"Real-world results" are the consequence of God's act in the beginning. That is my "faith." I have known this since I was a small child, even before I started going to school, just from observing the world around me.
I have "faith" in science, too — so long as it is operating within its proper sphere of competence.
What I do not have faith in, however, is any form of materialism or physicalism as an exhaustive explanation for the world we see all around us.
As my friend the astrophysicist puts it,
The central thesis of physicalism proclaims the causal closure of the physical. Ashby's Law and Kahre's Law of Diminishing Information stated that physical systems cannot produce more information at their output than was present at their input. This means that for physical systems, complexity jumps are simply not possible.Or, to put it more crudely, a living system — an "open" system — cannot "emerge" from a causally closed system as defined by physical, material, or mechanical presuppositions. Something else is required for life. And as increasingly recognized these days, that something else is information — which is not a tangible, material thing.
To the extent that Neo-Darwinist theorizing restricts itself to physicalist/materialist presuppositions, it cannot explain the emergence of life. Period. End of story.
You more seem to have faith--probably better to say "confidence"--that such an explanation is impossible.
To the extent that Neo-Darwinist theorizing restricts itself to physicalist/materialist presuppositions, it cannot explain the emergence of life. Period. End of story.
You hope. This is the second time you've referenced Kahre's Law, which I hadn't previously heard of, so I went looking for references to read up on it. And I found a paper (PDF) that acknowledges the "information paradox" you describe, but says "We show that the resolution of the fundamental information paradox may lie either in the chemical evolution of inheritance in abiogenesis, or in the existence of an autonomous biological principle allowing the production of information beyond physics." Further,
If our results will be confirmed, it will turn out that biology cannot be reduced simply to physics, since its genetic, algorithmic and symbolic information content is much higher than that of physics. Our proposal not only allows biology to follow its own, and, necessarily, autonomous first principle not derivable from physics, but allows also to approach biology from a viewpoint that can make theoretical biology to develop into a science with exactness almost reaching the exactness of physics.So for this scientist at least, the information paradox is not the end of the story, but rather the start.