Semiotic argument for ID

Hello all...This is my first post, I'm a long time lurker here and I feel like I know you guys. I don't have any degree's in anything but I'm fascinated with origins and have participated on other sites, doing research, debating and learning.It seems like the latest creationist sales talk is this new semiotic argument for ID. I did search here and came up blank. I was doing research on the subject and this was the first place I looked into trusting the great minds here.From what I can conclude, is that if these guys use enough excessive, ill-defined verbiage, they can somehow justify making these supportive assertions. Hoping nobody can figure out what the hell they are saying?The way I see it this will become another creationist fallacy, until they offer a genuine explanation/hypothesis of their own.What do you guys think? here are some links to get started. Semiotic theory of ID | The Skeptical Zone
mouse trap illustration vs. 3-glasses-3-knives illustration — Irreducible Complexity, Depth of Integration – Uncommon DescentAnyway... I figure, if anyone can make sense of this argument this is probably the best place to start.

I followed those links and had a quick look at it. I think it is possible to do something of a summary of what you think the argument is. To be fair I think you should attempt that as best as you can before this is promoted.

I think they are trying to say that translation is a semiotic process. That RNA/DNA code is non physical, informatics and semiotics.
Part of the argument is that physical processes become semiotic (epistemic cut) and cannot be explained by materialism. Also they are asserting semiosis is not physics. That the nature and irreducibility of the origin of code demands a conscious agent and that the origin of semiosis is not often talked about because it defies the materialistic framework and no answers can be found in it.It is difficult to research and that is why I'm here to see what you guys think of this. They seem to reference Biosemiotics research, they say it's an emerging discipline.In the end it sounds like (insert god here)Edited by Porosity, : spellingEdited by Porosity, : spelling

Here is a quote from another site that seems to outline the idea.

quote:

---

But let us say that it is true, we have a chemical link between codons and amino acids. Now at some point we have to replace these physical constraints with the formal rules that are the genetic code. The question then becomes where did these formal rules come from? Formal rules are not physical they seem to have come out of nowhere. How?

​

There are no physical constraints linking a sign (codon) to what it represents, called the object in semiosis (amino acid). No physical connections.

​

The formal rules linking the object to the interpretant are also non physical. They are intangible you cannot touch them, they are not physics. It defies mechanistic physicality quite clearly.

​

The semiotic triad is irriducable all three must exist, sign, object and interpretant. It defies reductionism quite clearly. The only way to build the system is by a top down flow of information that must be telelogical.

​

Semiosis is the fundamental quality of mind, it is how our minds work. We relate to the world by the interpretation of signs. Signs can be anything that we apply meaning to. We accumulate experience through a life time of interpreted meaning of signs through our physical senses, (consciousness) we then use signs to interpret even more signs.

​

Semiosis requires mind, in fact it is the basis of mind.

---

Thread copied to the Semiotic argument for ID thread in the Intelligent Design forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.