I want to thank Farzana for bringing an interesting article to our attention but I cannot help saying that it is based on less well-founded premises. There are too many ambiguities in the article. The author has touched on numerous scientific ideas without providing rational proof for anything.

As much as author has tried to adore the idea of ‘information’ at the expense of material reality and attempted to make us believe that as if information is a separate entity than material, he has not proved that information resides outside of the material reality.

Since, author has not provided any definition of ‘Information’, I hope he has not deliberately omitted the definition of information. Acknowledging my own limitations let me give you a definition of information pertaining to DNA. “Information contained in DNA is the property of physio-chemical organization of atoms and molecules that constitute DNA in the setting of surrounding physical and chemical milieu”. So information in this case is the expression of structural and material organization of DNA. Should that material change the information is no longer there – Case in point is mutations. Therefore, I think it is erroneous to assume as if information exists as a separate domain outside of DNA. Information evaporates from DNA even with minimal change in structure or material. Lets not forget atoms and molecule behave according to their isotopic nature, which is different from the concept of information as is implied in this article. Water would always flow down not because an intelligent Mind has coupled an information-domain to its molecules that helps molecules decide to take certain direction for flowing, but I am sure everybody knows why! By the way, if we tear apart Encyclopedia Britannica and burn those pages to light our BBQ where would be the information that was contained in it? I think we need to learn not to look at matter and material reality with disdain but with respect also.

This understanding makes it hard for me to agree with the idea of mind prior to matter that encodes information in matter or in other words, the Mind that orders or requests matter how to react in a given set of physical and chemical conditions. It also seems reasonable at this point to ask if Mind was prior to Matter then what was happening prior to Mind. It is the same type of question in response to which St. Augustine once replied that God was making hell prior to making universe, for people asking such of questions. I hope the learned author would not condemn me to hell for raising an age old question again.

It appears unfair to me to assume as Mr. Yahya did, “Information Dead End of Evolutionary Theory and Materialism” I think this is a misconception in author’s mind as if evolutionary process is dead-end. It has been talked about before in Rafi Aamar’s exchanges on this site that evolutionary process is a dynamic one. It is a process of hope due to its inbuilt nature of combining and discarding countless possibilities and allowing only those to survive that are compatible with surrounding circumstances. I will not restate all that to avoid redundancy, which, nonetheless is present in genes not as a back up system that an intelligent mind has created but as part of evolutionary randomness. I might point out that HIV and so many other viruses causing genes to alter to produce disease and cancers are a genetics phenomenon. Were it not better to have more strength for elimination of disease were there an intelligent and powerful Mind creating the systems. May be this is a reductionist approach but still meaningful.

It does not matter whether we call it reductionism or with an even more derogatory term. Numerous references in the article are only statements. They are worthy of appreciation for effort but not for substance as there is no argument there that would help me think differently. I wish the author had some factual data to substantiate the claims made and not resorted to name calling like ‘Reductionist.

I do not understand the concept of “Old vs Modern science” because the year of discovery of scientific principles is irrelevant. What is important is whether they are valid and stand to the scrutiny of scientific theory in the face of new data or not.

Referring to the author’s example of computer discs:

I suppose one needs to understand that two computer discs are different from each other not in mass but meaning for the fact how molecules are organized on the surface of disc. It takes us to the same definition of information that I offered above. It holds true here also. Change the material of the disc and see for yourself what happens to your data. Computer geeks know this much better than I do. I have to appreciate that a silly argument has been made very cleverly. Nice try!

Evolution of life is not a chance but scientific outcome of limitless possibilities of interactions. If life was to be the result of “Be done”; it would have been much better if that powerful mind had some intelligence also and had thought of misery, suffering and cruelty that such hastily designed creation would afflict on human and now on earth also. Remember that old discussion where three human beings during holocaust got rounded up in a concentration camp and argued about God and concluded “if there is a God, this is the time for Him to intervene. If he could not intervene, he is impotent. If He could intervene but He chose not to intervene then He is a monster”. This says it all too well from social perspective.

On the other hand, evolution is possibilities. It does not operate on pity. It calls this a process of Natural Selection, which not only destroys good DNA sometimes but bad one for sure. What about ‘Apoptosis’ at cellular level and ‘Multisystem Failure’ at organism level? If life were to be such a cherished phenomenon why to incorporate the concept of death in genetics? Understanding life as one of the manifestation of physical occurrences would sufficiently answer this question rationally and would teach humility. Evolution does not have a place for arrogance as religious creationist approach does.

I feel the biggest dilemma of religious/spiritual/creationists is their psychological fear of death, which makes them feel meaningless in life and hence they create a new myth of life after death. It may very well be that all believers need some emotional strength of personality. It would help them overcome their selective bias in favor of God, then creation and then its final psychological operative – Religion. But let’s go back to Mr. Yahya’s article.

Most respectfully, the last part of the essay is very much an article faith where author has quickly decided to jump from preceding less than scientific thought to shear faith based argument. I am sure it a valid argument for lots of faithful but not enough for discussion in a rational manner. On the same note I might add that scientific theory of creation is separate topic. So I would refrain from touching it at this point.

I hope my friends would look at the article respectfully as I did and make up their own mind (Hopefully not before listening to the counter argument - This is my dry humor!).

Tahir M. Qazi, MD
Clinical Neurophysiology
Neuromuscular Diseases
Physical Medicine & Rehab.