Home » Intelligent Design » Out-of-print early ID book now available as a .pdf

Out-of-print early ID book now available as a .pdf

May 25, 2008 Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design
67 Comments

An early ID book (possibly the earliest), The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olson (1984), with a foreword by Dean Kenyon, has been out of print for a while, I am told. But a .pdf can be downloaded here for now.

Information theory is a special branch of mathematics that has developed a way to measure information. In brief, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions required to describe or specify it,  whether that structure is a rock or a rocket ship, a pile of leaves or a living organism. The more complex a structure is, the more instructions are needed to describe it. —Charles Thaxton, biochemist

Meanwhile ….

Study: Sun not special, therefore alien life should be common?

Does time’s one-way street prove that other universes exist?

The day time went backwards

Flogos: Coming soon to a clear blue sky near you …

Science and ethics: When the devil offered a no strings research post.

Nature’s IQ: Intelligent design from a Hindu perspective

Science journalist warns against the “institutionalised idolatry of science”

Expelled film pre-trashed by United Kludgies of Canada (Trashing a film you haven’t seen is way less work.)

Is everything determined by forces over which we have no control?

Chuck Colson on neural Buddhism: Do neurons get reincarnated?

Hopeful signs: Disaster causes outpouring of charity in China

On Jane Goodall, apes, human uniqueness, and God

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

67 Responses to Out-of-print early ID book now available as a .pdf

1 2 3
  1. 61
    gpuccioMay 30, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    Kairos:

    Just a note. You say:

    “I think this is true. But it is conceivable to produce machines that aren’t strictly algorithmic.”

    That remains to be seen. The fact is that, even in Penrose’s views, the reason why human thought is not strictly algorithmic remains largely a mystery. Penrose has his model, which is based, if I am not wrong, on some application of quantum theories at the subcellular level. That’s interesting, but still highly speculative.

    If the two aspects which seem to characterize human knowledge, consciousness and non algorithmic cognition, are linked, and there are many reasons to think that it could be so, then the non algorithmic cognition would be possible only in the presence of consciousness.

    I agree with you when you say: “On the other hand, strongly arguing about this impossibility without having a final proof about is IMHO potentially dangerous for ID side;”

    That’s right. Indeed, I am presenting my reflections on these subject only as a personal opinion, and don’t want in any way to involve ID in that argument. But I do think that, in time, the ID controversy will have to face these problems.

  2. 62
    kairosMay 31, 2008 at 9:20 am

    GPuccio

    The fact is that, even in Penrose’s views, the reason why human thought is not strictly algorithmic remains largely a mystery. Penrose has his model, which is based, if I am not wrong, on some application of quantum theories at the subcellular level. That’s interesting, but still highly speculative.

    But, althouth it’s quite possible that this shouldn’t be realized, I argued about machines that possibly could in the future be able to implement this kind of activity. After all in the last year there has been much excitement about quantum computing. It’s quite possibly that at the end no meaningful results will be obtained in this field but at the moment is perhaps too early for a negative answer.


    If the two aspects which seem to characterize human knowledge, consciousness and non algorithmic cognition, are linked, and there are many reasons to think that it could be so, then the non algorithmic cognition would be possible only in the presence of consciousness.

    Unfortunately I haven’t read Penrose’s books; so I cannot give my idea on this link between non algorithmic cognition and consciousness. But I know that also in the ID field this link is heavily questioned. For example Dembski argued that Penrose’s position is not much different from a purely materialist one. He argued so in his book “Intelligent design; a bridge between science and teology”, pp. 220-222.


    I agree with you when you say: “On the other hand, strongly arguing about this impossibility without having a final proof about is IMHO potentially dangerous for ID side;”

    In a certain sense it’s the main argument that has been used for attacking Dembski concerns his claims about strict conservation of CSI.
    I don’t agree with Dembski on this point as I don’t see any strict necessity to argue that CSI cannot increase through indirect generation.
    In my opinion arguing so is like trying to win the match for KO; so doing one puts himself in the position to be easily hit by the opponent.

  3. 63
    gpuccioMay 31, 2008 at 10:16 am

    kairos:

    You are right Penrose does not pursue a stricly non materialist viewpoint. He remains, to say so, in a middle ground. But his argument is just the same the best basis for a non materialist interpretation of consciousness and knowledge.

    In a sense, it’a the same as for ID. ID is not necessarily linked to a spiritual perspective, but is the basis for it. The same can be said for Penroses’s argument.

    And obviously I respect your cautius position, but believe me, we will win for KO! :-)

  4. 64
    kairosJune 1, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    GPuccio:

    And obviously I respect your cautius position, but believe me, we will win for KO! :-)

    Hopefully, but there is also a third possibility: a less spectacular but definitive technical KO; i.e. a situation in which, although not proved abosultely, most scientists will argue for design and only a limited, isolated subset will be ask for going back to “the old nice times when Darwin theory was dominant and teached all over the world …” :-)

  5. 65
    kairosJune 1, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    … when Darwin theory was dominant and
    teached all over
    ^taught^
    the world …

    Oops. Sorry for the mistake …

  6. 66
    gpuccioJune 1, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    kairos:

    No peoblems with a technica KO: I can live with that!

    And I do hope that darwinian evolution will continue to exist and be taught, even in schools, when it is no more dominant. First of all, it will be funny, and moreover, people should not forget what a whole culture has been able to believe for decades…

  7. 67
    Vladimir KrondanJune 2, 2008 at 4:21 am

    There are classics of Design available on the web. They should be more widely known and read.

    The Hand, Sir Charles Bell

    Organic Evolution, The Duke of Argyll

    Typical Forms and Ends in Creation, McCosh

1 2 3

Leave a Reply