The Atheist's Riddle

[moodydaniel]

I keep seeing annoying pop up adds on You Tube for "The Atheist's Riddle" A quick search online basically shows it to be an ID argument

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

There's a reasonable critique of it at www.atheistpropaganda.com. I thought some of you might have come across it and be interested to see it rebuffed. I'm sure there are more flaws to it (the rhythmic pulses of pulsars for example).

[Demonaura]

Pulsars can bean example, DNA as we know it however is not a literal truth. It is a scientific MODEL that so far accurately represents reality; the model explains all of our observations of DNA thus far and thus is considered the leading theory.

So in a sense yes, DNA is a code invented by human minds, a code that accurately explains many things in modern science and medicine and if it were not true these experiments and medical procedures would fail reliably.

However, hes making an outright assumption about codes, a code is only a code after it's been interpreted to have some hidden meaning. Otherwise it's only a pattern.

One example I can find that fits his definition (though he will deny it anyways) is old sound recording mechanisims. When we talk we create changes in air pressure that are later interpreted as sounds by any creature with ears, or a sound recording device. It's just air pressures but, we use it as a social tool. Any creature that speaks (and hears) uses these waves of air pressure to not only communicate but, to survive, by listening for creatures behind it, or by making/listening for mating calls.

[Tiberius]

Of course, DNA ultimately disproves his argument. It is a naturally occurring code...

Given that Perry Marshall is a creationist, he will either deny outright any codes in nature, or move the goalposts to exclude them from his argument. One could argue that the arrangement of electrons around the nucleus (producing different elements) is a code, but Marshall will just argue that elements are the result of intelligence as well.