Whenever we Intelligent Design proponents talk about ID, "information" is a word mentioned quite often. Information is the key to ID, so it seems. But, how just how much does information explain in ID? Is it a necessary or sufficient component of ID? I claim that information is merely a necessary component, and that information points beyond itself to something even more fundamental. But first, we must see the ID hierarchy of being.
Let us start with the basics. We have a universe filled with objects. Some of these objects are intelligently designed, some are not. How do we know whether an object is intelligently designed? By whether is exhibits complex specified information (CSI). What creates CSI? Why, an intelligent designer, of course.
But, what or who is the intelligent designer? That is the perennial question lobbed at us ID proponents. As I explained previously, the intelligent designer is not necessarily the same as God, and in fact ID can be said to be consistent with atheism:
http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-and-atheism-are.html
However, there is still more to be said about the designer. The big question is, is the designer itself CSI, or something else? Well, as also discussed previously, CSI cannot explain itself, otherwise we end up with the Dawkins paradox:
http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/must-designer-be-more-complex-than.html
Consequently, the designer must be something other than CSI. Yet, the definition of CSI excludes the designer from itself being an agent of chance and necessity, since chance and necessity cannot create CSI. So, the designer is both other than CSI, and it is also other than chance and necessity. The designer is a fourth kind entity, and therefore the designer is itself beyond information.
Let us start with the basics. We have a universe filled with objects. Some of these objects are intelligently designed, some are not. How do we know whether an object is intelligently designed? By whether is exhibits complex specified information (CSI). What creates CSI? Why, an intelligent designer, of course.
But, what or who is the intelligent designer? That is the perennial question lobbed at us ID proponents. As I explained previously, the intelligent designer is not necessarily the same as God, and in fact ID can be said to be consistent with atheism:
http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-and-atheism-are.html
However, there is still more to be said about the designer. The big question is, is the designer itself CSI, or something else? Well, as also discussed previously, CSI cannot explain itself, otherwise we end up with the Dawkins paradox:
http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/must-designer-be-more-complex-than.html
Consequently, the designer must be something other than CSI. Yet, the definition of CSI excludes the designer from itself being an agent of chance and necessity, since chance and necessity cannot create CSI. So, the designer is both other than CSI, and it is also other than chance and necessity. The designer is a fourth kind entity, and therefore the designer is itself beyond information.
