DNA - the cosmic fingerprint of God - Why not, I say? (show of 21 Feb 09)

[justinbrierley]

Check out DNA & the origin of life at www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

I don't know how many of you out there are biologists by background. Perry Marshall isn't but he says that his background in engineering has given him the right perspective to see that the DNA code is an information system that can only be explained by an intelligent designer.

Peter Hearty, atheist biologist says that just because every other code that we know comes from an intelligent source, we don't need to assume the same for this biological code and that invoking a designer halts the progress of scientific enquiry.

But isn't Peter's faith in a naturalistic explanation for this extraordinary phenomenon, that is beyond anything Charles Darwin conceived, a greater leap of faith than Perry's natural deduction that the DNA information system has all the hallmarks of being a designed system of coding and decoding information?

Maybe it is the "cosmic fingerprints" that Perry has named his website after www.cosmicfingerprints.com

[Echelon]

I listened to the show. Perry made his case very well and is evident has thought this out more than people realize. It was a very interesting show.

[Pumbelo]

Perry's website is pretty cool.

The type of evolution I believe in is extremely darwinian, but I think this is extremely interesting.

[Chrs]

I saw this website off a googlemail banner the other day. I havent listened to the show, but I've read the site.

And, well. Ill reply more later- but.

(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.
(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

Point 2 is not logically correct, Generalisation in the same way as "All swans I have seen are white, therefore all swans are white" (look it up), point 2 failing leaves no basis for the conclusion.

Will write further later if anyone has an objection. Tad busy atm.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I saw this website off a googlemail banner the other day. I havent listened to the show, but I've read the site.

And, well. Ill reply more later- but.



Point 2 is not logically correct, Generalisation in the same way as "All swans I have seen are white, therefore all swans are white" (look it up), point 2 failing leaves no basis for the conclusion.

Will write further later if anyone has an objection. Tad busy atm.

Chris. Are all men mortal?

[Chrs]

Chris. Are all men mortal?

Not from a logical perspective. The idea of a deductive argument is the idea that "If you accept the premises to be true, the conclusion must also be true"

So, Something like...
1. All men are mortal
2. All mortals will die
3. Therefore all men will die.

Would be correct PROVIDING that both the first and second premise are *accepted by the person who the argument is presented too



Also, Welcome back.

EDIT: Changed "true" to "accepted"

[Echelon]

Not from a logical perspective. The idea of a deductive argument is the idea that "If you accept the premises to be true, the conclusion must also be true"

So, Something like...
1. All men are mortal
2. All mortals will die
3. Therefore all men will die.

Would be correct PROVIDING that both the first and second premise are *accepted by the person who the argument is presented too



Also, Welcome back.

EDIT: Changed "true" to "accepted"

But couldn't he argue this way for "cities". All cities are built by "minds." So a city found somewhere else, we could infer was built by a "mind"?

[Chrs]

Faulty logic is faulty logic. It's a formal fallacy, it's wrong. 'nuff said.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Chris. By your argument, you have no certainty you're mortal. Do you seriously doubt that?

Inductive arguments don't give absolute proof of course, but they are not to be disregarded entirely. You could say "Well maybe this man isn't mortal." Well why believe that? If you're going to say "Well maybe this code wasn't designed by a mind" then please give a reason why you think that.

[Chrs]

Chris. By your argument, you have no certainty you're mortal. Do you seriously doubt that?

Inductive arguments don't give absolute proof of course, but they are not to be disregarded entirely. You could say "Well maybe this man isn't mortal." Well why believe that? If you're going to say "Well maybe this code wasn't designed by a mind" then please give a reason why you think that.

Ah, exactly. It's not absolute proof.

Proof that DNA was designed by a mind: (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

If this is proof, i'll eat my hat.

..I like my hat.

Sure, i believe that all men are mortal, and that proves that All men will die.
However you can't then assume that all arguments like (2) are valid. Because they're not. Think about Paley's Watch.

[Pumbelo]

Ah, exactly. It's not absolute proof.



If this is proof, i'll eat my hat.

..I like my hat.

Sure, i believe that all men are mortal, and that proves that All men will die.
However you can't then assume that all arguments like (2) are valid. Because they're not. Think about Paley's Watch.

And how do we got this code?

[Chrs]

I wont pretend to know. Because that'd be silly.

Also, where're CosmicFingerPrints getting all this money to blurt adverts all over my googlemail page from?

[Pumbelo]

Well, you seem to be arguing that this one code did not come from a mind, without giving an alternative. I think you could do better.

[jcarndt]

I believe that Chrs181818 misquoted Perry's syllogism. Here it is from the website:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you changed (2) to say, "All codes we have observed are created by a conscious mind" I think it would say the same thing.

I believe that (2) is perfectly valid. True, we can't prove that all codes come from a mind, but we also can't prove that all matter and energy are always conserved. We observe that matter and energy are conserved, in fact we observe it so much that we take it as a law of science. In the same way, we observe that all information, codes, and languages come from a mind.

Unless you can think of some code that has arisen naturally, then the proof stands.