(no subject)

[maradydd]

By way of Pharyngula, apparently the creationists are starting to abuse information theory, not just physics, in their tortured attempts to justify their doctrine.

Of course, you understand, this means war.

ETA: /me reads the comments. Oh. Apparently creationists reject Claude Shannon's work on information theory. Infidels. They shall be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

One thing that I will never understand is why creationists believe that an omniscient God is bad at math.

Comments

[tdj.livejournal.com]

For (much) more on this subject: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/bad_math/debunking_creationism/

[geekosaur]

I think the proof text for that is a circular pool in Solomon's temple which is described in such a way that one can derive π = 3.0. (To which the Jewish answer is, roughly, "calm down, nobody said it's a math textbook.")

[hukuma.livejournal.com]

You know, information theory is just a theory. Teach the controversy!

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

Of course their omniscient god can be bad at math. It's all part of his divine plan, which we mortals are too insignificant to comprehend, despite the fact that we are the Most Important Species Anywhere.

[graydon.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately it goes much further than rejecting AIT or any of the formal information-theory work that's been done. They've also been flatly juxtaposing normal information-theory mathematics with verbal "explanations" saying that some equation states the exact opposite of what it actually states. For years. They picked this up around the same time they picked up the terms "intelligent design" and "irreducibly complex", and "numerical" arguments about the "improbability" of evolution being able to function (of course, measuring a mathematical object that does not describe any actual mode of selection). Such tactics have more syllables -- and numbers! -- and so sound much more sciencey than "bible". Their whole approach these days is to hide in "science clothes", claim no relation to religion at all, and rely on the inability of the general public to tell the difference. Make it look like two competing theories in the same, "wide-open" scientific fields.

It is indeed a sad and angry-making day when you discover how deep this shit goes. My condolences. Maybe a few minutes on cuteoverload? That always helps for me.

[q-pheevr.livejournal.com]

One thing that I will never understand is why creationists believe that an omniscient God is bad at math.

Because they believe that he created them in his image....

Resources?

[(Anonymous)]

"...creationists believe than an omniscient God is bad at math." LOL, well they certainly don't represent Him that well in that regard.

It's been a long time since I read anything by Shannon (brief communications stint back in my undergrad EE days).

Anyway, I'm bad at math, but I do like reading about stuff like this. Can anyone point me to (a) some accessible resources on information theory and (b) maybe a few scholarly papers that would be way above my head anyway? Who's doing research on naturalistic origins of information?