Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning.

[Silver]

Only in terms of it being personal evidence to the single individual. Once shared outside the individual it stops being both personal and evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

 Actually. Fucking. Show. Up. In. The. Physical. World. In. 2023.

That is my evidentiary standard, Nishant.  There are no philosophical arguments that I find sufficiently convincing.  Not a single one.  I need firsthand physical evidence of a god-like being, and until I receive that evidence I am proceeding on the assumption that all gods and god-like beings are fictional.

Could existence of non-physcial things like consciousness be considered evidence?

Since when was consciousness "non-physical"?

[Dmitry1983]

Could existence of non-physcial things like consciousness be considered evidence?

Since when was consciousness "non-physical"?

30% of philosophers believe that the human brain can't produce consciousness.

[Astreja]

Actually. Fucking. Show. Up. In. The. Physical. World. In. 2023.

That is my evidentiary standard, Nishant.  There are no philosophical arguments that I find sufficiently convincing.  Not a single one.  I need firsthand physical evidence of a god-like being, and until I receive that evidence I am proceeding on the assumption that all gods and god-like beings are fictional.

Could existence of non-physcial things like consciousness be considered evidence?

Consciousness is not non-physical. Neuroscience suggests that it's an emergent property of a living physical brain, and entirely dependent on the brain for its existence. It is also very likely to be powered by the same electrochemical processes that are responsible for other brain functions such as perception and memory.

It is definitely not evidence for a god.

[Deesse23]

Could existence of non-physcial things like consciousness be considered evidence?

Since when was consciousness "non-physical"?

Since when was it a thing (and not a property)?

[Deesse23]

Since when was consciousness "non-physical"?

30% of philosophers believe that the human brain can't produce consciousness.

So what? Do they also have a degree in neuroscience?

[The Architect Of Fate]

30% of philosophers believe that the human brain can't produce consciousness.

Which means 70% believe it can. And why the heck are we listening to philosophers on this to begin with?

[Anomalocaris]

Since when was consciousness "non-physical"?

30% of philosophers believe that the human brain can't produce consciousness.

Reality is not believed into being, the least of all by philosophers.

[The Grand Nudger]

30% of philosophers believe that the human brain can't produce consciousness.

So what? Do they also have a degree in neuroscience?

Chances are that some chunk of that 30% believe it doesn't exist and another portion think it's ghosts.  What I'm amazed at, is that with just about every x that a believer wants to substitute an argument for as "evidence" of their god..they first have to make that x as garbage as possible too.  What's the point in that, how is it even supposed to work?

Arguing for the existence of god by way of tiger shrimp - because they manage the deep sea ley lines of atlantis and how could they do that if there were no god? Checkmate atheist!

[Bucky Ball]

"Do you know the laws of the universe? Can you use them to regulate the earth?" (Job 38:33, circa 2000 B.C.)

"Men became Scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator." ~ C.S. Lewis.

In the life of King Canute of Great (d. 1035), who was King of England/Denmark and Norway respectively, this incident is related, of how the King nearly drowned: "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom Heaven, Earth, and Sea obey by eternal laws.'" He then hung his Gold Crown on a Crucifix, and never wore it again "to the honour of God the Almighty King".

1. The basic argument for design was developed long ago by Saint Thomas Aquinas. It is based on the simple observation that Nature follows or obeys what we now call Scientific Laws. But why should Nature be governed by such laws in the first place? Why do things not behave in a completely arbitrary and unpredictable manner, if supposedly there is no design, order and intelligence behind creation/Nature? We know that human creations, AI as well as programmed systems, can be ordered/required to behave in accordance with the laws of their programming externally imposed upon them from outside. It is reasonable to infer, then, that the very existence of such Scientific Laws supports Design.

Saint Thomas: "The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some Being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some Intelligent Being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this Being we call God." (Summa Theologica)

2. This was long ago, of course, and empirical Scientific Discoveries like DNA and Fine Tuning have been made since then. Let's start with DNA.

About 15 years ago, Dr. Meyer wrote Signature in the Cell, arguing that DNA was evidence of Design. While Atheists of course criticized the book (no surprises there!), the American Spectator commented: "Signature in the Cell is a defining work in the discussion of life’s origins and the question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind."

Meyer wrote: "As Richard Dawkins notes, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Software developer Bill Gates goes further: “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created [by man, that is - Xavier]." But if this is true, how did the information in DNA arise? Is this striking appearance of design the product of actual design or of a natural process that can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence? As it turns out, this question is related to a long-standing mystery in biology—the question of the origin of the first life. Indeed, since Watson and Crick’s discovery, scientists have increasingly come to understand the centrality of information to even the simplest living systems. DNA stores the assembly instructions for building the many crucial proteins and protein machines that service and maintain even the most primitive one-celled organisms. It follows that building a living cell in the first place requires assembly instructions stored in DNA or some equivalent molecule. As origin-of-life researcher Bernd-Olaf Küppers explains, “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.”

That the Genetic Code in DNA is Evidence of the Intelligent Design of human (and other living) beings can be shown by a simple syllogism:

1. Codes are always evidence of design.
2. The genetic code in DNA is a code.
3. Therefore, the genetic code in DNA is evidence of design.

The proof of premise 1 is very evident. If explorers on Mars found a highly developed code (or even a language, a basic form of transmitting information in an ordered way), on Mars or any other Planet that didn't come from human beings, they would obviously proclaim that they had found evidence if not proof of Alien Life. Next, British Cryptographers (or Code-Breakers) during World War II were able to detect Enemy Messages from the Nazis sent through the radio waves as apparently random signals. Once more, this shows Design Detection is really possible and is a scientific endeavor. Finally, if a murderer at a crime scene was foolish enough to leave codes or other information at the site of his crime, forensic investigators would logically conclude they had excluded the hypothesis of an accidental or natural death, knowing it was intentional.

What we apply to the scientific causes of death, it is unfortunate we do not reflect enough to apply to the Scientific Creation/Design of Life in the first place. If deaths can be known not to be merely Accidental, then a fortiori, so too the Cause of Life itself can be known to be Intentional.

As for premise 2, it is so universally accepted I don't think I need to establish it. Will give some arguments for it if someone contests it. 3 logically follows.

3. Even more recent of a Scientific Discovery, and perhaps most interesting of all, is what is now called Fine-Tuning. 

Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life"

The argument may be formulated like this:

1. On chance alone, he narrow range (given different configurations of physical constants) of life-permitting universes is vastly less probable than life-precluding ones.
2. But we are evidently in a life-permitting universe.
3. It is thus rational to infer that our existence is not owing to chance alone, but Design.

Now, for an analogy: let's say 100 different sharp-shooters were all aiming to shoot and kill you. There is a slight probability any one of them would miss, but it's almost virtually impossible for all of them to miss at the same time. Yet, if in fact you were not killed after they shot, you would logically conclude, this was not due to chance alone, but some designed intervention (e.g. they were secretly all your friends and didn't want to kill you etc).

Atheist Antony Flew, on consideration of some of these arguments, although he remained some kind of Deist, concluded God certainly exists.

Sir Fred Hoyle remarked about Fine-Tuning, maybe a little crudely but fairly summarizing its Evidence for Design: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Like Flew, he too was a former Atheist.

All in all, Saint Thomas' principle of Design is quite sound imo in the modern age, and can be developed further in light of recent Scientific Discoveries.

Thoughts? How much more does the Creator/Designer of the Universe have to do for us in order for us to acknowledge His Existence? For Him to have created DNA is like personally autographing each cell of ours.

Look forward to an irenic discussion.

God Bless, All.

Design is an argument against the gods. First we know that life exists in all kinds of environments, including hydothermal vents and there are a number of organisms called "extremophiles" They can grow in VERY diverse places. 

Second if your god were a real god, it could make life happen in any circumstance, not just in your designed environments. 
Apparently your god seems to be constrained to making life happen in a narrow range.