Everything I stated are the findings of science. It has nothing to do with methodology. It is the science of discovery. It is best description of reality that we have.
This is an unfortunate misunderstanding on your part. There are many scientists who would disagree.
For example theist scientists.
And it’s a very feeble description of reality…
Why is this an unfortunate misunderstanding on my part? Who are these many theist scientists you speak of? Enlighten me with their discoveries about reality and the natural world that is any different from our present understanding of the physical world.
This is unfortunate because you yourself state that science is neutral to theology.i.e it does not rpovide evidence either way.
Then you turn back and use science as a prop to support your materialistic world view… so which is it?
Is science silent on God or disprove his existence?
Science is neutral to theology, but I personally am not neutral.
So it’s your understanding…
You are contradicting yourself. You assert that natural processes created all we observe then you say we don’t have all the answers.
We know that conscious intelligence can produce functional information. We know functional information is required to build living organisms. We don’t know any other source for producing functional information.
I see no contradictions.
Really, how do we know that conscious intelligence can produce functional information? I know a lot about information theory but what is functional information? Why is functional information required to build living organisms?
This is ref to Dembski and Durstons work.
@colewd you can’t use a poorly defined hypothesis as an argument.
It is my opinion. Non-belief in your God and your IDer is my prerogative under the human right of freedom of thought and expression. Acceptance or Non-Acceptance of the findings of science is your prerogative also.
What hypothesis is poorly defined? Functional information is referenced and defined in Szostak and Hazen 2003.
The above quote by you is functional information.
Concepts | Published: 12 June 2003
Functional information: Molecular messages
Sorry can’t reach it as it is behind a pay wall.
Conversation for another day @colewd. Too much on my plate right now.
Try this one
Functional Information and the Emergence of Biocomplexity
ROBERT M. HAZEN, PATRICK L. GRIFFIN, JAMES M. CAROTHERS, and JACK W. SZOSTAK.
In that article, functional information is defined mathetically:
Imagine a pile of DNA, RNA or protein molecules of all possible sequences, sorted by activity with the most active at the top. A horizontal plane through the pile indicates a given level of activity; as this rises, fewer sequences remain above it. The functional information required to specify that activity is −log2 of the fraction of sequences above the plane. Expressing this fraction in terms of information provides a straightforward, quantitative measure of the difficulty of a task. More information is required to specify molecules that carry out difficult tasks, such as high-affinity binding or the rapid catalysis of chemical reactions with high energy barriers, than is needed to specify weak binders or slow catalysts. But precisely how much more functional information is required to specify a given increase in activity is unknown.
Szostak gives an example:
the probability that a random RNA sequence of 70 nucleotides will bind ATP with micromolar affinity has been experimentally determined to be about 10−11. This corresponds to a functional-information content of about 37 bits, compared with 140 bits to specify a unique 70-mer sequence.
So evidently random sequences can possess some amount of functional information (ATP-binding affinity). No mind required. Instead of saying that a mind is the only source of functional information, are you trying to suggest that only a mind can produce a certain level of functional information?
Yes. I think what can be generated randomly is very limited.
Then you need to define where that limit is, either through direct experimental work or some kind of theoretical calculations. Also remember that the options on the table here aren’t just “random chance” and “intelligent mind”, “the natural process of evolution” is there too, and is far more relevant than chance.