Does DNA contain digital information?

[CoxRox]

He was asked repeatedly to highlight predictions that ID would make. This is in essence asking for specific ideas that would falsify ID. He did not provide these. Because they do not exist. He waffled on the question entirely, and then when pressed he pointed to someone using a "design framework" to work out a problem. So what, I use a design framework all the time. My rock falling from the sky can be studied from a design framework.

He spent his time criticizing "darwinian evolution", not offering his own theory, beyond "goddidit". This is why ID is not taught in schools Cox. Because it is not a theory, it is a collection of bitches and gripes.

He's dropping names, using big sciencey words like a sword, but he's not actually saying anything other than "I believe in god". I cannot explain this to you any other way. The reason his opponent is smirking and interjecting is not because his opponent is an asshole, it's because he can't believe the shit that's falling out of this guys mouth. Neither can I. The entire argument is "science hasn't explained everything ergo god". Well lah ti fucking dah. Falsification. Important.

You know why creatards pick bacteria? Because they don't fossilize well, go figure.

---

Would you like to stake the moment of creation on the appearance of this "irreducibly complex machine"? If this were the moment of creation, would we find life older than that which has this structure? I want to bring this to your attention.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...oad&id=565
http://www.discovery.org/a/17221

Is that the message that you get from this stuff? No supernatural creator? Fucking double-speak start to finish. I cannot stand the Discovery Institute. I'll say it again, bill of goods, empty box.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

This isn't science Cox, it's politics.

I'll come back to you regarding Meyer's 'waffling' and address the points you make. Might be a day or two. My hubby's on holiday this week so we'll be out most of the time.

I can see how politics plays a major role here. I am trying to avoid getting sucked into those aspects of the Intelligent Design movement. Just as it's possible to seperate belief in God with organised Religion (which I have- I don't 'do' church) I think it's possible to have rational discussions regarding the inference to design that we 'seem' to see in the Universe. People like Meyers and Behe are good sources when discussing ID, but I don't share their 'political' agendas. So I hope you'll allow me to 'use' them (but not absue them).

I remeber when I was 15 or 16 and doing biology at school and asking my teacher questions regarding evolution and creation. Should he have ignored my questions? I think it's going to be impossible to remove the 'Creation Question' from scientific studies (e.g a biology lesson for school children).

Getting back to the original question of this thread, I've been thinking about the problems with likening DNA to 'information', 'code' and 'machines'. I had never thought of a stone as being a crude 'machine' and so it got me thinking. A stone on it's own is unremarkable in terms of 'information' and as a 'machine', but a whole load of stones ARRANGED into words on the ground, or large rocks ARRANGED into a house or wall, are straight away 'declaring' a deliberate and ordered display of information. It is not 'dumb' or unscientific even to infer 'design' to certain arrangements. Is DNA no different to millions of pebbles on a beach, or is it structured in a deliberately ordered way, much like a book? That's the question I'd like to pursue.