Dr Werner Gitt, now retired, was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, as well as being Head of the Department of Information Technology. In order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, there has to be a recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must always be:
* A scientist. for this is clearly an academic title.
* One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature.
* One who has headed a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed.
Dr Gitt often lectures on the subject of the information in the universe. By the application of the laws of science alone he reveals that there is no sensible alternative to the belief in an all-powerful God, for 'information' is clearly divine in origin.
I have, for quite some while, considered why it is that in their arguments with evolutionists, creationists don't talk much more about 'information.' Why do I ask this? Simply because it is generally known and understood that information is not part of matter and this would seem to be an area in which the Christian Creationist holds several trump cards.
Evolutionists have developed some smart views on what matter is and it's potentialities (although they always assume it's presence at the beginning of time and will never be able to tell you where it came from), but many of them will agree, yes even now, that information and consciousness are not really part of matter. Yet, truthfully, they will tend to avoid the subject. The subject is a little tricky for them for they must assume that there is no God nor superior intelligence in the universe, yet 'information' obviously exists. Evolutionary astronomers, for instance, will want to say that at the time of the so-called 'big bang' there was only mass and energy - nothing else, but we are going to see that they cannot possibly be correct and we will arrive at that conclusion, and other conclusions, through using scientific laws alone.
Think about 'information' in this way: Suppose you had a super new computer but, for some reason, no operating system has been installed. So it has nothing like Windows or Linux which can render it useable for the average person. You would not be able to do much with that. But now let us assume that you go out and purchase a Windows operating system. You install that so the computer now has a program, or, 'intelligence' which effectively 'tells it' how to perform various tasks for you. So now it is supremely useable. A Windows O.S. is very large. I think that XP was about 3 gigabytes - that's big! I mean, that's a lot of information. But Vista is much bigger, I think that Vista Premium is closer to 15 gigabytes! I think they have made the very new Windows Seven a bit smaller. But those are huge programs of information. But if you weigh your computer after installing Windows XP or Vista, it won't even be a tiny bit heavier (as long as you remember to take out the CD after installation)! You have just installed a huge amount of information which, as we have noted, is very large in measure, yet you can't record any weight for it on the weighing scale. Ever wondered about that? Moreover, if after a week you delete the entire operating system program, you will not be able to make your computer even the tiniest bit lighter, it will still be the same weight. Why is this? It is because information itself is not matter and therefore it has no weight. No evolutionary scientist has an entirely adequate explanation for how 'information' arrives on the scene, or even for just what it is. Don't forget: these people must work within a 'closed' materialistic universe without any God, or superior intelligence, therefore 'information' is problematic for them. A very clever German scientist/geneticist, who is also a Christian creationist, Dr Werner Gitt, has explained much about 'information' for the purposes of Christians in a series of lectures. Since I know by experience that most Christians will not sit down and watch a series of lectures, in this article I plan to bring you the gist of Dr Gitt's explanation, although I certainly do not claim that my understanding of the subject goes to the depth of this brilliant German geneticist. I intend to simplify this in order to furnish Christians with a tool which can be used against macro-evolution.
1. Fundamentals in Science
We all know some of the basic laws of science even if we could not write their mathematical formulations down on paper. For instance, we all know that you will never find a river, or a stream, which flows uphill for a few miles before descending in a waterfall. Okay, the waterfall is no problem, we all know about those, but you could not have a river running uphill for several miles in order to reach that point. Why? Because it breaks the law of gravity! Rivers, all on their own, don't run uphill, you would need some sort of pumping system. Commonly a river will rise in a mountainous area and will gradually meander it's way down to the sea, so it works with the law of gravity.
We all know some of the basic laws of science even if we could not write their mathematical formulations down on paper. For instance, we all know that you will never find a river, or a stream, which flows uphill for a few miles before descending in a waterfall. Okay, the waterfall is no problem, we all know about those, but you could not have a river running uphill for several miles in order to reach that point. Why? Because it breaks the law of gravity! Rivers, all on their own, don't run uphill, you would need some sort of pumping system. Commonly a river will rise in a mountainous area and will gradually meander it's way down to the sea, so it works with the law of gravity.
To say that Man has evolved through a gradual process of evolution is incorrect because a law of science is being violated (just as 'the law of gravity' was violated in our river running uphill model), we will see the connection later.
We must remember that science only works through theories, speculations and hypotheses. You can always test these against the laws of nature where that is possible.
In our world, there are three realities for scientists to ponder over. They are:
1. Life.
2. Matter.
3. Information.
To take the second of those first, the laws of matter are well understood, but the understanding on information is very very new. Little has been written by evolutionists because they are always struggling not to acknowledge a superior intelligence in the universe. So there is much which is not understood by scientists. Regarding 'life,' the only law of nature here which we are aware of is this: Life can only come from life. Nobody doubts that, it is a well-established law. To digress for just one moment, the evolutionist is just as aware of that law as anybody else; they fully agree that life can only come from life. Despite this, because of the materialist foundation of evolution, they will nevertheless insist that - right at the beginning - life did come from non-life. It's amazing really to consider that fact.
If, for a moment, you can imagine somebody constructing a walking robot, it would have to have some clever working parts; legs, for instance, which could move back and forth and which could bend, maybe you could even make it clever enough to climb a few steps all on it's own. But it would need a small computer with it's 'walking program' to be installed on it. With a good program it might work fine, after a certain fashion. But if you deleted the program on the walking robot's mini computer it could not move any more. Again, after deleting the information on the program, the walking robot would be no lighter in weight - you have deleted information, not matter. But if you stumbled over it as you went to make a cup of coffee and broke one of it's legs and you then decide to throw the 'leg' away until you make a new one, you will reduce it's weight since the 'leg' is matter. So it will then be lighter in weight.
In like manner, if you could delete a person's DNA, it is doubtful you would even make that person a few ounces lighter because the DNA is just solid information, yet there is so much of it that if unraveled it, it could stretch from earth to the moon! So it always helps to keep the distinction between matter and information clear. Again, science pretty much understands matter but it has very little understanding on 'information,' because evolution restricts it to a material, godless universe.
When Dr Werner Gitt discusses information and the Creation, he also demonstrates his point with the walking stick insect. That too is a walking machine with a program installed - no program and there can be no walking. Thus we see the affect of information on matter. The development of a human embryo is probably the most complex information system of all.
If you are wondering where we are going with this, just 'hang in there,' and you will soon see.
2. Laws of Nature
We now need to say something about the laws of nature. There are two kinds of laws of nature:
a. Material Entities.
Energy, power, electricity.
b. Non-material Entities.
Consciousness, information.
Laws of Nature are universally valid, whether in Europe, America, Africa or on the moon - it makes no difference where you are.
Laws of Nature do not vary in time.
Laws of Nature are simple.
There are no exceptions.
Laws of Nature help us to determine beforehand whether a process is, or is not, possible. This is why, when we look again at our earlier suggestion that a river could run uphill for several miles, we see that it is impossible because these laws of nature are 'constants.'
3. Searching for a Scientific Definition of Information
"Information is information; neither matter nor energy." (Norbert Wiener). That's fine, as far as it goes, but Wiener does not tell us what it is. Okay, now let us see what it is.
Imagine this: You are looking at a chart of hieroglyphic symbols before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. You would have had no interpretation, you would be hopelessly confused. In fact, this was the way it was until the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone. The discovery of that stone tablet enabled us to be able to interpret hieroglyphics. But before then if we were shown a chart of those symbols we would not know whether or not that chart was 'information.' Since that point we can now say that it is information, causing us to interpret a previously hidden language. Before then, you would be unsure, one might apply a very loose label of 'information' to it but it would not be information in the sense of imparting real understanding regarding what the writer of those ancient symbols had in mind.
Any definition in science must be very precise and very clear. It must have sharp, distinct borders that includes the subjects of the definition and excludes everything else. For example the definition of energy in physics is stated very carefully. In the same manner, information is carefully defined in science.
Within natural law, information includes five levels:
a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
c. Semantics (meaning).
d. Pragmatics (action).
e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).
With Apobetics, full understanding has been imparted from the information sender to the information recipient.
If you have those five points then you have an entire information system.
If we find all these five levels in an unknown system (as with the Rosetta Stone illumination of Egyptian hieroglyphics), then we can be absolutely sure that this is a true information system. This is then no longer a matter of speculation but the case is proved. When 'information' is established, intelligence comes with it; that is the bit that evolutionists don't like, and worry about, of course.
There are other, lesser, definitions of information but this is the strongest one.
Some people may look at the stars and say that looking through a strong telescope at the Milky Way, for example, gives us "much information." but according to our high definition standard it gives us no real information at all. This high standard of the definition of 'information' demands real letters and real syntax accompanied by understanding. If it passes this strict test, then it is information indeed, no further debate being necessary.
4. The Laws of Nature About Information
So there are ten laws of nature about information:
a. Anything material, such as physical processes, cannot create anything non-material.
b. Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
(The idea is creeping into many books that information is a part of matter but that is totally incorrect, it is completely separate from matter).
c. Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission.
(Your mind, 'spirit,' intellect and consciousness need your brain).
d. Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
e. There can be no information without a code.
f. All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.
g. The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires information.
h. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender.
i. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source.
(Interestingly, in most cases we cannot see the information sender. In a library you will see thousands of books but not the writers of those books! When you listen to music, you do not see the composer).
j. Information comprises the non-material foundation for all technological systems, works of art or biological systems.
There are, of course, other definitions of information. Some say that "there is information in everything." Hmmm. That is really very vague and 'information' is not defined. Shannon has said that information is simply "systems with a code." Not bad, but Shannon is not interested in the meaning of the code. This only works within 'statistics' - it cannot take you further. Demski has written of information as "specified complexity." Problem is there are no strong conclusions possible from this and no clear definition of the domain of the information. So creationist lecturer Dr Werner Gitt, defends the Law of Nature Theory of Information. It is strong and sound. Certainly, no mathematical formulations are possible from this and yet strong conclusions may still be drawn.
5. Searching for Information in Biological Systems
Does the code found within DNA fit into the definition domain of information? Yes, in quite a major way, unfortunately, much of the detail here would be to enter a realm which can only be properly accessed by the highly-studied biologist/geneticist so we will not attempt to include it in this general article. Suffice to say, to state that our human DNA is rich in information cannot be anything but a huge understatement: in fact, it is the highest density of information which it is ever possible to find anywhere on earth, and - as already suggested - if unravelled, a person's human DNA would stretch right the way to the moon. This is the 'information system' which every single human being has - without it, we could not 'work' or function in any way. (Do you want to go a little deeper in how we know that DNA is a language? Go here.)
6. Drawing Seven Strong Conclusions.
Let us remind ourselves of where we are:
Definition Domain:
All Five Levels of Information Must be Present:
a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
c. Semantics (meaning).
d. Pragmatics (action).
e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).
Again, these are scientific laws. From this we can draw not weak, but strong conclusions!
1. There Must be a Sender.
Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude that there must be a sender! If somebody should claim that life comes without a sender, we can say that this is a totally wrong idea! Conclusion? Atheism is a wrong idea. Again, the law of nature is the highest level of science!
From the conclusions about the laws of nature and about information, what can we say about the sender? Psalm 14:1.
2. The Sender is Omniscient.
Since the density and complexity of the dna information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we must conclude that the sender is supremely intelligent and has all knowledge. John 16:30.
3. The Sender Must be Purposeful and All-Powerful (Omnipotent).
Since the sender must have:
a. encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules,
b. constructed the molecular bio machines required for the encoding, decoding and synthesising processes, and,
c. designed all the features for the original life forms, then we can say that the sender must be purposeful and omnipotent. This isn't negotiable - it is obvious! Revelation 1:8.
4. The Sender Must be Eternal.
That supreme sender must have infinite information. He knows everything at the moment, but He must also know everything about the past and the future too. So He must be eternal in existence. Psalm 90:2.
5. The Sender Must be a Spirit Being.
Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from the material, the Sender must be a Spirit. John 4:24.
Let us again remind ourselves that we have arrived at this point by using scientific laws! Who is the Sender? Science can reveal God but cannot go beyond that, but the Bible does. Ten times it says, 'And God said...' in Genesis 1. Also see Psalm 33:9. John 1:1,3.
We can now use the laws of nature to go further:
6. The 'Mass and Energy Alone' Theories About the Origin of the Universe Must Be Wrong!
Since information is a Non-Material Entity, we must conclude that the universe itself is not composed solely of mass and energy! From this we can say that the 'big bang' model is erroneous. They say that at the beginning there was only matter and energy. That cannot be correct. Energy and matter are only material entities, and the laws of nature state that matter cannot create a non-material entity. This world is full of information, just consider the millions of books which have been written, but matter cannot produce information (as we have seen), so the idea that there was only matter and energy at the beginning is bound to be a flawed idea, there must also have been a non-material source of information! This is a very quick and scientific way to refute the 'big bang' model.
7. All Theories and Concepts About Biological and Chemical Macro-Evolution Are Erroneous!
Since biological information originates only from an Intelligent Sender, and all theories of biological and chemical evolution require that the information must originate solely from mass and energy, it therefore follows that all theories or concepts of biolological and chemical evolution are incorrect!
Evolution is an impossible process because well-established laws of nature must be broken in order for it to happen. We can state this from the highest level of science. It is for the evolutionist to falsify us by proving the initial origin of information from the non-material. It cannot be done!
So all concepts of chemical and biological evolution are refuted - yes, refuted - by the laws of nature on information and these same laws uphold the belief that the universe and all life has an origin through a Creator God! So all purely materialistic concepts about life and the universe are falsified by the Laws of Nature about information. Interestingly the five levels of information from syntax to apobetics (which we considered earlier) are clearly depicted in Acts 8:27-39. It would be an interesting exercise to read the account carefully.
In conclusion, I am much indebted to Dr Werner Gitt for the masterly way in which he demonstrates that both atheism and macro-evolution are false ideas which violate well-established laws of science. This article is constructed with much reliance upon the good Doctor's approach to the plainly divine origin of information.
Robin A. Brace, January 10th, 2010. But much indebted to the work of Dr Werner Gitt.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment