Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Esquilax]

Perhaps I should clarify my argument.  Complexity in general does not denote design, I can grant you that.  Design means purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.  Agreed?  

Yeah, that's about right.

I will use your analogy of making things simpler (even though the technology to make it simpler is in fact more complex than the previous).  When we see language we assume a mind behind it.  Which is why I used the analogy of a dictionary out of an explosion at a printing press.  Where there is language there is design, purpose, meaning - a mind behind it.  This mere sentence carries meaning and you assume a mind behind it.  It is not reducible to the physics and chemistry of the screen you're reading it on.  

That assumption will be your downfall: I was reading just the other day about a computer program that generated new cards for a series of card games. Each new card had entirely original card text, describing what it was and what it did in play, the majority of them were entirely intelligible and fully applicable to the games they were a part of, and yet all of them, without exception, were generated without a mind involved. Hell, computers since the nineties have been able to generate strings of letters and then select coherent words from out of them; this idea that language only comes from minds has been untrue for more than twenty years, at this point, and so far I've only discussed explicit language. I haven't even mentioned pareidolia and our habit, as pattern seeking animals, of detecting intelligibility in purely natural phenomena, but we'll get to that in a moment. The point is, the set of "language" does contain language created by a mind, and language that was not.

I know some people disagree with me, but I do not know how you can call DNA anything but a language.  It is an enormous code.  I've heard the rebuttals to this how us superimposing a codon alphabet on it doesn't make it a language, etc.

That objection is literally true: DNA is chemistry, it's four chemicals that bond in certain predictable and consistent ways, that express themselves physically in equally consistent ways. That we are able to extrapolate meaning from that is merely a demonstration of our ability to read patterns, the same way that we read weather patterns: we seek commonalities and hence correlate effects to causes. There's no indication in any of that that a designer had to be involved prior to our investigation and understanding of repeated themes within DNA.

But even taking what you say at face value, there's a deeper problem here in that you're doing nothing more than arguing from analogy, and in doing so you're concealing an important hidden premise. If you want to say DNA is a language then fine, whatever, I'm not particularly interested in play definition games, but the unstated additional argument you're making is that all languages are exactly the same, which you haven't even begun to demonstrate. At best what you've done here is created an additional category: languages that exist without a designer, as opposed to languages that exist because of a designer. You have no basis at all for arguing that DNA has a designer on the sole claim that it is a language, because, contrary to that, you've merely presented a language which all the evidence points to not having a designer.

Here, let me give you an example of what you're doing, to illustrate the flaw: All snow that we know of is cold. Let's say that one day, we discover a quantity of snow that is hot: it's exactly the same composition as normal snow, but it's hot to the touch, not cold. Your argument about DNA is roughly equivalent to you seeing the hot snow and then arguing that, because it is snow and snow is usually cold, therefore this snow is cold too, even as it's burning your hand. You're arguing that all snow is exactly the same, while in the presence of an example of snow that, as far as we can tell, does not fit the pattern.

Could you show that the snow is actually cold and that what we experience of it is due to something else? Yes, of course. But you'd need to do more than merely point at it and go "it's snow," because you can't define the property "cold" into the word "snow" by fiat when we can see an example of snow that does not seem cold. Same with DNA: what we have there is an example of a language, to use your definitions, that does not seem to require a creator. The logical conclusion to come to is not to assume that this language is exactly the same as every other- in fact the majority of scientific discoveries throughout history would be impossible if that assumption was built into our thinking, since most new concepts start out being analogized to pre-existing things since we don't have a term for the new thing yet- but rather to conclude that the definition of language is wider than previously thought. You can't point to a seeming exception to a rule and then demand by fiat that there are no exceptions, therefore it's just another example of the rule. Doesn't work that way.

 But consider this:

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”
-Norbert Weiner, Founder of Cybernetics

That is a profound statement. You don’t have to think about it very long to realize it’s absolutely true. Matter, Energy and Information are three Distinct Entities.

Information is a concept, not an objective quantity in and of itself.

Is the computer code separate from the computer disk material? Yes!

No: the computer code is written to the disc via a physical process inflicted on the disc, and interpreted by another physical machine as a set of signals, displayed through a third machine. You do know how the data gets on there, right?

We also know that information cannot be created without intent.

Untrue: everything contains information. Even raindrops have positional information as they move through space, chemical information by dint of being a chemical interaction, temperature information as they absorb or dispel energy from the surrounding area, and so on. None of that is intentional, yet it can still be obtained and analyzed as information by minds after the fact. "Information" is what we get when we interpret physical happenings, it's not a thing that exists prior to it.

There are no examples of information that is created without intent. You have to have the dimension of intent or will, which is a property of a conscience mind, in order to have any kind information. Otherwise all you have is chaos. All you have is tornadoes and hurricanes and stalactites and stalagmites and snowflakes. But you do not have any kind of language whatsoever.

Are you saying that tornadoes don't have information? I can't measure the wind speed and express that in a language? I can't crack open a stalagmite and check its composition and express that as information?

Besides, you're begging the question: asserting that information can't exist without a mind creating it is not evidence for that. You can't simply demand something and therefore it's true.

So the problem with a materialistic philosophy or belief is there is no way to explain where the language of DNA came from. Because all codes, all languages, all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind. No exceptions.

Are you going to demonstrate that, or just demand we take it seriously based on nothing?

Even Hubert Yockey, a huge critic of the ID movement, readily admits that science cannot explain the origins of the information contained in DNA. Simply put, its like trying to scientifically prove that computer code can simply evolve from the computer disk material!

Argument from ignorance.