Joe G has been looking into the posts here at TSZ. Apparently this inspired him to get into a series of outbursts of rage. Well, maybe not. Looking at his blog rage seems to be his normal state. Back in his blog he’s stated fuming about what he thinks are facts that prove intelligent design, I mean Intelligent Design, with capitals because, let’s not forget, ID is about “God.” So I’ve been trying to explain to him why that’s profoundly and irremediably wrong. Here I’ll expand a bit on that, and thus willl try and avoid contaminating other threads with Joe G’s angry prose.
To get this started, I’m going to check Joe G’s latest attempt, Joe G starts thusly:
The genetic code is evidence for Intelligent Design based on the following facts:
Facts!? Wow, this is starting so well, I’m sure I’m going to be convinced! Good-bye sinful atheistic life!
1- The genetic code involves a coded information processing system
Well, that’s the way we decided to describe it, precisely because the people involved in deciphering how organisms get proteins from the DNA sequence were somewhat involved in deciphering human codes. So, we call them codes by analogy, not because anybody really thought that they’re codes in the sense of human codes. But the analogy works so well, that we can give this one to Joe G. So, Joe G, what’s next?
2- There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems
Here’s where you start very poorly Joe G. Well, you started poorly with the title, but I’m very forgiving. Nature produces coded information all the time. It happens all around you. Scientists have examined how it happens, and they have found no designers lurking in there. Not a single one. Life continues to reproduce, and thus produce more life forms, each with their genetic codes and the systems that process the encoded information. Lots and lots and lots of new systems appear all the time. Many times over in the time it took me to write this very sentence. So, how come Joe G needs evidence for what’s happening right in front of him. Inside him, each time a bacterium reproduces in his very intestines, on his very skin? Well, all he does is deny it and affirm that it happens by design. On what basis? None. Not a single observation involves an intelligent designer doing anything. These organisms reproduce physically, using everything according to what we know about nature so far. Therefore, I prefer to believe what I’m witnessing, over those fantasies of Joe G’s. Is that wrong?
3- There isn’t even a way to test the claim that nature can produce coded information systems
Of course there is. Look around you Joe G. If you want it to happen in a test tube, in an experimental system, there’s plenty of scientists working with bacterial cultures, with rats, with mice, and all of those model organisms reproduce. Can you believe it? they do! And all of them could not even exist if it weren’t for the “encoded information processing systems” you like so much. Not even you would be able to do anything without them! Not even you! That means that even you are evidence that nature produces those systems. Ask your parents, and they’ll tell you they went very physical in order to have you.
4- There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition
Sorry Joe G, but, as I said, that’s false. They’re produced by all kinds of organisms, often without any volition, like with bacteria, who do it after eating and growing too much, and rarely there’s any intelligence involved.
Not only that, here’s where you have to stop and examine your claim. Of course, you mean to say that you, personally, only know about humans being able to produce such kinds of systems. However, you’re ignoring some very interesting problems:
- The systems you’re talking about exist in humans: therefore we could not have made those genetic code/information processing systems ourselves.
- The very systems we use to produce coded information processing systems, meaning our very intelligences, are themselves code information processing systems. We have to be able to cope with encoded information. We need to be able to produce abstractions, work with them, put them together, infer, test, infer further, etc, before we can produce any other code. That means that making codes via “intelligent agency volition” requires systems able to process encoded information. So, if you wanted to propose an intelligence, other than the human one, you’d still be engaged in a silly impossible circularity.
- Thus, the only possible way out, is for code information processing systems to be producible in ways other than “intelligent agency volition,” again, given that such intelligences are themselves and work on the foundations of preexisting code information processing systems.
That was it for Joe G’s “facts.” However, given that I had already answered his silly syllogism, Joe G continued:
Peer-review is devoid of any science showing that nature can produce coded information processing systems. The fact that the genetic code is still called a “frozen accident” tells us there still isn’t any way to test the claim that nature can do it. And peer-review and textbooks are absent such a test
No it isn’t. Again, it happens all around us all the time. As, as I explained, they must be doing so naturally, because any preexisting intelligence implies preexisting code information processing systems. Thus, you’d be proposing ludicrous imaginary intelligent designers, I mean, Intelligent Designers, useless as explanations. Gaining nothing in return. So, instead of wondering how the systems forming those other, imaginary intelligences came to be, I’d better cu to the chase and investigate the nature that we can witness. One where nobody has caught any intelligent designers at work in that constant production of what looks, very convincingly, like natural code information processing systems.
EvoTARDs may disagree but they will NEVER be able to refute any of those 4 facts. entropy will be its normal lying self and post total lying bullshit about what I posted. But it will NEVER present any science to refute what I posted.
Well, only the first survived, and only because the analogy works and I’m feeling generous.
And morons, if it could not have been humans that produced the genetic code then we infer it was some other intelligent agency. Nature doesn’t magically get an ability just cuz humans were not around.
What a load of hubris. You think you’re above nature Joe G, but it’s the other way around. We have the ability because nature has it. Otherwise, we could not even possibly exist. Our intelligences work naturally. Our very designs work naturally. Everything we do works according to the ways of physics and chemistry. You’re putting the cart before the horse, and the blunder is spectacular. In order to infer “Intelligent Design”, you ignore the very reason our intelligences work. You ignore the very meaning of intelligence.
A single flare of the sun has enough energy to obliterate our planet and you think you can do more than nature. A single volcano could destroy everything around you and you think you can do more than nature. A single water current could break all your bones against some very natural rocks, and you think you can do more than nature. A bunch of wolves would happily devour you, caring not one bit about your intelligence, and you think you can do more than nature. What a pathetic joke.