Kevin Cobb posted a great comment on the blog:
“Saying that the existence of information is proof of the existence of God is like saying that the fact that we see 7 colors is proof that 7 is a spiritually significant number.
In this latter case, the solution, the truth is that we see an uncountable variety of colors, and we can only see them because our eyes evolved to see them. There is evidence that some creatures actually perceive more colors than we can, in the ultraviolet and infrared spectrum.
Also mind you that the color and sound spectra are probably infinite continuum, and we can only see a tiny sliver.
The relevance of this metaphor is to say that what you see as information and mind is only a human concept and understanding of what is happening, which is to say, a limited one.
What God is, or how it operates is surely far beyond and much more subtle than can be grasped at with “information”. I think it is belittling to God to suggest that it uses a “mind” as you understand it.
Furthermore, when scientists and atheists suggest that life could arise without God, they are simply saying that they believe that whatever causes all of this strange beauty and horror did not, and could not reasonably have had Humans and Earth at the center of his creation of the universe.
They also deny that God is as petty and Human-like as he is often claimed to be, which he would have to be if he really represented your idea of a mind. The thing that causes the universe, whether you call it nature, the Tao, Brahman, or God is not being denied.
Clearly something very weird, deceptively simple and unfathomable is the cause for anything to be. Saying “God doesn’t exist” is more a claim against your understanding.
How can you claim with your finite mind to know something that is infinite, and in so doing deny the reality in front of you?
Is DNA really “information”, or simply what it is?”
A young earth creationist says “The universe only APPEARS to be 13 billion years old.” (Even though we have entire libraries of evidence that this is indeed the case.) The creationist says, “Those dinosaur bones only APPEAR to be 65 million years old.”
An atheist says “DNA only APPEARS to be information.” (Even though we have entire professions like bioinformatics that give us incredibly useful tools for genetics and medicine.)
What’s the difference?
Anybody notice the pattern of both extremists putting ideology above science? Above what you can personally see, feel, hear, touch, taste, analyze and understand?
“The universe only APPEARS to be fine tuned… Genomes only APPEAR to contain information… DNA only APPEARS to be code… The cosmos only APPEARS to be engineered to produce life… Living things only APPEAR to be purposeful. Dawkins says, “Biology is the study of things that APPEAR to be designed” …Humans only APPEAR to have a spiritual nature… On and on it goes.
Isn’t it downright FUNNY how atheist fundamentalists deny reality at every turn? How they turn science into the study of an illusion?
This is Exhibit “A” of psychological denial. It’s like a woman with anorexia looking at herself in a mirror and insisting that “I’m fat.”
Nobody will ever be able to say with a straight face “Wait a minute God, there wasn’t enough evidence!”
WAKE UP. The evidence is all around you. It’s embedded in the very language you use to describe things.
And it’s evidence enough.
Kevin, when you say “Clearly something very weird, deceptively simple and unfathomable is the cause for anything to be” … I don’t know very many theologians who would disagree with you. You are closer to God than you think.