3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.
The objection to this statement has been that the conclusion is reached inductively. Complaints have been made that inductive reasoning is inherently unreliable. But we do observe that the laws of thermodynamics and in fact the majority of known scientific laws are determined inductively and not deductively. If you wish to throw out inductive reasoning, then we can discard almost all scientific knowledge and start all over again and use rocks and sticks to make fire.
Thus we have, right here on EvC discussion forum, after more than 300 posts, robust evidence that life was intelligently designed.
You have no evidence atall that life was intelligently designed. That would require you to have some ACTUAL EVIDENCE about how life was designed or originated. Which you don't.
I'm one of the folks who criticised your inductive reasoning, and I stick by this for two reasons :-
- inductive reasoning is generally dangerous. Scientific theories are justified by their explanatory power, not by induction.
- you are extending the induction a long way: from situations in which it has been observed (generation of codes by humans) to a very different situation (generation of genetic code in the absence of humans).
I also agree with those who submitted the honeybee dance code as a counterexample. The code is 'written in the language' of DNA, but so what? PGP encryption is a code that's written in (say) C++.
It's clear that you feel yourself vindicated - but you are ignoring all the well-known pitfalls in inductive reasoning. Plus valid counterexamples.
™ Version 4.2
