Shannon Information Theory and Creationist Idiocy

In 1948 CE Shannon published a paper called "A mathematical theory of information" In more recent times creationists have been citing it as proof that evolution is impossible. Their claim is as such:

1) DNA is information
2) Information has been proven (by Shannon) to only come from intelligence
Therefore DNA was designed

The big flaw in this is that #1 requires a precise definition of information that (I promise you!) no creationist can give and #2 is simply false, Shannon neither says nor implies any such thing. That is not what his paper is about.

I am giving a link to the original 1948 paper here, please download it and use it to challenge any creationist out there who thinks it disproves evolution.

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Evolution
• creation
• creationist
• creationism
• Intelligent
• Design
• Shannon
• Information
• Communication
• Entropy

[bartyflartslar]

Dude, you are totally LAME.

[LithodidMan]

Thanks!

[MissIngaNiball]

Take a look at EvoInfo.org and you will find compelling work contrary to your claims. It debunks Darwinian evolution and applies Shannon information to deconstructing numerous proposed computer models of evolution. It is done with peer reviewed papers. I hope we can look beyond ideology and discuss things substanatively sans profanity.

[Professoranton]

Good vid. See Campbell's Grammatical Man, and Wilden's The Rules are No Game

[newagecozaki]

but why all the anger and animosity?

[labrat1807]

@twistedbydsign99 You're not the only one who's lost. Basically, creationists make the claim that DNA constitutes information and therefore is intelligently designed. They use information theory to try and show that an increase in information is not possible without an intelligent designer. This guy is just explaining why information theory doesn't even come close to applying to DNA. Hope that helps.

[labrat1807]

@LithodidMan "...a lot of it escapes me"

Lovely to hear someone speaking who is knowledgable enough to know that they don't know everything, and that they don't need to know everything. A dangerous ploy against creationists, but honest to a fault. Well done sir, good video, thumbed up!

[MacLaurin83]

It's interesting how so many creationists will use some quasiscientific argument, and pretend like they're the only ones who know of it, like none of the tens of thousands of scientists studying the area EVER thought of that single simple argument they throw forth.

[maplebayou1]

The fact is, America is gradually becoming more secular, not because of any logical arguments. The defeat of religiosity lies in very practical issues of personal well-being. It has everything to do with our economic structure and the insecurities it generates in people who never feel that they are free of financial burdens.

[maplebayou1]

The argument from the second law of thermodynamics is as old as creationist literature. By the same argument, ontogeny or any other "uphill" process is impossible. The fact that such an argument can be resurrected, generation after generation, tells me the Greg Paul is right - Reasoned arguments are ultimately futile in this context. You are trying to herd jellyfish with knitting needles. Your parent is not playing by your rules.

[twistedbydsign99]

what information was he talking about, dna? I'm kinda lost as to where he was going with that.

[fknNukE]

Fight the good fight