The Joshua Letter

Chapter 9

ESCAPING NATURALISM: INFORMATION THEORY

I. Introduction.

In Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe reprints a Far Side cartoon depicting several men wearing safari hats and proceeding through a jungle single-file. They are gazing upward at their leader, who is dangling by one foot from a rope trap with a spear through his abdomen. The second man turns to the third and says, "That's why I never walk in front!" Behe offers the cartoon in order to demonstrate that when we come to the conclusion that a particular structure resulted not from an accident of nature but from design, it is not a religious conclusion. We can tell from one look at the situation that the death of the impaled explorer was planned - that is to say, that it was intended by a conscious being who designed and executed a plan for the purpose of bringing it about.

It is perhaps superfluous to detail how we know this; but suffice it to say that the death of an intruder is understood from common experience to be a purpose often sought by one defending his territory, and a rope trap and a spear are also known to be effective means for bringing such a purpose about. Anything we know from "common experience" is based on evidence. As we shall see later in this Chapter, when facts are established by evidence, their truth is only a matter of probability - though in an instance such as this, the degree of probability is quite high. Essentially, the design inference results from signs that physical material has been shaped for a purpose. Why does purpose justify the design inference? It is because purpose is, in the parlance of the philosophers, a mental event: it is an activity of mind.

According to Behe, the indicia of design are just as apparent in biochemical systems as they are in rope traps; but we saw in Chapter 8 that when it comes to natural objects, naturalists can look straight at obvious instances of design, call it design, and still not see it. So can we all; but then, we are all naturalists, are we not? The astonishing frequency with which the (pardon the expression) miraculous purpose so evident everywhere in nature is mistaken for mindless, purposeless randomness, is indicative of the extent to which the modern mind is under the spell of naturalism. In this Chapter we shall see how the even-handed application of scientific, metaphysically neutral information theory, already employed by scientists in many fields, leads compellingly to the revelation of design in both manmade and natural systems alike.

II. Design Theory.

Is design theory really science, or is it religion? Another way to state the question is, If design theory prescribes metaphysically neutral criteria for the detection of design - and by "metaphysically neutral" I mean criteria equally applicable to conscious agents generally, not just human, not just alien, and not just divine agents - then is it science when design theory is used to detect the activity of human or alien activity, and not science when it is used to detect divine activity?

Let us sharpen the question by noting that design theory employs the same criteria for detecting design in nature as are employed by scientists in the many other fields of science in which the detection of the activities of conscious agents is important. Indeed, it is this very fact - that the criteria are identical - that places the burden of proof on naturalistic science to explain why the design inference in nature is not valid: Why shouldn't these criteria be employed? And if and when these criteria are satisfied in a natural object, why shouldn't the design inference be drawn, just as it is drawn when the same criteria are satisfied in a non-natural object?

A. Specific Complexity.
There are many sciences in which the detection of the activity of conscious agents is a matter of importance. For example, archeologists often must distinguish between human artifacts and natural structures. The sciences of archeology, psychology, sociology, forensic science, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), and cultural anthropology are all similar in this respect. In each of these sciences, we appeal to various mental states - the motives, intentions, purposes, beliefs and values of conscious agents. Philosophers of science have broken down the reasoning process by which scientists detect the activity of conscious agents into several steps:

1. Can the event in question be explained by the operation of natural processes (e.g., the effects of wind, water, gravity or animal activity)? If so, the event has been explained as the result of natural causation and the inquiry ends. If the event cannot be explained as a result of natural processes, then a second question must be asked:

2. Was the event relatively probable? If so (e.g., a coin toss), then the cause of the event may be explained as an accident, and the inquiry ends. If the event was relatively improbable, then a third question must be asked:

3. Is the event independently specifiable? If not, the event has been explained as an unlikely accident. But if the answer is yes, then we infer that the event was a result of intelligent design.
The strength of the inference to design depends on the degree of improbability. For instance, if an archeologist finds an object resembling a cup, then she draws an inference to design with greater confidence the more closely the object resembles a cup. No doubt one can find in the wild many natural objects which, in a pinch, could be pressed into use as a drinking vessel if there were no cups handy; but no one finding an ordinary coffee mug in the woods mistakes it for an accident of nature.

An event is "independently specifiable" if it can be shown to be special by reference to some extrinsic standard. The cup, for example, is independently specifiable by reference to its usefulness for a common human purpose. Similarly, if the dealer in a bridge game deals himself a perfect bridge hand on his first, second and third deals, we would infer design; that is, we would consider it more reasonable to conclude that he was cheating than it would be to suppose that those events coincided by chance. Every hand is equally improbable; but the difference is that the perfect bridge hand is special in a way that other distributions are not. There is a way to establish that this combination of cards is special other than the mere fact that it was dealt to this player on this occasion - namely, by reference to the rules of bridge. Thus, if the event in question is improbable without design, then we infer design. If the improbability is great, we infer design with great confidence. Note that this kind of proof never rises to the level of certainty or formal demonstration, no matter how extreme the improbability.

B. Information Theory.
The detection of design becomes even clearer if we think of the problem in terms of information theory. Take the cup: it contains information to the extent to which it is complex, "fits" its purpose precisely and its parts contribute to an overall function. Thus, the more complex the form of the cup; the more exactly its complexity suits it for use as a drinking vessel; and the more closely integrated its parts, the more information it embodies and the more confidently we infer design.

The connection between specified complexity and information may be clearer if we imagine how a cup is manufactured to specifications. An artist begins with a mental concept of a cup, and the concept consists of information: the height, width, depth, thickness of the cup. If the artist wishes to have the cup produced by someone else, she must convey the information to the manufacturer. The more closely the product is to match the artist's concept, the more information she must provide the manufacturer.

According to information theory, there are three levels of order:

1. Randomness. The main characteristics of randomness are the simplicity and generality of the instructions necessary to generate it. E.g., "Pick any symbol; repeat indefinitely."

2. Simple order. The three main characteristics of simple order are:

a. Specification is precise, not general. E.g., "Pick an m; pick an e; repeat indefinitely."

(mememememememememememememememememe.)

b. Relative simplicity of the instructions.

c. The parts are prior to the whole - that is, the parts can exist independently of their incorporation into the whole. In the example above, each "me" could survive if the whole were broken down, and a "me" could be removed without changing the whole.

Examples of simple order in nature would include many non- living structures, such as crystals.

3. Information. The three characteristics of information are:

a. Precise instructions.

b. Complex, specified order.

c. The whole is prior to the parts. That is, there is a meaning which exists prior to the selection of the symbols used to communicate that meaning. E.g., "Jon loves Mary." The test for simple order fails: remove one part and the whole is destroyed. For example, if we remove the n, it is no longer Jon who loves Mary but Jo, which is a different message. Thus, the parts depend on the whole for their identity - they are what they are in terms of their function within the whole.

A. Introduction.
The theory that it is possible to detect design in natural systems begins with the observation that there are no instances of information systems known to have resulted from nonpersonal causes, whether in nature or outside of nature. As J. P. Moreland says, in manmade systems "our experience teaches us that, regularly . . . information . . . is originated and introduced into the world as the direct result of intelligent persons who intentionally act."1 Shakespearean sonnets have not been known to write themselves, and the microchip existed in the mind of an electrical engineer before it existed in silicon. Design theory merely posits that lacking any other explanation for the information in nature, it is reasonable to suspect that it resulted from similar causes.

In the movie, "Contact," the radio astronomer played by Jodie Foster is seen dozing at her computer terminal when she is startled by a signal which she instantly recognizes as a sign of extraterrestrial intelligence: a radio signal from deep space containing the first twenty prime numbers2 in ascending order. She knows that the probability of such an event occurring by chance is so infinitesimal as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible, and that therefore she is being contacted by intelligent beings. What is her reasoning process? The same reasoning process we use to detect design in everyday life, the same reasoning process used by scientists in all the historical sciences, and the same reasoning process which leads just as inexorably to the conclusion of design in living systems.

Why has the United States government spent billions of dollars in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)? Because the scientific and governmental establishments are perfectly willing to entertain the possibility of nonhuman intelligent agents as long as they are not divine nonhuman agents. Indeed, as we have seen, among the aliens whom some of them hope to discover are the beings responsible for life on our very own planet. Naturally we would want to contact them, in order to thank them!

But information theory applies with equal validity to Shakespearean sonnets, sequences of prime numbers and to functioning biochemical systems. Let us look at the origin-of- life problem from the standpoint of information theory.

B. The Origin-of-Life Problem.
A protein is a sequence of amino acids. A protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids would be a relatively small protein. (Human proteins contain up to 3,000 amino acids!) As noted in Chapter 4, there are about 20 amino acids important in biology, and about half of the amino acids in a protein chain must be specific amino acids in order for the protein to fold properly into the three-dimensional shape which it must assume in order to function. Bradley and Thaxton discuss the difficulties in the formation of a single protein by random processes:

First, amino acids exist in two forms that are mirror images of each other . . . called L- and D-amino acids. These form in equal numbers . . . and react as rapidly with each other as with amino acids of the same symmetry. Yet all biological proteins found in nature contain only L-amino acids. . . .

Second, the peptide bond . . . to chemically attach two amino acids represents only one of several possible ways that amino acids may be joined together. Analysis of the bonds formed when amino acids are joined in prebiotic simulation experiments indicate that no more than half of the bonds are peptide bonds. Yet functional protein requires 100 percent peptide bonds to be able to fold into the particular three-dimensional structures that give biological function. . . .

A third challenge in assembling amino acids to give functional protein is the need to get a particular sequence of the various amino acids. . . . The three-dimensional topography that determines biological function depends on the sequencing of these amino acids. While having a particular amino acid at each site along the chain is not required to get the right morphology or topography, at least half of the sites (called active sites) do require a very specific amino acid. . . .

The fourth and possibly the most difficult problem in assembling amino acids into chains that fold into three-dimensional structures that give biological function is to react the amino acids only with each other and not with the many other chemical substances that would be present in a prebiotic soup. . . .

The problem of assembling the amino acid building blocks into functional protein can also be illustrated using probability and statistics. To simplify the problem, one may assume the probability of getting an L-amino acid (versus a D-amino acid) to be 50 percent and the probability of joining two such amino acids with a peptide bond to also be 50 percent. The probability of getting the right amino acid in a particular position may be assumed to be 5 percent, assuming equal concentration of all twenty amino acids in the prebiotic soup. The first two assumptions are realistic, while the third would be too low for some amino acids and too high for others.

Neglecting the problem of reactions with non-amino acid chemical species, the probability of getting everything right in placing one amino acid would be 0.5 x 0.5 x .05 = .0125. The probability of properly assembling N such amino acids would be .0125 x .0125 x . . . continued for N terms of .0125. If a functional protein had one hundred active sites, the probability of getting a proper assembly would be .0125 multiplied times itself one hundred times, or 4.9 x 10-191. Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began.

If we assume that all carbon on earth exists in the form of amino acids and that the amino acids are allowed to chemically react at the maximum possible rate of 1012/s for one billion years (the greatest possible time between the cooling of the earth and the appearance of life), we must still conclude that it is incredibly improbable (~10-65) that even one functional protein would be made, as H. P. Yockey has pointed out. D. Kenyon and C. Steinman and Sir Fredrick Hoyle come to similar conclusions, with the latter commenting, "The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard."3
If we pause to consider that the very simplest living cells are comprised of roughly a hundred proteins, all functioning in close harmony, it becomes starkly obvious why naturalistic solutions for the origin-of-life problem are inadequate. When it comes to more complex biochemical systems such as the blood clotting process or the synthesis of AMP, considered in Chapter 4, it should be clear that the challenge to evolutionary theory is raised exponentially. It is facile for evolutionists to wave a wand and say that the passing of time solves all their problems. The first multicellular organisms did not appear until about 700 million years ago, and complex organisms - shellfish and corals, for example - not until the Cambrian era, some 530 million years ago. The rest of the plant and animal kingdoms are supposed to have evolved on their own since that time - somehow. In that period of time, what impersonal mechanism generated the molecular information encoded in the proteins of the millions of species that populate the earth? Natural selection theory has never seriously attempted to answer that question.

C. DNA and the Theory of the Self-Organization of Matter.
The origin-of-life problem at length proved so insurmountable that after the mid-1960s many theorists gave up on randomness to suggest that matter may have inherent power to organize itself, appealing to the many regularities in nature, such as the lattices formed by salt crystals or the vortices formed by water draining from bathtubs. As we shall see, however, there is an unbridgeable chasm between mere order and information, and this crucial distinction is beautifully illustrated in what may be the most fascinating biochemical information system of all, deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA.

Darwin knew nothing of genetics, which was almost entirely a twentieth-century science; but its arrival gave immense impetus to his theory. Not only did it explain how heritable qualities are passed to succeeding generations; the discovery of genetic mutation suggested a way in which living things might acquire attributes which had not previously been coded into their genomes. Mutations, because they occur randomly, might be maladaptive in nearly all cases; but any mutations that just happened to confer an advantage in the competition to survive, would have a greater probability of being inherited by succeeding generations, because organisms possessing the new attribute would be more likely to survive long enough to reproduce. But there was another, crucial respect in which the discovery of genetics seemed to reinforce Darwinism: natural selection remained an impersonal process. Just as the environmental pressures which selectively eliminate the weak do not require divine activity, neither do random changes in genetic codes. Thus, the discovery of genetics caused many to conclude that Darwinism had been vindicated.

Ironically, it now appears that genetics, far from confirming Darwinism, is really one of its most powerful refutations; for it shows that living things bear the singular mark of the personal: information.

DNA molecules, like all information systems, are neither random nor simple, but are specifically complex. They are special by reference to something other than the mere fact that they exist: they produce the proteins whose sublimely orchestrated operations permit organisms to walk, talk, compose symphonies, build cities, care for each other and argue about the definition of science.

The information-storage capacity of DNA is staggering. Today's computer hard drives carry a density of 50 gigabytes per square inch; the DNA of the bacterium E. coli, 3.45 million gigabytes per square inch.4. And if any should suspect that biology might be on the cusp of discovering the naturalistic explanation for the information content of DNA, an understanding of the structure of the double-helix molecule will lay those suspicions to rest.

Stephen C. Meyer did his doctoral work in the history of and philosophy of science at Cambridge University and is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College and Senior Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Writing in the April 2000 issue of First Things Magazine, Meyer shows how DNA both disposes of the self-organizational theory of matter and confirms the power of information theory.

The empirical difficulties that attend self-organizational scenarios can be illustrated by examining a DNA molecule. The diagram [below] shows that the structure of DNA depends upon several chemical bonds. There are bonds, for example, between the sugar and the phosphate molecules that form the two twisting backbones of the DNA molecule. There are bonds fixing individual (nucleotide) bases to the sugar-phosphate backbones on each side of the molecule. Notice that there are no chemical bonds between the bases that run along the spine of the helix. Yet it is precisely along this axis of the molecule that the genetic instructions in DNA are encoded.

Further, just as magnetic letters can be combined and recombined in any way to form various sequences on a metal surface, so too can each of the four bases A, T, G, and C attach to any site on the DNA backbone with equal facility, making all sequences equally probable (or improbable). The same type of chemical bond occurs between the bases and the backbone regardless of which base attaches. All four bases are acceptable; none is preferred. In other words, differential bonding affinities do not account for the sequencing of the bases. . . .

Significantly, information theorists insist that there as a good reason for this. If chemical affinities between the constituents in the DNA message text determined the arrangement of the text, such affinities would dramatically diminish the capacity of DNA to carry information. Consider what would happen if the individual nucleotide "letters" in a DNA molecule did interact by chemical necessity with each other. Every time adenine (A) occurred in a growing genetic sequence, it would likely drag thymine (T) along with it. Every time cytosine (C) appeared, guanine (G) would follow. As a result, the DNA message text would be peppered with repeating sequences of A's followed by T's and C's followed by G's.

Rather than having a genetic molecule capable of unlimited novelty, with all the unpredictable and aperiodic sequences that characterize informative texts, we would have a highly repetitive text awash in redundant sequences - much as happens in crystals. Indeed, in a crystal the forces of mutual chemical attraction do completely explain the sequential ordering of the constituent parts, and consequently crystals cannot convey novel information. Sequencing in crystals is repetitive and highly ordered, but not informative. Once one has seen "Na" followed by "Cl" in a crystal of salt, for example, one has seen the extent of the sequencing possible. Bonding affinities, to the extent they exist, mitigate [sic] against the maximization of information. They cannot, therefore, be used to explain the origin of information. Affinities create mantras, not messages.

The tendency to confuse the qualitative distinction between "order" and "information" has characterized self-organizational research efforts and calls into question the relevance of such work to the origin of life. Self-organizational theorists explain well what doesn't need explaining. What needs explaining is not the origin of order (whether in the form of crystals, swirling tornadoes, or the "eyes" of hurricanes), but the origin of information - the highly improbable, aperiodic, and yet specified sequences that make biological function possible.5

A. The Periodic Table.
The foregoing discussion of information theory and its application to biology will enable the reader to employ it to test for specified complexity in other systems. Not previously considered is the system of atomic elements, which are extremely regular - so regular, indeed, that they have been arranged into what scientists call "the Periodic Table." There are 90 atomic elements occurring naturally, which are the basic building blocks of matter. (Twenty-two others have been made artificially.) They combine to form the molecules of the common materials which make up our world - our bodies, the air we breath, the food we eat. The Periodic Table is formed by arranging the elements according to the number of protons in each atom. The properties of each type of atom differ according to the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons which they have. Depending on their properties, the kinds of matter they form when they combine with other elements also vary, and in that way these ninety different elements combine to form the many thousands of useful materials that we find or can make.

It must not be overlooked that the periodic table is an information system. Indeed, it is hardly distinguishable from an alphabet, and the molecules, compounds and living and non-living structures formed from the elements are like the words, paragraphs and novels written in human language - only they are written in physical matter. Neither let us overlook the fact that the entire universe is one monumental composition in which the many physical substances, made of the atomic elements, make up one cosmic ecosystem, rich in information, hospitable to terrestrial life, telling a story (according to the latest science) with a beginning and an end. (The question, I suppose, is whether it has a plot. More about that later.)

B. The Specific Complexity of the Cosmos.
The physical constants which specify the form of the physical universe do not have as much regularity as the Periodic Table. There may well be a pattern within them; but aside from that, the specificity and complexity are easily great enough, I submit, to qualify as information. This is why many otherwise atheistic scientists intuitively sense a Designer.

C. From the Cosmic Top to the Quantum Bottom.
More speculative is the state-of-the art theory of quantum mechanics, which posits that quantum entities (subatomic particles) do not travel in discrete paths, but take all possible paths concurrently, and that all of those paths are probability waves, or - you guessed it: information!.

D. Human Language.
As we saw in Chapter 7, the human language facility presupposes a conscious mind, because otherwise language has no function: nothing is communicated if there are no communicants. But more to the point of this chapter, language implies the existence of mind because it is specifically complex - it contains information; and as we have seen, information does not arise without mind. No investigation, no study, no experiment, has ever produced evidence of a source of information other than mind.

Naturalistic science cannot account for mind. As Meyer states, "The origin . . . of massive amounts of coded genetic information . . . remains essentially mysterious on any current naturalistic evolutionary account."6 The truth of the matter is that only one system of thought coherently accounts for the existence of the rational mind, and that is the system of thought which teaches that God is Himself a rational being and has created Man in His own image. Thus, if it should be found that the universe ostensibly created by that God is permeated by information, such a finding would tend to confirm the universe may indeed be His handiwork.

V. Conclusion: The Word.

Quantum probability functions. Excruciatingly exacting physical constants. The Periodic Table. Amino acids, proteins, DNA, living cells. Human consciousness, mind, reason, and language. From the bottom of the cosmos to the top, and from the beginning of the universe to the end, one thing permeates all, and it is information.

Finally, there is the Word of God. Information also appears to be essential to the character of the Author of it all. In the Bible there is a clear identity of the written Word of God with the eternal Word of God and with the Son of God, who is the Word made flesh (John 1: 14). Moreover, the Bible teaches that before the universe was created, the three persons of the triune God were in communion. This is theology, but one word of theology is warranted when the science so consistently carries a single theme and that theme resonates so clearly with a central idea of religion.7 Communication - and hence, information - appear to be essential to the nature of the biblical God. If He is indeed the Creator, we should not be surprised that everything He has done carries signs of His activity; but now it appears that it all bears His very signature.

Endnotes

1J. P. Moreland, ed., The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, J. P. Moreland, ed. (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 24.
2A prime number is one which can be divided only by itself and the number 1. The first twenty prime numbers are 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 57, 59, 61 and 67.
3Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton, "Information and the Origin of Life" in The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, J. P. Moreland, ed. (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 173-210, at 186-187 and 190-191.
4Dynamic Silicon, Gilder Publishing, September 2001.
5Stephen C. Meyer, "DNA and Other Designs," in First Things Magazine, April 2000, 30-38, at 34-36.
6Stephen C. Meyer, "The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can there be a Scientific 'Theory of Creation'?" in Moreland, ed., 67-112, at 68.
7Moreover, the study of God is not beyond the ken of science properly conceived, as suggested earlier.

© 2000 Thomas O. Alderman