1) DNA is not just a molecule - it is a coding system with a language & alphabet, and contains a message
2) All languages, codes and messages come from a mind
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a Mind
I don't know the specific labels by which to identify the errors, but my gut tells me, that as a syllogism, this arguement is deeply flawed. . On the other hand, not all bad arguments are wrong in a final sense.
Should I frame the argument, it would have less bite, but also not offend my sense of logic.
1) DNA, as an information coding molecule, shares attributes (alphabet, syntax, message) in keeping with language, and can be properly desribed as a languge.
2) in all those cases where the source is known, Languages, codes, and messages come from a mind.
3) it is reasonable to infer that DNA, like other langues, comes from a mind.
Well, what do I know --- turns out I think like an "infidel" (or like a logician) Turns out folks at the Infidel network had the same promlem with Perry's sylogism (though I still think its a good argument, just not a good sylogism)
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=2703572#post2703572 #78
Originally Posted by pmarshall
A strand of DNA in a skin cell that falls from your body contains a plan for a human being (you), even though neither the skin cell nor the strand of DNA are human beings. This is what I specifically mean by the phrase "independent of the communication medium."
A strand of DNA from a skin cell most certainly does not contain a "plan for a human being". (Shades of homonculus, anyone?) If you wanted to grow a human being from DNA extracted from a skin cell, you'd need at the very least an ovum and a womb. These are not just nice places in which the DNA resides, they contain necessary information for the development of the growing body.
Now I think a lot of this is beside the point. Clearly DNA stores information, which can be thought of as encoded in some sense. Analogies to language and computer programs are, however, dangerously misleading. I think people are making an issue out of this because far too many people (especially creationists and lexographers) have a simplistic notion of DNA that has little to do with what it actually does. Comparing it to languages and the like is highly problematic.
But this is not the main flaw in your "proof". For the moment, let's grant that P1 is correct. The main flaw, as has been pointed out already, is that P2 is begging the question. Let's look again:
Quote:
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.
If we grant P1 as true, then P2 is simply saying that DNA, which is a "code", was created by a conscious mind. But this is the very point of dispute! You cannot have a premise that assumes the very thing you're trying to prove. This is a rather blatant example of circular reasoning, and if you want to make a sincere effort to address criticism here, then you must deal with this issue. No one is going to accept a priori that all codes were created by a conscious mind if DNA is by definition considered to be a code. What evidence do you have that all codes, including DNA, were created by a conscious mind? None that I've seen.
You could make the argument non-circular by writing it in the following manner:
Quote:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes that we know the origin of 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.
The bold part was added by me. Now P2 is not incorrect (or at least it's not necessarily incorrect) and so the "proof" is no longer circular. However, the conclusion no longer follows from the premises. Just because all the codes whose origins we are familiar with were produced by a conscious mind, it does not follow that codes of unknown origin were as well. It may be that there are lots of codes we don't know of that were not designed by a conscious mind. It may even be that DNA is the only code in the universe that wasn't. Since we can't rule this possibility out, it cannot be logically demonstrated that DNA was designed by a conscious mind based merely on the fact that other codes were. And this brings up the reason why people have been giving you a hard time about DNA being a "code" -- to the non-casual observer, DNA is highly dissimilar to languages, computer programs, or any other "code" that we have familiarity with. We therefore have good reason to expect this dissimilarity to extend to its origins as well. (In fact we know its origins must be different since it wasn't created by humans.)
Somewhere on your web site you mentioned that you had an "inductive proof", which I assume is the argument you've given here. I'm afraid there's no such thing as an inductive proof, because there are sometimes unseen exceptions to the rule. (And it's made worse by the fact that the "rule" here is based on things that are decidedly different than the phenomen in question.) This is what philosophers call the "problem of induction". Please do check it out and address this rather serious problem with your argument.
theyeti
No comments:
Post a Comment