Category Archives: Information Theory

A branch of applied mathematics, electrical engineering, and computer science involving the quantification, storage, and communication of information.

CIB: Like Superman with no Kryptonite Weakness

Posted on by — Leave a reply

Super CIB - Creation Information Barrier

“To what can I compare this generation?” Said Jesus (Matt 11.16) preparing to use a simile as an illustration of what the people of his day were like. In the same vein, to what can I compare the power of the Creation Information Barrier evidence/argument/truth compared to other arguments in support of the necessity of a supernatural intelligence in the creation of life when discussing the origin of life? Superman, I think, is appropriate.

Superman, with all his powers, is clearly the most powerful superhero. He is so powerful in fact, that they had to give him a weakness just to make a way to have a story line without Superman defeating the villain in the first few seconds of a fight. Because a fight between Superman and a human is like a fight between a 150,000 pound sauropod dinosaur and, not a human (as in the graphic below) but, a mouse. It is simply no contest.

Sauropod and human - size comparison

Humans compared to Sauropods

Continue Reading

Q27 Christianity is anti-intellectual. I’d be embarrassed to say I believed any of it.

Posted on by — Leave a reply
The Thinker by Auguste Rodin

“The Thinker” by Auguste Rodin

Before showing the foolishness of being embarrassed when said embarrassment is caused by ignorance of Christian belief, we must deal with the lead and clearly false statement “Christianity is anti-intellectual” which shouts a demand for a definition of “anti-intellectual.” So let’s start there.

From Merriam Webster online:

anti-Intellectual: (adjective) “opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach” [1]

So what’s “Intellectual”? Again from Merriam Webster online:

Intellectual (adjective)
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL
c: requiring use of the intellect

2 a: given to study, reflection, and speculation
b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect [2]

Christianity meets all the definitions of being intellectual, therefore based on the logical principal of non-contradiction, since Christianity is intellectual, it cannot be anti-intellectual. To be precise, Christianity meets all the above uses of the word “intellectual.” For intellectuals who may question it, following is a brief illustration that Christianity in fact meets all aspects of being intellectual.

Continue Reading

Proteins, Panspermia, Predictions and Pavlov’s Scientists

Posted on by

Complex Organics Bubble up from Ocean-world Enceladus

Pavlov and his Scientists
 “In the Spring a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love” Alfred, Lord Tennyson famously wrote.[1] Likewise the hearts of scientists involved in origin of life studies turn to hopes of finding life somewhere in the universe other than earth. But theirs is not a “lightly turning” – it’s more like a conditioned response – the type of response you get from Pavlov’s dogs. Continue Reading

Can Evolution Explain the Origin of Language?

Posted on by

With regards to origins, evolutionists and creationists don’t agree on much. The item of contention for today’s closer look: language. Creationists will tell you that God is the originator of language and gave man the ability to communicate via language as part of being made in the image of God. (Gen 1.27) For evolutionists, the origin of language is yet another unknown conundrum; one of the many things that evolutionists have no plausible theory to explain such as:

  • the origin of life
  • the origin of DNA and the coded information in it
  • the origin of multi-cellular life from single celled creatures
  • the non-directed specialization of cells that allow for the creation of specialized organs likes heart, lungs, etc.
  • and the specialized, completely different but complementary organs for accomplishing reproduction through two different creatures; the organs making the individual either male and female – and when paired male and female, reproduction is accomplished.

All the above happened – according to evolutionists – without plan, direction or design. Add to the list “origin of language”. In spite of  the lack of a coherent theory to explain any of this, evolutionists still cling to the merit-less theory of evolution. Continue Reading

Evolution: Not Science, Pseudoscience

Posted on by

A duck dressed as a scientist is still a duck. And a pseudoscientific theory dressed up like real science is still pseudoscience.  That just leaves the question: is evolution pseudoscience?  Fortunately, that’s an easy question to answer: yes. And even better, you don’t need to be a scientist to recognize a pseudoscience, just as you don’t need to be a doctor to recognize the difference between a human and a non-human like a duck. Anyone who knows what a “human” and a “duck” is can easily discern the difference. And anyone who knows what “science” and “pseudoscience” is will likewise easily discern the difference.

As  you are probably already aware, a favored tactic of  proponents of evolution is to label both Creation and Intelligent Design disciplines as “pseudosciences.”  The irony of course being that it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that Darwinian goo-to-you evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscience.  Yet regardless of  how clear the evidence is, you will never, ever get an evolutionist to acknowledge that Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution is a pseudoscience. So in this article we’ll first take a look at how Darwinian evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly; then press on to demonstrate how evolution breaks a number of the known laws of science further proving it to be pseudoscience in spite of their protestations that “it’s science.”

According to the bastion of popular secular knowledge known as Wikipedia, a pseudoscience is:

“…a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research,  but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.”[1]

So one cannot know whether something is a pseudoscience until one first understands the scientific method. Again, according to Wikipedia, the scientific method is:

“a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[2]

Evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience

Evolution fits every criteria necessary to be identified as a pseudoscience: Continue Reading