Excellent reply, BB! I like your casaul pull from the future...aka forward planning. To this day, in all my reading, the evos have never come up with a satisfactory answer for that...no will they ever IMHO. Unless you consider trillions of mindless pre-adaption miracles as a satisfactory answer, Creationists and IDers have the best explanation for inversely causal meta-information by far.
LOLOL GGG! But you know, evos evidently don't object to "miracles" in principle, only those which come from God.
Thanks for your kind words, GGG!
After my last to you, I had a further thought (will wonders never cease!). It was this:
Unquestionably, Darwin's evolution theory is squarely within the Newtonian paradigm. That paradigm has itself had to be modified, in light of relativity theory and quantum theory. But evolution theory hasn't changed much in substance since the middle of the 19th century.
The mathematical physicist/theoretical biologist Robert Rosen has argued (convincingly to my mind) that no advances can be made in theoretical biology on Newton's paradigm. Newton's paradigm — for all its excellence in the physico-chemical world — simply is not up to the job of explicating the phenomena of biology. Within our ordinarily perceived 4D world (that is, where relativistic and quantum effects are marginal), Newton's paradigm is still unexcelled when it comes to mechanical ("simple") systems in nature. But it hits the wall on questions pertaining to biological ("complex") systems.
The reason for this, according to Rosen, is that, among other things, the presuppositions of the Newtonian system with respect to causation — past to present, future just the sum total of past events, no final causes — is simply "too impoverished" to account for the organizational complexity of living systems. That's where information comes into the picture — for which there is at present no known natural source, no matter how hard Darwinists twist themselves to show "information" as the spontaneous product of the random burping of dumb matter. (Talk about miracles!)
In other words, the Newtonian paradigm admits only formal, material, and efficient causes: Evidently in honor of Francis Bacon, final causes are strictly banned!
But it is the final cause — what Alex Williams has illustrated with his very interesting model of inversely-causal metainformation — that alone can account for biological organization, which is all about the functions the organization is geared toward instantiating and coordinating in living systems. (I could have said "designed" instead of "geared," but why be controversial? LOL!!!)
I have spoken of final cause as a kind of "pull from the future." Another way to put it — and Rosen makes this very clear with his relational diagrams (which explore the causal organizational structure of complex, that is living systems) — a final cause is a supervening cause, in that it correlates and duly integrates in time the other three Aristotelian causes. It "closes the causal loop" — and you can't get to the idea of biological function if you can't do that.
I love the two Rosen books I've read so far — Life Itself and Essays on Life Itself. He's not proposing a detailed theory, as Williams has done. Rather, he is getting down to the most basic questions that modern science needs to ask/consider, if they want to get anywhere with a theoretical biology that actually looks at biological systems themselves, not just how they speciate once they're here. If you ever need fresh ammo to go after evos, you'd not find better source material anywhere....
JMHO, FWIW.
Words mean things, but the above means what?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When at first we practice to deceive." Sir Walter Scott