Difference between revisions of "Does DNA prove a god exists?"

From TheAlmightyGuru
Jump to: navigation, search
(Criticisms)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:Does DNA prove a god exists.png|thumb|512x512px|An assortment of religious beliefs about DNA.]]
+
[[Image:Does DNA prove a god exists.png|thumb|512x512px|An assortment of religious beliefs regarding DNA.]]
  
Many religious apologists have argued that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) proves a god exists. This article describes an argument they often employ and addresses issues with it.
+
Many religious apologists have argued that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) proves a god exists. This article describes an argument they often employ regarding this claim and addresses issues with it.
  
 
==Argument==
 
==Argument==
Line 12: Line 12:
 
C2: Therefore, only a supernatural intelligence (a god) could create it.<br />
 
C2: Therefore, only a supernatural intelligence (a god) could create it.<br />
  
Religious apologists usually follow up this argument with other arguments for why only their god could be the one to create DNA.
+
Religious apologists usually follow up this argument with other arguments for why only their god specifically could be the one to create DNA.
  
 
==Criticisms==
 
==Criticisms==
 
I agree with preposition 1; only an intelligent mind can create information, but preposition 2 has a lot of unanswered questions like, is DNA information? what is information? and, how can we tell the difference between information and non-information?
 
I agree with preposition 1; only an intelligent mind can create information, but preposition 2 has a lot of unanswered questions like, is DNA information? what is information? and, how can we tell the difference between information and non-information?
  
Information is that which decreases uncertainty. Words and numbers are often used to help decrease uncertainty, so they ''can'' be information, but that doesn't mean they're ''always'' information. For example, if you write a text message to your friend where you describe your day, that message is information, because the message decreases your friend's uncertainly about your day. However, if you sent your friend a text message of a series of words typed at random, that message would not be information, since it doesn't decrease any uncertainty.
+
Information is that which increases understanding. Words and numbers are often used to help increase understanding, so they ''can'' be information, but that doesn't mean they're ''always'' information. For example, if you write a message to your friend where you describe your day, that message is information, because the message allows your friend to know what your day was like. However, if you sent your friend a message of the same words in a random order, even though it consists of the same words, that message would not be information, since no understanding can be gleaned from it. Likewise, [[misinformation]] and [[disinformation]] are not the same as information.
  
Usually it's pretty obvious what is information and what isn't, but sometimes something can look like information when it isn't. A text message of "hi" from one person to another is a small piece of information, but if a lightning bolt strikes the ground and leaves behind a scorch mark which looks like the word "hi," it is [[informationoid]]; it looks like information, but isn't. Despite the visual similarities, the lightning bolt is an unguided unthinking natural phenomena, and, therefore incapable of conveying meaning to eliminating uncertainty. We frequently see things in nature which are informationoid like rocks, plants, and clouds which appear to look like the letters, numbers, and symbols people use as information.
+
[[Image:Does DNA prove a god exists - Clouds.png|thumb|256x256px|Unguided natural forces often look designed to an intelligent observer, but this is merely an illusion.]]
  
Because of this, I have a problem with P2. If DNA is the result of unguided natural forces as scientists hypothesize based on the available evidence, then it is not information. It also means that conclusion 1 becomes circular reasoning. How do we know DNA is information? Because it came from an intelligent mind. How do we know it came from an intelligent mind? Because it's information. This is faulty logic. If you want to claim that DNA is information, you must demonstrate that it is not informationoid as all the evidence suggests.
+
Usually, it's pretty obvious what is information and what isn't, but sometimes something can look like information when it isn't. A text message of "hi" from one person to another is a small piece of information, but if a lightning bolt strikes the ground and leaves behind a scorch mark which looks like the word "hi," it is [[informationoid]]; it looks like information, but isn't. Despite the visual similarities, the lightning bolt is an unguided unthinking natural phenomena, and, therefore incapable of conveying meaning or understanding. We frequently see things in nature which are informationoid like rocks, plants, and clouds which appear to look like the letters, numbers, and symbols people use as information.
  
Now, if, for the sake of argument, we assume that a god did create the universe, then determining if DNA is information depends on what type of god we're considering. If we posit a [[deism|deist]] god, one who set the universe in motion, but didn't personally craft every thing in existence with a specific purpose, and doesn't care which sports teams win, then DNA still arose from the natural unguided forces that god created, which means and DNA would still not be information. However, if we consider a very involved "hands on" type of god, one that personally created DNA to be a recipe for living things, in that case, DNA would be information. However, if we assume a god created DNA, it raises a whole new set of questions regarding how poorly constructed most genomes are.
+
Because of this, I have a problem with P2. All the scientific evidence points to DNA having an entirely natural origin. It seems to be based on a more primitive RNA code, it is extremely messy with mutations, it's bad at filtering out unnecessary segments, etc. It does not appear to be intelligently designed at all. If the scientists are correct, P2 is wrong, and both C1 and C2 are wrong as well.  
  
I agree with preposition 3. All the evidence points to DNA arising billions of years ago, while conscious intelligence capable of creating information appears to have only arisen millions of years ago. Conclusion 2 is also based on the presumption that DNA is information, so, unless P2 can be demonstrated, it too is faulty.
+
An additional problem occurs with P2 in that it begs the question. How does the arguer know DNA is information? Because they believe it came from an intelligent mind. How does the arguer know it came from an intelligent mind? It has to because it's information. This is circular reasoning. It's not enough to just claim that DNA is information because you can't think of a natural cause, you must demonstrate why all the evidence which suggests it is informationoid is wrong, and that it was actually created by a designer with a purpose.
 +
 
 +
I agree with preposition 3. All scientific evidence points to DNA arising billions of years ago, while conscious intelligence capable of creating information only millions of years ago. Of course, I always find this to be an odd allowance for the religious. They're willing to accept the scientific consensus of the Earth's old natural time line, yet they refuse to accept a natural origin for DNA. To me, this appears to be special pleading. It's as though they're arguing that everything is natural, except the things science hasn't yet fully explained, which they think their god created.
 +
 
 +
Conclusion 2 is also based on the presumption that DNA is information, so, unless P2 can be demonstrated, it too is faulty.
  
 
==Media==
 
==Media==
{{#ev:youtube|dhHwPoSp7AU|256|inline|Genetically Modified Skeptic.|frame}}
+
{{YouTube|dhHwPoSp7AU|Genetically Modified Skeptic.}}
  
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
Line 34: Line 38:
  
 
[[Category: Philosophy]]
 
[[Category: Philosophy]]
 +
[[Category: Religion]]

Latest revision as of 12:24, 18 September 2022

An assortment of religious beliefs regarding DNA.

Many religious apologists have argued that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) proves a god exists. This article describes an argument they often employ regarding this claim and addresses issues with it.

Argument

There are plenty of variations, but this is the general structure of the argument as used by many religious apologists:

P1: Only an intelligent mind can create information.
P2: DNA is information.
C1: Therefore, DNA could only come about from an intelligent mind.
P3: DNA predates natural forms of intelligence.
C2: Therefore, only a supernatural intelligence (a god) could create it.

Religious apologists usually follow up this argument with other arguments for why only their god specifically could be the one to create DNA.

Criticisms

I agree with preposition 1; only an intelligent mind can create information, but preposition 2 has a lot of unanswered questions like, is DNA information? what is information? and, how can we tell the difference between information and non-information?

Information is that which increases understanding. Words and numbers are often used to help increase understanding, so they can be information, but that doesn't mean they're always information. For example, if you write a message to your friend where you describe your day, that message is information, because the message allows your friend to know what your day was like. However, if you sent your friend a message of the same words in a random order, even though it consists of the same words, that message would not be information, since no understanding can be gleaned from it. Likewise, misinformation and disinformation are not the same as information.

Unguided natural forces often look designed to an intelligent observer, but this is merely an illusion.

Usually, it's pretty obvious what is information and what isn't, but sometimes something can look like information when it isn't. A text message of "hi" from one person to another is a small piece of information, but if a lightning bolt strikes the ground and leaves behind a scorch mark which looks like the word "hi," it is informationoid; it looks like information, but isn't. Despite the visual similarities, the lightning bolt is an unguided unthinking natural phenomena, and, therefore incapable of conveying meaning or understanding. We frequently see things in nature which are informationoid like rocks, plants, and clouds which appear to look like the letters, numbers, and symbols people use as information.

Because of this, I have a problem with P2. All the scientific evidence points to DNA having an entirely natural origin. It seems to be based on a more primitive RNA code, it is extremely messy with mutations, it's bad at filtering out unnecessary segments, etc. It does not appear to be intelligently designed at all. If the scientists are correct, P2 is wrong, and both C1 and C2 are wrong as well.

An additional problem occurs with P2 in that it begs the question. How does the arguer know DNA is information? Because they believe it came from an intelligent mind. How does the arguer know it came from an intelligent mind? It has to because it's information. This is circular reasoning. It's not enough to just claim that DNA is information because you can't think of a natural cause, you must demonstrate why all the evidence which suggests it is informationoid is wrong, and that it was actually created by a designer with a purpose.

I agree with preposition 3. All scientific evidence points to DNA arising billions of years ago, while conscious intelligence capable of creating information only millions of years ago. Of course, I always find this to be an odd allowance for the religious. They're willing to accept the scientific consensus of the Earth's old natural time line, yet they refuse to accept a natural origin for DNA. To me, this appears to be special pleading. It's as though they're arguing that everything is natural, except the things science hasn't yet fully explained, which they think their god created.

Conclusion 2 is also based on the presumption that DNA is information, so, unless P2 can be demonstrated, it too is faulty.

Media

Genetically Modified Skeptic.

Links