Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

That definition implies abstraction. Now I'll admit my knowledge of DNA is limited, but from what little I know I certainly don't get the impression that there is anything abstract about DNA. It acts as a template for creating proteins, and there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship between a particular DNA sequence and the protein that will be produced.As an example of a code that I think fits the definition you posted above take language. The word 'apple' will probably make you picture a vaguely spherical green object that you might want to eat. But the word itself is in no way related to the object. Without being told to relate the two, someone who hadn't heard the word apple wouldn't end up picturing what I described. That doesn't seem to be the case with DNA. There is no scope for defining relationships between DNA sequences and proteins.If DNA really were a code that fit the definition above then it would be possible to take exactly the same DNA sequence and get completely different results, but (unless there is a lot that I'm unaware of) that is never going to happen. This (in my opinion) epitomises the failing of ID. I haven't followed the debate much so this has probably been said over and over, but I'll say it anyway.The reason I think this is a failing is because it shows that ID actually makes no predictions. Your sole way of identifying something as ID seems to be "I can't explain it any other way, so it must be ID". This logic just doesn't cut it in science.It isn't good enough to say "I don't know of any code that doesn't originate from a conscious mind, therefore all codes must come from a conscious mind". The reason for this is because you don't know where DNA comes from! If indeed it is a code under the definitions you posted how do you know that it isn't the "code that doesn't come from a conscious mind" that would prove that not all codes come from a conscious mind?This circular logic can be summed up as follows...1. All codes I know of come from a conscious mind2. From 1, all codes must come from a conscious mind3. DNA is a code, so from 1 and 2 it must be from a conscious mind4. 3 feeds back into 1, reaffirming my assumption that all codes come from a conscious mindAs you can see, it's impossible to EVER end up with a code that doesn't come from a conscious mind using this logic.The only way that ID is every going to be meaningful in any sense at all is for it to supply an accurate method for determining something intelligently designed from something not intelligently designed. Personally I don't think that distinction can ever be detected objectively without seeing the "creation" process.Not knowing of a naturalistic mechanism can never be evidence for any conclusion because there is always the possibility that a naturalistic mechanism can be found tomorrow. The only valid conclusion is "I don't yet know".

Firstly, I haven't read beyond this reply yet so if I repeat something that has already been said then sorry. I haven't had time to read the other pages yet. Unless some distinction can be made between an Intelligent Design and a Natural "Design" then it isn't really reasonable to claim that something came from one thing or another, and it's not even reasonable to assume. But since your premise that "All knowncodes are intelligently designed" is being challeneged elsewhere this is all academic until it is resolved. I'll let that debate take its course. Yes, I know. Don't worry, I'm not placing you under the banner of "mad christian creationist that must be argued with at all costs". Hopefully I never do that to anyone. I think you misunderstood. I was refering solely to the logic I mentioned when I said that it was impossible to come to the conclusion of a natural code using that logic.If it is possible to identify the difference between something that was created "intelligently" and something that was created "non-intelligently" then we definitely should search for "non-intelligent" codes. If it is not possible to tell the difference then we're left with not knowing where intelligence has been used unless we can see it being used. I have no idea. That's why ID has failed to do anything so far. Until there's a way to tell the difference the answer will necessarily remain "I don't know". Hopefully there will be some evidence on the earth of where at least terrestrial DNA came from, but unfortunately I think that will be unlikely. I can't think of any evidence that an ID source would leave, and any naturalistic mechanism probably wouldn't leave evidence this long after the act either. Still, we'll never know unless we look. This is probably off topic, but science never "proves anything 100%", it's always tentative to new evidence. And theories never become facts, theories explain facts and predict new "facts". I haven't deleted it out of hand, but if it isn't possible to detect it then the answer will always be "I don't know". Depends what you're claiming "we don't know yet". I'll admit there are things we don't know, the existence of a creator that coded DNA being one of them. There are things we do know regarding evolution however, but that would certainly be way off topic here.Edited by happy_atheist, : Corrected some formatting and added missing words, nothing more significant than that.