DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

What brings forth the question, "What does it mean to be human?"

I'd go with.... is reality still there in the absence of all human/conscious minds?

Qualitative data can be a prerequisite to quantitative data.  In regard to science. I have a dual science degree, yet sometimes I don't want to be the scientist. Sometimes I want to go outside and play with my dogs. Sometimes I want to play a video game. Sometimes I want to spend time with family.  They can all apply to each other, but sometimes the science gets put on the back burner.  I can visit my mom and talk about cultural trends or quantum mechanics, but it adds little to that relationship and she's not likely to understand anyway.  I would say the relational aspect supersedes it.  I remember in the movie the Matrix, there was a scene when one guy sells out the "good guys" and his payment was bliss.  He could've continued to understand the Matrix, but he preferred the product of such instead.  So which is wrong?  What are the values?  Is a quantifiable conscious better than a content conscious.  Neither, because it is the choice of the individual.  I can't say your decision is optimal for me, and vice versa, and the determining factor of those choices is ourselves.

I'd say it depends on the purpose.
If your purpose is to claim something about reality, then you'll have to apply all the science you can, for that is what science is all about: figuring out what reality is like and how it works.
If your purpose is to enjoy life, then you can live in your world, with your dogs, your mom, your video games and never need to care much about the intricacies of reality. Just go with intuition, for that works well enough.

The trouble arises when people intermingle these and claim something about reality based on their intuitions. Intuitions which are well known to produce faulty results in certain extreme conditions... such as those that we see here on this thread "DNA proves the Existence of a designer" - It looks like a super complex machine, so it must be designed, so, knowing that no human conscience was around at the time DNA came into being, there must have been an external designer, so let's call that god and move on. Right? This is what CDF has been saying all along, right? All the while, others have been pointing out that the evolutionary mechanism can, without any guidance or forethought, without intentionality or design, it can produce the very complexity we observe in the DNA machinery. It's difficult to conceive of all the steps that go from abiogenesis to DNA, and there is still much work left to be done in this field to show how it can be done, so this option is felt as impossible by many, given that their intuition is not sufficient to deal with the concepts involved. If evolution is impossible, then design is the only possibility, or so CDF claims.

I agree that intermingling things can be problematic, but you can't rationally prevent it universally.  Even if it's simply someone telling a lie or trying to manipulate data.  That's why in my little box where I post what I believe I said "truth", because that's what I shoot for. It doesn't mean I don't get things wrong, or that I've never lied before, but at the end of the day, that's what I care about.  I like balance, and when I'm truthful with myself and try to be truthful with others, I can feel validated even when times arise that I am wrong.  But there are people who deliberately manipulate facts/information that are still going to be out there, and sometimes we are uncontrollably subject to them because we simply "don't know", and don't have the means to independently measure their claims.

And as you said, making threads with titles like this can be problematic, but it happens all across the board.  It's not a "theistic" problem.  It's a world problem. Sometimes it may be something like greed.  "I want funding so I come up with a solution to keep the money coming in, so I fabricate that I know will pass scrutiny based on my education."  It's a lie, but a temporal solution.  By time someone can disprove it, you're already funded and can come up with a new argument.   It's not a rule though.  So rather than sort it all out in my head, which is probably impossible, I just do my best. Sometimes that means "logic" and sometimes that means going with my "gut."  One thing I've learned is that more times than not your gut is spot on  When I use both "logic" and "gut" without discrimination or bias, I think I am living optimally.