NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?

Tangle writes:So suppose the physicist was the one who counted the onions in the field and now he's dead how can the information about how many onions are in the field exist? The onions are still there but the information isn't. To find the information about how many onions, the onions needs to be recounted.

Tangle writes:Quantum information is a different kettle of ferrets. If you want to talk about that, you need someone else (and about 20 years of impossible study first.)

Tangle writes:Stile.

GDR writes:The information was still there. It was just unknown.

I don't remember commenting on dying physicists.

... it seems like the word "information" is being abused all over the place.

If one can't be clear without relying on their preferred terms - then maybe they don't really understand what they're discussing in the first place.

Tangle writes:If you see a yellow flower that you've never seen before, all you know about it is that it's a yellow flower. You don't know that it's a daffodil. The object itself does not contain or create that information. That information was created and transmitted by a human not the daffodil.

But to me... it seems like the word "information" is being abused all over the place.Trying to define the term in one context, and then use it in another is only confusing, not any sort of "gotcha" moment.

DWise1 writes:The big problem is that appeals to information and to information theory is a basic tool in ID to generate BS claims and arguments and to baffle their audiences. Under the mask of esoteric mathematics, they can freely redefine it to mean whatever they want and to misapply it wherever they wish -- if we can't follow what they're doing, then how can we call them on it?Remember that every discipline has its own terminology often using the same words as many other disciplines (as well as common usages) but redefined to fit the specific needs of that particular discipline. ... { further development of this idea plus a couple examples deleted for brevity } ...One of the oldest creationist deceptive practices has been called "semantic shifting" wherein they take a scientific term and replace its proper definition with a street definition. That way, they can misquote a scientific source without having to change a single word, just by applying the wrong definitions.So whenever a creationist starts using the word, "information", your BS detector should start flashing red before it pegs its needle. Same as whenever a creationist says anything about "evolution".

GDR writes:The information was discovered by humans and transmitted by humans.

Tangle writes:How can a plant give humans the information that it's called a daffodil?

Humans are simply naming the uniqueness of the daffodil.

AZPaul3 writes:So where is the information? Is it in the uniqueness of the flower or in the recognition of that uniqueness?

It's in the uniqueness of the flower. It has it's own specific dna code etc.