Code as an Analogy of DNA?


(Dale Cutler) #322

My forbidden definition (per @Timothy_Horton) does not demand it be entirely arbitrary.

(Timothy Horton) #323

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(Dale Cutler) #324

…## insults and counting. :slightly_smiling_face: (Was I wondering that? Maybe I should have been. :slightly_smiling_face:)

(Timothy Horton) #325

Are you counting your insults? Or is that number too high for you. We’ll add hypocrisy to your wonderful list of attributes. :smiley:

(Dale Cutler) #326

Timothy Horton +2✓

(Timothy Horton) #327

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(Dale Cutler) #328

Peaceful Science.

Introducing Dale Cutler
(Dale Cutler) #329

Ah, peaceful silence.

Introducing Dale Cutler

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.

(Retired Professor & Minister.) #331

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?


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.

(Dale Cutler) #333

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. :slightly_smiling_face:


Herbert Yockey, who wrote the cambridge press book on why it IS code also insists on its natural origin.

(Retired Professor & Minister.) #335

No doubt. But I find those “non-theist ETs” quite few and far between! :wink:

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.


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.

(Dale Cutler) #337

I like C.S. Lewis’s ETs, à la Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra. :slightly_smiling_face:



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.

(Dale Cutler) #339

That was my impression, too, when I said I was amazed at all the flack.


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.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #341

3 posts were split to a new topic: A Concordist Rossian View

A Concordist Rossian View