Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 20 2010,09:27)|
|Quote (curiousgeorge @ May 19 2010,18:03)|
|So no serious responses as of yet...|
I'll have a go, then. This is 'the atheist's riddle'.
The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
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 can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.
I offer the following counter:
a) All minds are ultimately the result of DNA, since it tells the body how to form, and there are no known non-biological minds.
b) Following from point 3, this means that DNA was designed by a mind which was formed from DNA, which was also designed by a mind, in an infinite chain of causality.
c) Since the universe has existed for a finite time, this cannot be the case. Therefore either point 3 is false, or there exist minds which are not biological - something science has never observed.
d) Therefore, DNA was not designed by a mind.
If you can provide an empirical example of a non-biological mind, you've toppled my counter.
It should also be remembered that, whenever IDists or scientists refer to a biological entity as a machine, code, robot, module, etc. that these are at best analogies. Just because I observe that the sky is "blue" does not mean that the sky is actually paint pigment.
We humans created words to describe our human social activities first, not the cosmos (and not our subjective states of mind). Quarks are not really "charmed" or "strange," or up or down; the "big bang" was not a "bang" (the phrase was intended as a pejorative); even "species" is a convenience because, remember, species are mutable. As I wrote in my paper, it is tremendously difficult for us to mentally grasp the natural world, since we see ourselves as artificial and separate from it.
Christians refer to Christ as the "lamb of God," but if I were to argue that therefore Jesus literally was an Ovis aries, that would be pretty deceptive, wouldn't it?
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr