[JimSEA]

I’m incapable of understanding how complexity disproves science? That we are constantly learning more and refining our understanding of how things work is part and parcel of scientific research. It is to be expected that as we discover new tools for observation, etc., we learn more details about what we are studying. Irreducible complexity seems to be a meme of young earth creationists. Are we supposed to say, “Gee, that’s too complicated for me, let’s take it on faith and stop trying to understand it”. I guess so.

[wbarmy]

The whole theory of Evolution was based on Darwin's understanding of the cell, an amorphous blob of protoplasm. (Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe) Darwin and the scientists immediately after him could claim all sorts of things with their limited knowledge. As knowledge of the complexity grows, the things you can claim the genes can do become significantly more impossible under random chance.

[jonno]

I’m incapable of understanding how complexity disproves science?

These are your words Jim.

What this article suggests (once again) is that chance mutations are an insufficient explanation for the life we see around us - human life especially.

It seems obvious to me that as we "peel back the layers" and find ever increasing complexity, that the odds of "chance" explaining humanity grow to ridiculous proportions.

Does this negate science? No it makes "chance" look like silly grasping...

[fishtank]

THis is a repost from this thread:

In sum, information needs an intelligence to create it. - Pretty interesting stuff to think about - but that’s metaphysical, too! Haha....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3117912/posts

“Although Spetner says information could be in principle created or increased, Dr Werner Gitt, retired Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, denies this:

“Theorem 23: There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”31
In his latest book, Gitt refines and explains his conclusions from a lifetime of research on information and its inseparable reliance on an intelligent source.32 There are various manifestations of information: for example, the spider’s web; the diffraction pattern of butterfly wings; development of embryos; and an organ-playing robot.33 He introduces the term ‘Universal Information’34 to minimize confusion with other usages of the word information:

“Universal Information (UI) is a symbolically encoded, abstractly represented message conveying the expected actions(s) and the intended purposes(s). In this context, ‘message’ is meant to include instructions for carrying out a specific task or eliciting a specific response [emphasis added].”35
Information must be encoded on a series of symbols which satisfy three Necessary Conditions (NC). These are conclusions, based on observation.

NC1: A set of abstract symbols is required.
NC2: The sequence of abstract symbols must be irregular.
NC3: The symbols must be presented in a recognizable form, such as rows, columns, circles, spirals and so on.
Gitt also concludes that UI is embedded in a five-level hierarchy with each level building upon the lower one:

statistics (signal, number of symbols)
cosyntics (set of symbols, grammar)
semantics (meaning)
pragmatics (action)
apobetics (purpose, result).
Gitt believes information is guided by immutable Scientific Laws of Information (SLIs).36,37 Unless shown to be wrong, they deny a naturalist origin for information, and they are:38

SLI-1: Information is a non-material entity.
SLI-2: A material entity cannot create a non-material entity.
SLI-3: UI cannot be created by purely random processes.
SLI-4: UI can only be created by an intelligent sender.
SLI-4a: A code system requires an intelligent sender.
SLI-4b: No new UI without an intelligent sender.
SLI-4c: All senders that create UI have a non-material component.
SLI-4d: Every UI transmission chain can be traced back to an original intelligent sender
SLI-4e: Allocating meanings to, and determining meanings from, sequences of symbols are intellectual processes.
SLI-5: The pragmatic attribute of UI requires a machine.
SLI-5a: UI and creative power are required for the design and construction of all machines.
SLI-5b: A functioning machine means that UI is affecting the material domain.
SLI-5c: Machines operate exclusively within the physical– chemical laws of matter.
SLI-5d: Machines cause matter to function in specific ways.
SLI-6: Existing UI is never increased over time by purely physical, chemical processes.”

[fishtank]

“I’m incapable of understanding how complexity disproves science? “

Also, even though I disagree with your question, I would have written it like this:

“I’m incapable of understanding how (the creation of information) disproves (a simplistic materialistic unproven set of assumptions)?

I don’t think you used the word “science” correctly.

[aquila48]

I just finished reading two books “Signature in the cell” and “Darwin’s doubt “. I was mostly a believer in Darwin’s theory - no more.

You sound like me before reading those books. I think you would find them as much of an eye opener as I did.