Information Input Theory – A Trademarked “Research Field”?

Here’s an odd website that popped up in my news feed. It proclaims itself the “International Laboratory of ID Science“. Apparently it’s all about something called Information Input Theory. A phrase which apparently has been trade marked. And with supreme irony, given the text on the home page, the website is subtitled Evidence and Reason! According to the site,

IIT is a field of Intelligent Design science which predicts intelligent inputs, specified complexity and adaptation value in biological systems. IIT is a study of information, it overlaps studies in computer science, information theory, bioinformatics and biomechanics.
IIt is a recognised tool, a respected and trusted science.

I had a quick Google search of the phrase Information Input Theory. Nothing other than the site and its facebook page comes up, so I suspect it’s scarcely a recognised tool, or a respected and trusted science. Other hallmarks of a, shall we say, oddball site are the oddly written prose often using neologisms and words that are just plain wrong. Oh, and over-interpretations and misinterpretations of science.

On the off chance that this really is some kind of offshoot of Intelligent Design creationism, I Googled “Information Input Theory” + “Discovery Institute” since the Discotute have a bit of a track record in abusing information theory, but I only hit one page, an individual’s Facebook page. I didn’t fare much better replacing the Discotute with its UK equivalent, the centre for Intelligent Design. I presume therefore that whoever (or what) is behind this website is not overtly connected with either outfit.

So this looks to be a off-piste oddball site. Of course, it appears to be a website that’s still being built (it has lots non-functional links), but top of the list of “Reference Links” is a link to The Bible. Which probably explains a lot.

There’s not much content. On the front page are brief discussions of the famous Cairns paper of 1988 (Cairns J, Overbaugh J, Miller S. The origin of mutants. Nature. 1988;335:142-145. Link), neglecting to mention work that’s been done since (such as Hendrickson et al. Amplification-mutagenesis: evidence that “directed” adaptive mutation and general hypermutability result from growth with a selected gene amplification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2002;99(4):2164-9. Link). Oh and a lot of poorly drafted verbiage that doesn’t make sense to me. Also on the front page is a brief discussion of a preprint paper by Gregory Chaitin on some sort of mathematical modelling of evolution, which I haven’t read, but about which this brief burst of gibberish is completely unilluminating.

There are a few pages of text, for example objecting to evolution (names here as Darwinism) which begins with a bonkers assertion:

The theory of evolution is not one theory but, a collection of theories, e.g. Natural Selection – DNA sequencing, coordination of sexual selection etc.
Darwinism or (Neo-Darwinism) is a subject of philosophy and in particular, a want, rather than actual science, which hinders the public from adopting the actuality of design in science.

And it gets worse! I’ve rarely read such inarticulate writings, even from creationists. Peculiarly, the link entitled ‘Science behind ITT’ take one to a page with the tab heading Jesus Loves You, with a ludicrous collection of gibberish the like of which I’ve only really seen on true nut-job alt-med sites.



7 thoughts on “Information Input Theory – A Trademarked “Research Field”?

  1. Hi GrumpyBob. "TM" has no legal significance in the UK, only in the US.

    I did an on-line search of registered trade marks in the UK and US and found nothing relevant under either Information Input Theory or "iiT".

    There seem to be numerous anti-Darwin quotations from someone called J Shelley, whoever that may be.

    This looks like a bonkers irrelevance to me.

  2. I accidentally wandered over to one of the creationist web sites, and the commenters and bloggers were all patting themselves on the back about how the theory of evolution was falling apart and statistics therefore deliberate design and how "critter looks designed to me." This has been going on since approximately the day after Darwin published "The Origin of Species." There's still no better explanation.

  3. There are many theories up until now which makes it more complicated to discover the real origin of humans on earth. This December, another one has come into the minds of many scientists and researchers. This is all about the collision of planet nibiru on earth.

  4. I've talked to the person behind this "lab", Joshua Shelley, many times. He has no scientific qualifications, and has been trying to peddle his unscientific speculation as scientific theory for a while now.

    He self-published a book a while back through Lulu that was filled with factual, spelling, and grammatical errors called Wasp on the Moon.

    Shelley regularly demonstrated that he doesn't understand even the basics of evolutionary theory, and constantly tried to create a false sense of authority for himself.

    He's just another pseudo-scientific godbot pretending at being an intellectual. There is no lab, and there is no Information Input Theory. It's just Joshua Shelley aka MexicanDrugLord trying to give his ramblings the aura of authority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *