1. The pattern in DNA is a code.It's not that kind of code.
False. Its actually exactly THAT
kind of code :
(1984, pp.211-212,emp. in orig.).
In their textbook on the origin of life,
Thaxton, et al., addressed the implications of the genetic code.
We know that in numerous cases certain effects always
have intelligent causes, such as dictionaries,
sculptures, machines and paintings.We reason by
analogy that similar effects have intelligent causes.For
example, after looking up to see “BUYFORD” spelled
out in smoke across the skyweinfer the presence of a
skywriter even if we heard or saw no airplane.We
would similarly conclude the presence of intelligent
activity were we to come upon an elephant-shaped
topiary in a cedar forest.
In like manner an intelligible communication via radio
signal from some distant galaxy would be widely
hailed as evidence of an intelligent source.Why then
doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule
also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent
source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous
to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is
such a message sequence....
We believe that if this question is considered, it will
be seen that most often it is answered in the negative
simply because it is thought to be inappropriate to
bring a Creator into science
We call it one for convenience's sake, but it's nothing like most human-devised codes. Indeed, machine code is largely inspired by DNA - meaning that there's a qualitative difference between those two kinds of codes and other kinds of codes
you mean, that the dna code is much smarter designed than any human made codes ?
Which is totally irrelevant.
No, thats actually of paramount importance. If all coded information can be tracked back to a intelligent source, than the DNA code has a intelligent source as well.
The atheism card house falls apart.
There is no reason, none at all, to assume that DNA is designed merely because human codes are designed.
Only , if you are able to assign to it a natural source without intelligence.
That's a false inference, because we don't actually know how DNA came to be.
And assuming that DNA must be a designed code because, in our experience, codes are designed, ignores the fact that our experience is exceedingly limited.
Haha !! We don't need more knowledge or experience to understand, that physical necessity, chance, or natural selection cannot produce coded information. And even if we could solve that riddle, many others await the believer in naturalism, which will crash his cardhouse .
If we don't have evidence to support an assertion, then it's summarily useless to infer that the assertion must be true.
your problem is : that evidence exists.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
These inferences are pretty much GIGO. Nothing more than an excuse to justify what you already believe to be true based on the limited information that you possess.
No, thats a logical inference based on a true premise.
One of Behe's disciples? Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than to cite someone who's apparently always bought into Behe's arguments as support for your argument. I mean, if I don't accept Behe's 'authority' when it comes to microbiology, what makes you think I'm going to accept Minnich's?
there are many irreducible complex systems in the cell.
Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.