My forbidden definition (per @Timothy_Horton) does not demand it be entirely arbitrary.
…## insults and counting. 
(Was I wondering that? Maybe I should have been. )
Are you counting your insults? Or is that number too high for you. We’ll add hypocrisy to your wonderful list of attributes. 
Timothy Horton +2✓
Wow, this thread has degenerated into the abyss. Someone just turn the other cheek please. There has been nothing peaceful OR scientific going on for the last several posts.
4 Likes
It appears that most forum participants are agreeing that whether or not DNA is a “code” depends upon which definition of the word code one assumes. (Is that an accurate observation?)
If that is indeed the case, can we also agree that the main reason this “DNA is a code” argument has been so ubiquitous for so many years now is because a lot of people assume the following? “If DNA is a code and all such codes are designed by an intelligent agent, then DNA is thereby the product of an intelligent agent, most likely a Divine Creator.”
If this were not a very popular assumption among many theists, would this have been such an active discussion thread?
3 Likes
I more-or-less started the thread, and I like the notion of a naturally occurring code just as much as a supernaturally occuring one. Denis Alexander refers to it as code in his new book, but also believes it probably has a natural origin. Michael Denton INSISTS on its natural origin. I’m not sure.
Stephen Meyer and Hugh Ross/Fuz Rana…they are a different story.
3 Likes
My non-theist ET could still call what’s stored in any memory system ‘code’, including DNA, without reference to any other outside observers, though, I think. Of course, he’s my ET.
1 Like
Herbert Yockey, who wrote the cambridge press book on why it IS code also insists on its natural origin.
No doubt. But I find those “non-theist ETs” quite few and far between! 
And that’s why I talked in terms of general trends of arguments.
Yes, but such people making that sort of argument are not that numerous and most have managed to escape notice by the general public. Again, I’m speaking in terms of general trends and common arguments and the motivations behind them.
2 Likes
I would ASSUME Michael Ruse thinks it’s code as well, because he is a judge of @Perry_Marshall’s evolution 2.0 prize. He’s BANKING on it having a natural origin.
1 Like
I like C.S. Lewis’s ETs, à la Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra.
1 Like
In terms of why this subject would USUALLY get so much attention, I think you’re right. As far as why it got so much attention in this forum, I’m not sure. @Mercer, and others kept mentioning ID when I never brought it up at all (I can double-check). It seems that the the non-theists were more concerned about it being naturally occuring than the theists.
3 Likes
That was my impression, too, when I said I was amazed at all the flack.
1 Like
It would make sense in terms of worldview. I beleive miracles are possible and take Genesis 1-11 as a Holy Spirit inspired mythology (no debates about that here, please!). My options are completely open as to how things actually occured. As William Lane Craig has often said, for the atheist, a 100 percent naturalistic evolution is the only game in town. The Christian theist who does not take a literalist interpretation of scripture is free to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
1 Like
This is an interesting stance, because ID would have us believe that the parameters of the universe DO determine whether something can evolve, and invoke fine tuning as an argument for Design. Dale was making a point about whether or not certain things can exist at all, but this also applies to what sorts of things might come into existence naturally - without some sort of intelligent intervention.
I object to the use of “code” as an argument in favor of Intelligent Design. We can encode random noise in binary (or quad-nary) form, but than doesn’t not imply random noise is intelligently designed. The “DNA is code” analogy doesn’t help us understand how DNA functions.
So, what is the problem with life (or the seeds of life) coming to Earth via meteors 4.1 billion years ago?