Intelligent design is the study of patterns in nature best explained as the product of intelligence. So defined, intelligent design seems unproblematic. Archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) all fall under this definition. In each of these cases, however, the intelligences in question could be the result of an evolutionary process. But what if patterns best explained as the product of intelligence exist in biological systems? In that case, the intelligence in question would be an unevolved intelligence. For most persons, such an intelligence has religious connotations, suggesting that it as well as its activities cannot properly belong to science. Simply put, intelligent design, when applied to biology, seems to invoke ‘spooky’ forms of causation that have no place in science. Evolutionary informatics eliminates this difficulty associated with intelligent design. By looking to information theory, a well-established branch of the engineering and mathematical sciences, evolutionary informatics shows that patterns we ordinarily ascribe to intelligence, when arising from an evolutionary process, must be referred to sources of information external to that process. Such sources of information may then themselves be the result of other, deeper evolutionary processes. But what enables these evolutionary processes in turn to produce such sources of information? Evolutionary informatics demonstrates a regress of information sources. At no place along the way need there be a violation of ordinary physical causality. And yet, the regress implies a fundamental incompleteness in physical causality's ability to produce the required information. Evolutionary informatics, while falling squarely within the information sciences, thus points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.

evoinfo.org wrote:But what if patterns best explained as the product of intelligence exist in biological systems? In that case, the intelligence in question would be an unevolved intelligence.

Rumraket wrote:Oh look, more people thinking information is a magic word. Never mind that everything that materially exists inherently has information, no... suddenly only DNA has information and things "around" it is an incoherent, meaningless mess that cannot be described. This must be what they're thinking when they say what they do.

Spearthrower wrote:It's just talk: no science being done here.

Sure I can detect design in rocks worked by humans, but then I use a metric of design. If I gave you a list of these clues of design, you'd be able to detect the handaxes from the stones too. Why can't they supply a metric of designedness we can independently employ on objects of known non-designed provenance? Methinks they know all too well that it would fail, and fail hard. Falsifiability bitches - if it aint falsifiable, it ain't science.

Sovereign wrote:Long story short, I was directed to a forum where I was expected to register (haven't gotten that far... yet ), debate, and then be converted back to Christianity due to the scientific knowledge of the Christian posters of that forum. I went to that site, browsed through their origins section, and in this thread I found and interesting gem.

http://www.evoinfo.org/

First off, that forum is a gold mine for the "What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?" thread but onto this revamped ID site, it seems they are trying to combine information theory with evolutionary theory to detect design. I think someone tried that on this forum and got their ass handed to them. I know I first heard about this Idea here. I was unaware it was an actual movement.

Intelligent design.... blahdy blahdy blourg..... source qua intelligent designer.

They just don't get it. I feel as if this is a new attempt to get around certain legislation as well by trying to justify this new form as a branch of information science.