Theist argument DNA is a language

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3248
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Theist argument DNA is a language

On one of the local news forums where I occasionally post, we recently had a theist going on and on about DNA is a language and nothing can make a language but intelligence.

Oddly enough, when I googled DNA is a language, I got scores of theist websites that are playing this to the hilt. All claiming that DNA proves their god exists, which is quite a leap to make of course.

But even more disturbing, was quite a number of websites that push the whole " There has to be some sort of creator out there for this to happen " kind of thing.

Of course, there are quite a number of other pages that delve into what the word "language" actually means when it comes to DNA and genetics and sort of turn this argument over on it's head. But these pages can get fairly in depth and could be somewhat complex to the average person.

In layman's terms, what are some good rebuttals for people that try to use this argument ?

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
I adressed this in another

I adressed this in another post back in the day. I'll see if I can dig it up for you


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I have to admit, every so

I have to admit, every so often, I run into new colors of tuxedos they try to dress the skunk up in.

DNA IS NOT A LANGUAGE anymore than a cat is a language because we use the letters "c-a-t" to describe the animal we label "cat".

DNA is no more a "language" than a Hurricane is a language because we give it names.

DNA is result of natural processes, much like one cloud does not think about meeting other clouds to become a hurricane. It is a description of the outcome of natural processes that end up being the thing we call "DNA"

That is not a "language" merely because we assign names to it's parts.

This is yet another stupid attempt to retrofit science to prop up their sky daddy myth.

This makes me wonder what future claptrap they will come up with.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
In this thread:

In this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18066

 

I replied to the OP (all of it is included in my reply)

 

Mcap wrote:
There are arguments and debates going on about multiple topics, I thought I would throw this one out: If we evolved like atheists believe, show me a code of any kind that has NOT been designed.

DNA is a code that has not been designed. That's one.

DNA is as much a code as Pluto is a Planetoid (or a dwarf Planet, or what it is they've decided to call it now).

The word "code" is applied to DNA because it is an appropriate analogue of something we humans have invented that we call "codes". But DNA was here long before the English language came around with the word "code", and it was still DNA back then. It just wasn't a code, because there where noone around to call it a code.

 

You see, code is just a word, and the connotations that that word invokes are manyfold, and not always appropriate for every situation where someone sees it fit to use that word to describe a phenomenon.

For example, one connotation of the word code is that it is something which is designed. Another connotation of the word code is that it is something designed by a human being.

Can you give me a single example of a code that has not been designed by a human being?

Ergo, by your logic, since DNA is a code, and codes are designed by human beings, DNA was designed by a human being.

Unless I am prepared to invoke a very interesting time traveling paradox, you can see how that conclusion is flawed. But it follows the same logic you propose here.

So instead, you'll have to see that words are nothing more than the sounds we invoke to convey phenomema, and they are not ment to always include every possible connotation that any given word might invoke in any given sentence. The connotaition: "Code = something designed by a human being" is not appropriate here for example, as I hope you can see.

 

Another way to describe DNA could be a pattern.

Can you give me an example of a pattern that has not been designed?

You see that's much easier.

 

Mcap wrote:
If evolution is in fact gospel, then DNA could not have been designed, it simply and quite marvelously made itself.

 

As far as the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is concerned, DNA could have been designed by Bob the janitor of the universe, as his little pet project that he worked on whenever he took a brake from sweeping up nebulas, and vacuming with black holes.

 

The theory of Evolution by Natural Selection says nothing of where DNA came from in the first place. Indeed, when Darwin first formed the theory, DNA had not been discovered yet.

 

So there is nothing in the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, even if it is, as you say "gospel", that says that DNA could not have been designed, as evidenced by the many religious people who in no way dispute the theory of evolution.

 

Even I don't deny that DNA might well have been designed by someone, allthough admittedly I find this a rather outlandish notion, but I certainly don't deny the idea as impossible.

 

But I fail to see how the origin of DNA has any bearing on the subject of atheism at all.

 

Unless you are suggesting that DNA was designed by God?

Well, first of all, that would make The theory of Evolution by Natural Selection gospel, and secondly, if indeed I were to accept that DNA must have been designed by someone (which at present I don't see any reason to believe), then I still see no reason to accept that that someone is your particular God.

 

Why not any one of the other Gods?

Why not Bob the Janitor?

Why not Spoingor the Magnificent of planet Xenon?

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
If DNA is a language that

If DNA is a language that god/s/dess speaks, then it is gobbledy-gook.

http://www.noah-health.org/en/genetic/

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The main problem with this

The main problem with this argument is in the premises. The argument usually runs something like this:

1) Codes contain information.

2) Information can only be created by intelligence.

3) DNA is a code

ergo, DNA was created by an intelligence.

 

If you think that DNA contains information, then information can be created by nature. (via evolution)

The problem is that they deny evolution and hence deny that nature can create DNA, regardless of the mental masturbation they do with word games. 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
This argument is really just

This argument is really just simple sophism and quite easy to respond to; you don't even have to worry too much about their semantics. It sometimes goes:

1) DNA is a code.

2) All codes are made by an intelligence.

Well, this already fails because we don't agree that DNA was made by an intelligence. Ergo, 2) is false.

The two premises might be reversed:

1) All codes are made by an intelligence.

2) DNA is a code.

Well, if all codes are made by an intelligence, then DNA must not be a code, as there is no evidence that it was made by an intelligence.

They might also use the term "information" in an inept, ambiguous way.

1) Information can only be made by an intelligence.

Just ask them to define "information." Or:

1) DNA contains information.

Again, ask them to define whatever bullshit term it is they're using. I guarantee that they will not a give a precise, meaningful definition. Okay, so I guess you do have to debate semantics. I lied.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:On one

harleysportster wrote:

On one of the local news forums where I occasionally post, we recently had a theist going on and on about DNA is a language and nothing can make a language but intelligence.

Oddly enough, when I googled DNA is a language, I got scores of theist websites that are playing this to the hilt. All claiming that DNA proves their god exists, which is quite a leap to make of course.

But even more disturbing, was quite a number of websites that push the whole " There has to be some sort of creator out there for this to happen " kind of thing.

Of course, there are quite a number of other pages that delve into what the word "language" actually means when it comes to DNA and genetics and sort of turn this argument over on it's head. But these pages can get fairly in depth and could be somewhat complex to the average person.

In layman's terms, what are some good rebuttals for people that try to use this argument ?

A "language" in what sense? I think the theists are making a category mistake by saying "is a" instead of "is like a". DNA is used for "encoding" and "decoding" "information" such that a cell can produce the appropriate proteins to carry our the functions necessary for life, and in this case is like a language. But I think DNA is perhaps more akin to a medium of communication in much the same way a carrier wave is to a cell phone or the modulation and demodulation of electronic pulses on a modem. Language is more abstract than any one of these mediums. I say my computer "talks" to other computers via a network all the time, but I don't mean it is literally talking. If it was truly capable of language, the medium of communication would be irrelevant at a hardware level  (infrared, wifi, ethernet) protocol level (ip, ipx) even application level (RRS Forum, email, voip).

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:If DNA is a

cj wrote:

If DNA is a language that god/s/dess speaks, then it is gobbledy-gook.

http://www.noah-health.org/en/genetic/

 

Don't get all technical on me with fancy words like "gobbledy-gook".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37