I ran across this article whilst stumbling: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm
The riddle is formed in a post on the IIDB discussion board;Gentlemen:
Here is the original article, with mp3 downloads (for people like me who like mp3 downloads): http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/atheists_riddle.htm
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.
Perry Marshall
Read the article and listen to the mp3's. It is provocative. And I challenge any athiests to consider it. And, if possible, come up with the empirical example requested. If you can, then you have silenced a strong argument for design. But if you cannot, then consider those implications. Because "If DNA is a code, then we have every reason to believe that it is designed."
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The Athiests Riddle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
If you're really into DNA as code then take a look at this link: http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
Some basic knowledge of programming and Unix is beneficial when reading that page, but not strictly necessary.
Thanks for the link. Very interesting read, but what I get from the article, to remain on topic with the post, is that DNA is most definitely a code, and there is no information on that site which indicates any other code which is naturally produced, which is the request of the riddle. I particularly like how the author makes statements like "the DNA need to be cut" or "spacers need to be inserted". Interesting wording. The intelligence to decide which action must be taken and when it is to be taken is astonishing! Freudian slip, perhaps?
The point of this post is to find a code which is randomly and naturally derived apart from any intervention. DNA is not proven to be naturally derived, apart from starting with that premise using evolution as a worldview. At least I have not seen any proof.
A proof typically starts with a theory, correct? Intelligent Design begins with the theory that DNA is designed, just as every other code is designed. Naturalism begins with the theory that DNA is random and self-creating (or some such idea).
I am convinced that ID, while not "proven" is closer to the truth from the evidence than the theory given by naturalism.
Thank you for your comment.
My link wasn't meant to relate to the question in any way or to provide assumptions upon which to base conclusions, but it does form a reasonable base for discussing how DNA works that somebody like me (a programmer) can understand.
I'm not going to try to answer your question because I think it's a fool's errand. We probably have very different definitions of what a code is. Take for example C code, MP3 encoding, and ASCII code. They are all data that represent information via a conversion algorithm. From C code you get CPU-specific binary (through several steps), from an MP3 you get music, and from ASCII you get characters for printing in English. Given that definition I would say that the rings of a tree are a code to the tree's age. I can't prove God didn't design the tree that way, so I can't prove the tree rings are naturally occurring. So where does your question lead us? Into another debate about trees. The problem isn't the debate, it's the endless cycle, and that's why this is a fool's errand.
I doubt very highly that we have a different definition of a code. If we do, the difference is likely negligible (unless you will try to say that ripples in a pond are a "code" giving us information about how big the lake is or something like that).
A code is a language, agreed? Something that can be encoded and decoded. Something that transmits information (not in a simple, unchanging pattern like tree rings or snowflakes, but in a complex pattern that can be reorganized, like an alphabet). The tree rings are produced from growth. It is not their purpose to transmit information. The age of the tree is a conclusion of science that extracts information from that phenomenon (which is all science ever does). You might as well say skin layers are a code, or sedimenary layers in the ground. Clouds tell us there is moisture in the air. Would you also consider them to be a code?
All of your other examples are coded by someone. And that is the whole point.
You don't have to make an attempt at answering the riddle if you so choose. Calling it a fool's errand is only an attempt to make the riddle look foolish. Any seeking of truth is not foolish, wouldn't you agree?
I do not believe that this proves anything, and I don't imagine it does to you, either. But what it does do, for me at least, is provide good, viable evidence to the plausibility of a designer. Like I said in my first response, both sides start off with an unproven theory. Both sides provide their evidence for their theory. I believe this evidence is ID - 1 Naturalism - 0.
Take it easy
I think I have a very different definition of a code than you do. When you say "All of your other examples are coded by someone" you are predisposing your answer to one that requires a designer.
Speaking strictly from my knowledge of existing computer codes, codes are not languages (ASCII is not a language, for example), they can't all be decoded (SHA-1), and I don't think transmitting the encoded information needs to be the purpose of a code, although some sort of information transfer is present in any system. An MD5 hash is a cryptographic code and yet it does not transmit any of the original information and there is no way to obtain the original information from the code.
Tree growth rings are interesting as a code because they transmit all sorts of information about how the tree grew and the climate in which it grew.
I don't see why having geologic information encoded in sedimentary layers presents any sort of a problem. Of course it's a code. Sediment stores a great deal of information in a very simple way that can be read by anybody with the desire to learn how. In most ways it's a far more elegant code than anything man-made.
The riddle is foolish because answering it doesn't help us find the truth.Asking a question that cannot be answered by science doesn't provide proof for ID, and vice versa, so what's the point? However, that's not why I said it's a fool's errand. What I meant by that statement is that no answer will ever be satisfactory. You already shot down my tree rings code and you also don't like sedimentary layers as a code (I wish I had thought of that one).
Well, my friend, I do wish we could at least agree about what a code is.
I believe it is simply something that intentionally or purposefully transmits information.
Dirt is not code. Even if its layered in a sort of recognizable pattern. The fact that you believe it is or can be tells me you're just not thinking this through ... that you're seeing codes in everything that you can derive information from. You are a scientist, shakin, since you are observing and identifying phenomena.
sci·ence (sī'ens) n. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
All you are doing is recording data from observations. You are not desciphering code.
Merriam Webster defines a code like this:
1: a systematic statement of a body of law; especially : one given statutory force
2: a system of principles or rules (moral code)
3 a: a system of signals or symbols for communication b: a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings
4: genetic code (DNA and RNA)
5: a set of instructions for a computer
I believe #3 is the "type" of code that DNA is. This would therefore be the "type" of code necessary to fulfill the requirements of the riddle. It seems to me that you are redefining the term in order to avoid the clear implications. But I could be wrong.
Nice talkin' to ya, shakin.
Hey John, CARMite here. I was wondering if you had posted this athiests riddle on CARM anywhere? Would love to see some of the debate there on it?
Sunofmysoul
Hi sun,
No I haven't. I don't really go to CARM anymore (I do poke my head in from time to time, tho). I got tired of the hostility there. There's really no point in discussing things when the other persons sole objective is to tear you to pieces. I prefer discussing things with maturity and dignity. Here, I can at least moderate the rude comments out :)
You're free to copy/paste it if you like.
Blessings
John
John, another great blog.
Let's see, you want an example of a naturally occuring code... hmm, how about DNA? *grin*
Hey Ward, glad to see ya found me :)
As for your comment, yes .. that is an easy way to settle it, isn't it?
But the point of the whole riddle is to show that if EVERY other code is formed by an intelligence, then a logical conclusion would be that THIS code is, as well.
I don't think that this is THE PROOF of God's existence. But I most certainly believe that it is a compelling argument. And that's why I shared it.
Thanks for droppin' by.
John
I totally got your point John. I was just being a booger. ;-)
Logic is a slippery thing isn't it. And proof of the Almighty seems to be always longed for but never attained. His ways are unknowable, and His most important lessons are couched in metaphors and parables that can be construed, and misconstrued, by the hearer. Yet, he that has ears to hear...
Que Dios le bendiga, hermano.
Post a Comment