The Atheist's Riddle

[poobyrd]

Today I was browsing youtube, looking for some funny atheist videos when i saw an add pop up in the bottom of the video saying it could convert me to Christianity. Naturally i clicked it. I mean if I'm right about what i think then it shouldn't be able to change my mind, and if I'm wrong then I'd like to know it. The first thing that caught my eye was that it said you had to subscribe. I was half attempted to give them my email just so i could see this riddle. Well it took some looking but i did find the riddle on the site.

So here it 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."

It is supporting intelligent design as the rest of the site does. It claims to use science to prove god exists. Here are their rebuttals for common counter arguments.

"1.      The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)
2.      The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)
3.      The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because a message produces results that are just as objective and specific as the message itself)
4.     The objection that random processes can create information (they can't)
5.     The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)
6.     The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)"

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/index.htm (the page that i was taken to by clicking on the add)
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm (the page i found with the actual "riddle" after quite some searching)

Go ahead and look for yourself.
I personally find many flaws with this and would love to hear what everyone else thinks. I'd love to hear from both sides of the argument.
Thanks for your opinions!

[Recusant]

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

...Except life itself.  Assuming that DNA qualifies as a code, then life is a natural process that creates coded information.

 

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.

Of course the one example I provide does not qualify, because he says it doesn't.  Oh well.

To assume that there must have been a conscious mind behind DNA seems more of a leap than to assume that it came about by natural processes, it seems to me. Science has some interesting theories for the origin of life, but 'god did it' is not science.  The author of this "riddle" (it's not really a riddle, since it's not a question, but a supposed statement of fact) would of course ask me to point out where else in nature one can find coded information not created by a conscious mind.  When I could not come up with an answer that satisfied him, he would declare victory.  Fine by me. I'm not interested in proving him wrong; I'm able to answer his "riddle" to my own satisfaction.

[Hitsumei]

This is not a riddle nor an argument, it is a string of assertions which "rebuts" the objections with a persuasive "nahuh!"

The rather comical thing is despite the second premise of the argument being false, it makes the argument a non sequitur even if it were true. Premise two asserts that all codes are created by minds, and justifies this by claiming ignorance of any natural codes -- from that it in no way follows that ergo naturally occurring codes don't exist -- which means that the premises do not imply the conclusion, even if they were true.

Though, Richard Dawkins addresses this very question specifically, so I'll just link his explanation: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

[poobyrd]

What you said is pretty much what I was thinking. I come across these kinds of arguments all the time and its good to see that there are other people out there who think like me.

[PipeBox]

Nevermind that the code is just chemistry.  All other codes involve us implanting meaning in advance.  Genetics would be more like us making every kind of grunt and hoot and hollar and perfectly formed vowel sound at random and then only the ones that allowed us to communicate eventually being left over, whereas language stems from the desire to describe something, to communicate.  RNA no more wants to survive than a snowflake, but the codes that cause it to make copies of itself will keep doing so, where the process of evolution will leave only the most fit for a given environment.  How this "code" developed makes perfect sense, and it's all just chemistry when you get right down to it.  The fact that we can look at a string of DNA and tell you what the meta-result of the chemical functioning will be does not make it code anymore than igneous rock formations are coded lava flows to geologists.

We are coded for in our DNA in the same sense that a river codes its banks with the information it its flow.  Sometimes the river is too wide and shallow in too arid a climate, and it dries up.  Sometimes it successfully passes its water on for a long time.  Very simplistic, but an apt analogy, I think.  In fact, it's very apt.  If we knew exactly what motions were taking place with the water, and exactly what material it was flowing through, over, and around, we could perfectly reproduce the results.  However, we can not perfectly rework the exact water current and motion by just looking at the banks, only offer one of the many way it might have been carved.  Likewise, if we know all the details of someone's DNA, we can show what they will look like and how they will age, and what genetic diseases they may have, and we can ignore the inconsequential inactive DNA.  But by just looking at a person, we cannot fully reconstruct their DNA.  We cannot possible predict what inactive sequences they might have, or what multi-genomic traits were triggered (ie, if more than one location in the DNA defines the same trait, we cannot predict which location it originates from without being able to check the string itself, like it is for sexual inclination).  I'd say we've put this question to bed.

[SSY]

The counter arguments are my favorite bit.

The initial argument is full of unfounded assertions and general ignorance ( "I don't know any other codes, so there must not be any!"), but the rebuttals are just another level.

 :evil: "NO"

  :evil: "LALALALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!! LALALALALALAL!"

I would not expect anything less ( or more ).

[Squid]

6.     The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)"

...lol...

[Nulono]

Chemistry causes different proteins to cling together non-randomly. This eventually leads to a "code" of sorts, but I don't have a high enough education in this field to explain it step-by-step.

[Squid]

I think the whole "code" thing is something that has gotten muddled up between what science understands about DNA and how that information is relayed to the masses.  The idea that DNA is some kind of "code" is actually a bit silly in that I could easily say that the lock and key system for ligand and receptor binding is a "security system".  Using the "code" descriptor is out of convenience so that people can easily understand it in a sense of little colored cartoon letters that magically lock together.  The fact that guanine bases tend to only bind with cytosine bases is not because they're obeying some predetermined "code book" it is a consequence of the chemistry of the molecules.  You mix ammonia and bleach and you'll get a nasty little poisonous gas, not because some magical genie wills it but as a consequence of the chemical reaction.

In this situation when people use the words like "code", at least when researchers and academics use it, it's for ease of communication.  When evolutionary opponents use it, they actually think it is some created code and they also use the term "information" without have a truly operationalized definition of the term - if they do define it, it's very broad and vague making it basically an empty term.

That's my hungover, Saturday afternoon thoughts...

[curiosityandthecat]

That's my hungover, Saturday afternoon thoughts...

Your hungover thoughts are way more lucid than mine ever are, regardless of my levels of toxicity.  

[ProRealism]

3.      The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because a message produces results that are just as objective and specific as the message itself)

This assumes that there are meanings aside from what's given to something by a subjective being.
Is there a universal "meaning" to life? No, only the meaning you decide.
What's the meaning of the color blue?
In some cultures people would say "blue is symbolic of sadness" while others would say it's "symbolic of sexuality"
While others yet would compare it to the sky, the ocean or their lover's eyes.  
You're not just super smart for thinking it's only one of those things, in fact it makes yourself look pretty ignorant if you think you know the "real secret meaning" of the color blue, because the fact is that it just exists and you have a reaction to it.

4.     The objection that random processes can create information (they can't)

Someone's never heard of chaos theory.

5.     The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)

That's pretty silly considering that
1, there are patterns that DO occur IN nature such as the fibonacci sequence or even ironically enough anything that is alive since it's not only humans that have DNA, so do other fauna and flora. Even the molecular structure of inanimate objects such as rocks and minerals.
2, humans are naturally existing life forms and can create "codes"
3, if you deny either of those you're denying the existence of nature itself and if "nature" does not exist then saying that "codes do not occur naturally" is a void statement unto itself because it's a paradox that assumes that nature does and does not exist at the same time.  

I think the most reasonable objection is that not all patterns are "codes" which I guess is similar to objection 3.

[Atrax Robustus]

5. The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)

Has this turkey ever heard of Pulsars?  

Oh - and like every other attempt into the information science realm, they neglect to define what they mean by information (conveniently).

[bowmore]

1.      The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)

Ok, it is a code.

2.      The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)

I wouldn't make this objection, but the defence is fallacious. (Non causa pro causa)

3.      The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because a message produces results that are just as objective and specific as the message itself)

The same information may have different meanings to different "interpreters", a nice example is little endian vs. big endian, or the same set of bits can be interpreted as an ASCII character or as a number.

4.     The objection that random processes can create information (they can't)

This seems an odd objection. It seems to agree that DNA is a random system, or came about randomly.
Nevertheless it is a valid objection. I can roll a die 8 times (random) and write down a 1 for odd numbers and 0 for even numbers, resulting in 8 bits. Which again is information encoding an ASCII character, or a number (depending on the "interpreter")

5.     The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)

Perhaps a case can be made that (disregarding DNA) no other codes occur naturally (as far as we know). But asserting that no codes do occur naturally is circular, because it assumes DNA did not come about naturally.