people reading this blog would understand what that meant, but if I were to show it to someone in China or India, those letters would be unintelligible to them. It's only when you have an agreed upon language convention that the information in "Hello" makes since...and that's something that people who oppose ID will never be able to account for (like the information in DNA for instance). More recently, Nancy Pearcy has briefly touched on this in her book "Total Truth" as well: <i>"The realization that life is about information completely turns older arguments about evolution on their head. Why? Because information is independent of the material medium used to store and transmit it. In a book, the words are printed with ink on paper, but they could also be written with crayon or paint or chalk, or even scratched into sand with a stick. The message remains the same, no matter what you use to write it. And the obvious implication is that the message was not created by the matter used to write it. The words in a book were not created by chemical forces within the ink and paper. If you see a message on a chalkboard -- "Science Test Today!" -- you do not think it arose from the chemical properties of calcium carbonate. What does this mean for the origin of life? It means the message in DNA was not created by the chemical forces within the molecule itself. This explains why all the experiments to create life have failed - because they all try to build a living form from the bottom up, by assembling the right materials. But the material medium does not write the message. As astrophysicist Paul Davies says, "Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level." This is a devastating critique. To suggest that matter could give rise to life is not just mistaken; it addresses the question "at the wrong conceptual level." It is beginning to look like the best key to interpreting the organic world is not natural selection but John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word," the Logos -- language, information."</i> You can read a longer excerpt from that book online: http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/01/post_50.php Exactly! That last sentence hit the nail on the head. A.E. Wilder-Smith had a lot to say about this in his book, “The Natural Sciences Know Nothing Of Evolution”. In the book, he points out how materialists often confuse the fact that while things in biology may *bear* information, they don’t *constitute* information. Further, materialists don’t take into account, language convention. For instance, if I were to write the word “Hello”, most of the people reading this blog would understand what that meant, but if I were to show it to someone in China or India, those letters would be unintelligible to them. It’s only when you have an agreed upon language convention that the information in “Hello” makes since…and that’s something that people who oppose ID will never be able to account for (like the information in DNA for instance).

More recently, Nancy Pearcy has briefly touched on this in her book “Total Truth” as well:

“The realization that life is about information completely turns older arguments about evolution on their head. Why? Because information is independent of the material medium used to store and transmit it. In a book, the words are printed with ink on paper, but they could also be written with crayon or paint or chalk, or even scratched into sand with a stick. The message remains the same, no matter what you use to write it. And the obvious implication is that the message was not created by the matter used to write it.

The words in a book were not created by chemical forces within the ink and paper. If you see a message on a chalkboard — “Science Test Today!” — you do not think it arose from the chemical properties of calcium carbonate. What does this mean for the origin of life? It means the message in DNA was not created by the chemical forces within the molecule itself.

This explains why all the experiments to create life have failed – because they all try to build a living form from the bottom up, by assembling the right materials. But the material medium does not write the message. As astrophysicist Paul Davies says, “Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.”

This is a devastating critique. To suggest that matter could give rise to life is not just mistaken; it addresses the question “at the wrong conceptual level.” It is beginning to look like the best key to interpreting the organic world is not natural selection but John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word,” the Logos — language, information.”

You can read a longer excerpt from that book online:

http://www.pearceyreport.com/a.....ost_50.php

]]> By: Rude http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/comment-page-1/#comment-127219 Rude Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:33:55 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/#comment-127219 A fun article that relates is Jonah Goldberg this morning ("The wealth between our ears") at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah070507.php3. A fun article that relates is Jonah Goldberg this morning (“The wealth between our ears”) at http://www.jewishworldreview.c.....70507.php3.

]]> By: DarwininianIgnorance http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/comment-page-1/#comment-127208 DarwininianIgnorance Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:43:54 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/#comment-127208 "Mead and Conway were merely the selection pressure on the microchip. “but it arose suddenly” you say? Well, that’s just punctuated equilibrium right there!" Collin, maybe you should reread the article, George Gilder seems to be suggesting Intelligent Design and Specified Complexity. I hate it when Darwinists spin articles like this. "It is a top-down design, the crux of which is that it is independent of its material embodiment." - George Gilder “Mead and Conway were merely the selection pressure on the microchip. “but it arose suddenly” you say? Well, that’s just punctuated equilibrium right there!”

Collin, maybe you should reread the article, George Gilder seems to be suggesting Intelligent Design and Specified Complexity. I hate it when Darwinists spin articles like this.

“It is a top-down design, the crux of which is that it is independent of its material embodiment.”
- George Gilder

]]> By: DarwininianIgnorance http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/comment-page-1/#comment-127205 DarwininianIgnorance Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:20:35 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/#comment-127205 Collin How can this be an example of punctuated equilibrium if the article is talking about top-down design? Please take your Darwinist sunglasses off and read what the actual article is saying. Collin

How can this be an example of punctuated equilibrium if the article is talking about top-down design?

Please take your Darwinist sunglasses off and read what the actual article is saying.

]]> By: Collin http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/comment-page-1/#comment-127189 Collin Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:49:35 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/#comment-127189 Mead and Conway were merely the selection pressure on the microchip. "but it arose suddenly" you say? Well, that's just punctuated equilibrium right there! Mead and Conway were merely the selection pressure on the microchip. “but it arose suddenly” you say? Well, that’s just punctuated equilibrium right there!

]]>