New video put out by the DI

If you can’t demonstrate who coded it, it’s not a code.

1 Like

A post was split to a new topic: Cultivating better discussion

A post was merged into an existing topic: Cultivating better discussion

What do they mean when say it’s digital? In what way do they think DNA is digital?

I’ve always used this blog post as guidance:

1 Like

Because DNA bases come in discrete molecular units (adenine (A), cytosine (C.), guanine (G), thymine (T), uracil (U) ) genomes can be thought of as digital representations of information (as opposed to analog). The DI likes to pound the “digital” aspect since all modern computer technology is also digital. They like the false equivalency digital computers are designed, DNA is digital, therefore DNA must be designed.


4 posts were merged into an existing topic: Cultivating better discussion

Heh. Yet another CENSORED ignorant propaganda video by the CENSORED at the DI regurgitating the same tired CENSORED talking points which have been addressed by the scientific community ad nauseum.

Meanwhile these same CENSORED with their own ID “science” journal Bio-Complexity have published exactly ZERO articles there in 2019

This post approved by the PS nanny censors lest anyone’s feelings be hurt.

This video, “DNA is Code”, demonstrates something very important to the pro-Evolution Christians here at Peaceful Science have a job much more important than we had at BioLogos.

At BioLogos, there was very little way to champion the idea that God literally guides every step of evolution. It just wasn’t a popular idea. And what they wanted to focus on was that Genesis and other parts of the Bible were figurative or allegorical.

But if you watch (< typo fixed!) this video, you can see an energetic, aggressive stance on God’s role in the design of life. If future generations are tricked into an all or nothing logic, we are going to have a longer struggle.

God’s role in the design of life is so obvious, we do ourselves a disservice if we think “God designing creation” is somehow a Creationist mode of discussion.

This is OUR mode as well. Watch the video… and remind yourself… they are talking about YOUR turf too… .God designed DNA! God designed Life. We can’t prove it scientifically… but we have the faith behind the words!

1 Like


This is not the position of Peaceful Science.Org.

Below is the transcript of the short video!

We’ve shown that DNA is actually the
software of life
it’s totally interchangeable between the
digital world and the biological role
the DNA code itself is so digital is so
almost exactly like a computer tape
scientists have come to the amazing
conclusion that our bodies contain
digital code in fact Bill Gates
you know the founder of Microsoft
tweeted DNA is more advanced than any
software ever created
think about it a program or code is
written by someone very smart
the more complex the code oh the more
intelligent the author has to be so
here’s the question if our DNA code is
more complex than any man-made software
where did it come from is it possible it
was authored without an all programmed
without a program
materialist think so through
neo-darwinism the modern version of
domain Ian’s evolution Stephen Meyer
author of the New York Times bestseller
Darwin’s doubt explains
according to neo-darwinism new genetic
information arises as the result of
random mutations in the arrangement of
the nucleotide bases along the spine of
the DNA molecule if those random changes
are beneficial they’re passed on and
preserved and if many such changes are
preserved and passed on they would
accumulate over time and eventually
result in a very significant change in
morphology the form of the organism
that’s like saying if this game had
glitches every time it was copied online
and gamers shared their favorite mutated
version that trashed the rest
it would eventually turn into this come
on really if we know the computer
glitches won’t produce a new video game
how much sense does it make to believe
that glitches and copiers and our DNA
code can produce new organisms could
random mutations in DNA really produce
this this this this or this everything
we know about software shows that random
changes in a section of functional code
or functional information is going to
degrade that information long before you
ever get to something fundamentally new
and that’s the problem with the mutation
selection mechanism is an explanation
for new genetic information information
in DNA is also essentially typographic
or digital and there are far more ways
to go wrong in arranging those
characters and there are ways to go
right and so as you begin to randomly
change them you inevitably fall into a
non functional with this long before you
ever generate a fundamentally new so
just how unlikely is it for random
genetic changes to produce something new
even something as modest as a protein
structure with a new function one
scientists perform experiments that
enabled him to actually calculate the
odds and they aren’t good in fact
they’re next to impossible we caught up
with a molecular biologist Douglas axe
in Seattle
in our lab work we’ve asked how rare or
how common functional proteins are
within the space of possibilities doing
experiments and calculations we found
that they’re exceedingly rare like 1 in
10 to the 74th power read to get a feel
for those odds imagine that somebody hid
one atom somewhere within the Milky Way
galaxy and you blindfolded by chance are
supposed to pick one atom and hope that
it’s the right one those odds would be
better than the odds for the protein
acts calculated the probability for all
the chance mutations in all of the
life-forms on earth for billions of
and in all that time he found they
couldn’t chance on even one new
functional protein structure not one
zero and keep in mind it takes thousands
of distinct proteins to build any kind
of complex life including humans and
many of these proteins are unique to
each individual life-form so we go from
improbable to basically impossible the
bottom line is that the mutation
selection mechanism simply lacks the
creative power to generate the new
information necessary to build new
organisms in the history of life if the
material processes of mutation and
natural selection aren’t capable of
producing the biological information
needed for life then where did it come
our uniformity repeated experiences
Darwin himself pointed out is the basis
of all scientific reasoning about the
past so when we see information in a
digital form in software or we see a
paragraph in a book and we trace that
information back to its source we always
come to a mind not a material process as
part of what we know from our
observation of the world around us that
information always arises from an
intelligent source so we can apply that
knowledge to the question of historical
biology and when we see that information
is the foundation of life we can infer
that the best explanation for the origin
of that information is in fact also a
mind conscious agent not an undirected
material process when presented with
evidence that conflicts with
neo-darwinism most scientists cling to a
belief in the blind process of evolution
denying what science has discovered that
at the foundation of life there exists a
code so complex and advanced that it
defies chance
they make no room for the possibility
that we were created by an intelligence
far more sophisticated than the most
genius of programmers instead they
choose to limit their investigation to a
strictly materialist worldview when
faced with this evidence how would you
respond here now materialists we see the
human soul we experience love we live
with her purpose we fight for justice
English (auto-generated)

So Stephen Meyer apparently doesn’t know that organisms produce lots of offspring for selection to act on. What a crock of [redacted].

1 Like