Random Data as Information

I have been considering the aspects of information theory vs. the evolutionist concept of information, which they also call information theory, with the additional concept of "emergent information".

Information in the cultural understanding is usually connected with meaning, and information theory is connected with the creation, transmission, and receipt of that meaning in a reliable manner. For evolution, however, another definition must be added. In the process of evolution, any random data can become a utility in the process. The data does not have meaning in the human-comprehension sense; the data is conferred meaning post facto by the organism by virtue of its ability to use the data. Hence the concept of emergent information, since the previously random and accidental data has proven useful.

This is not at all the sense in which information theory works, if one is considering communications at the human level. And it is deceptive to call it communications theory and pretend that it fits into normal communications theory.

Emergent information is a concept that fits nicely into evolution, which is a concept that covers any and all consequences or effects of natural selection as a cause. In fact the idea of taking random data and conferring meaning upon it also takes all possible consequences and effects and declares that they are because of emergent information. There is no possible negation of this concept.

This process of a single cause producing all effects regardless of their properties is well outside the idea of cause and effect being the basis of scientific examination. If there is no possible negation or falsification of the idea, then it is a religious proposition, not a scientific hypothesis that is verifiable. If the concept cannot fail, then it cannot be verified either. Conversely, if the concept cannot be verified because it cannot fail, then there are no experiments that can produce anything but success, even when they produce no results at all.

This is precisely the Atheist argument against prayer, and against God. Many choose not to accept the idea of a first cause on the basis of its failure to be a valid subject of scientific investigation. However, they have no similar qualms about evolution as a valid scientific proposition.

Under scrutiny, evolution is a materialist religious proposition, without the possibility of failing any test of scientific experimentation. It satisfies, by definition, the Atheist requirement for “evidence in order to believe a thing”, because there is no possible evidence that can exist to disprove it. So in this sense it is a tautology, having been defined into success.