Seeds of ID
by MikeGeneInformation theory, along with cybernetics, have significantly shaped and influenced the study of molecular biology. As a result, it should be no surprise that something like "˜intelligent design' would eventually emerge. That is, as the models and metaphors began to generate a track record of success, sooner or later teleologists would take note and begin to question whether the success was indebted to a deeper reality.
Anyway, there is a little piece of historical trivia that helps us see how easy it would be to transition from the application of information theory to biology to something like intelligent design.
Those who are familiar with the ID debate know that information theory, and the work of Claude Shannon, have played a substantial role in the whole debate about origins. Shannon, however, did not develop his ideas in a vacuum. On the contrary, the first person to get information theory off the ground was Harry Nyquist , who was still working at Bell Labs when Shannon joined the team in the early 1940s. The significance of Nyquist can be seen in this excerpt from Robert Losee's synopsis of the birth of information theory:
Writing in the Bell System Technical Journal, Nyquist suggested that two factors determine the "maximum speed of transmission of intelligence." Each telephone cable is implicitly considered to have a limit imposed on it such that there is a finite, maximum speed for transmitting "intelligence." This limit was widely understood by practicing electrical engineers of the era to be related to such factors as power, noise, and the frequency of the intelligent signal. Accepting such a limit as a given, Nyquist was able to work backwards towards the study of what was transmitted. He began referring to what was transmitted as "information."
I am not bringing this up to suggest it somehow validates anything about Intelligent Design. It is simply a piece of history that helps us see how the critic's version of the history of ID is much too simplistic. According to the critics, Intelligent Design was/is nothing more than a moniker that was invented purely as a PR stunt to re-label creationism so the Bible could be taught in the schools. Yet a more nuanced and sophisticated approach to history allows us to see something much deeper at work. If theories about the transmission of "intelligence" gave rise to theories about "information," and information theory influenced the development of molecular biology, why would anyone think that teleologists would not eventually come along and close the loop?
December 28th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
According to the critics, Intelligent Design was/is nothing more than a moniker that was invented purely as a PR stunt to re-label creationism so the Bible could be taught in the schools.
This is also a convenient out for ID critics. While IDers might wish to discuss specifics like the origin of information and whether information and a system allowing for its storage and transmission would arise from stochastic chemical reactions, critics can adopt the easy but intellectually stultifying mantra that ID is just religion…
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2006 @ 11:03 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Great post Mike. The other aspect is that as information science has invaded biology, evolutionary biology was confronted with having to account for the evolution of information.
When this confrontation occurred it was inevitable a collision and irreconcilable conflict, rather than synergy would occur. Witness what happened at the 1966 Wistar Convention. The rift that began in 1966 has continued to this day. The arguments that brilliant scientists like Shutzenberger and Maury Eden put on the table have been relentlessly and mercilessly pounded on the evolutionary community ever scince.
I would argue an even more modest claim that Nyquist, Shannon, and von Neuman's work laid the foundation of critique of neo-Darwinism and Darwinism. Whether ID is true is somewhat separate, but the science of information, at the very least casts a great shadow on mindless evolution. Epitomizing this ID-free critique of mindless evolution would be the works of Yockey (Oppenheimer's student), Trevors, and Abel.
For what it's worth, I studied the works of Nyquist and Shannon in school as well as Turing and indirectly von Neumann. Your thesis about Nyquist planting a seed for ID is right on, or at the least, one could argue Nyquist made the ground fallow.
PS
I will offer one amusing anecdote when I was studying digital signal processing. The professor was writing down the proof of Nyquist's sampling theorem for almost half an hour. He then turned to the class and said, "what's wrong, you all look lost." The class burst out in laughter after one student boldly replied, "maybe because we are". In the next semester of digital communication, I recall Dr. Chang starting to mention he was about to go over the Nyquist's sampling theorem in relation to a communication channel's capacity (like a telephone wire). As soon as he did, I heard hushed moans from my classmates. The name Nyquist brings a measure of awe, bewilderment, and headaches when mentioned in the community of information engineers….
Evolution must account for the origin and transmission of information. Evolution is not exempt from having to work within the constraints defined by Shannon and Nyquist's equations. Barbara Forest and friends fail to appreciate just how badly evolutionary biologists are preceived by those of us in the information sciences who have slugged through learning the works of Shannon and Nyquist. We almost could care less about the rulings of Dover and Cobb county, or the fact peer-reviewers routinely accept papers the fly in the face of information science. What matter to us is whether the theories are consistent with the body of study which Nyquist and Shannon founded, and imho, evolutionary biology as it stands today is not consistent nor can it ever posssibly be. Never! as in perpetual motion machines don't exist, Never!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 30, 2006 @ 9:08 am
December 30th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Good post Salvador. My own view is that the origin and transmission of information should be the centerpiece of ID as change and natural selection was the core of Darwin's theory. One of the advanatages of viewing ID from this perspective is it allows us to retain useful concepts like change and adaptation when supporting evidence exists. What we need not do is accept a paradigm that is unsuitable to origins.
The quote alluded to by Mike indicates the intrinsic connection between information and intelligence. The fact that the latter word initially was used is telling.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2006 @ 12:59 pm