DNA is not literal codes or instructions. We interpret and describe them as such because that's a simpler way of thinking about them, but they are not literal codes or instructions.
How do you know that?
Even if DNA could be said to be a literal code, this argument still runs into the problem of induction. Your argument rests on the unfounded assumption that because you've never encountered an example where X wasn't the result of Y, all examples of X must be a result of Y. Obviously, this is fallacious. You need to actually demonstrate a causal agent in the specific instance of X before you can assert that it is necessarily the result of Y. Contrast your logic here with the following statements:
"I have only ever seen white swans, therefore all swans are white."
"I have only ever seen food made in a microwave, therefore all food is made in microwaves."
"Every Australian I have ever met has had a beard, therefore all Australians have beards."
If you understand the flaw in the logic of the above statements, you should realize the flaw in the logic you're using in the statement:
"We have only ever see codes that came from intelligence, therefore all codes come from intelligence."
Thats a good point you make and i admit i am making an assumption. However its not an unreasonable assumption. As i said prior, intelligence is not proven, its the best explanation based on the evidence and logical inference.
In the future, if scientists prove the DNA came from none intelligence, then ID will be falsified. However, ID PREDICTS that unguided forces having done it will never be proven.
The difference being that one is potentially testable, the other isn't
Why is non intelligence testable but intelligence is not?
(and it can be argued that even if the other is confirmed, it doesn't even rule out the other as they are not necessarily mutually exclusive).
Ok, i sorta understand, but, tell me why intelligence and none intelligence are not mutually exclusive?
Because in our experience codes only come from intelligence, so thats why i logically infer actual intelligence.
Then how did you determine it?
You dont have too see who or what the intelligence is in order to determine an intelligent cause.
If you saw an ant hill, but no ants, youd infer intelligence made that hill. And not just because prior knowledge either, if you just examined it, youd figure some intelligence was behind it.
If you saw a deserted bird nest, youd infer intelligence. Also, not just because of prior knowledge, but because of the way its made.
If you saw a pot on the ground in a field, youd infer intelligence.
The point is, you dont have to directly see the intelligent agent in order to detect an intelligence.
Not quite. See, "creationist/creationism" have different definitions largely depending on context. Classically, a "creationist" can be considered anybody who believes life and/or the Universe was intentionally created by a God or some other intelligent agency. However, in the context of the evolution debate, creationism takes on a more specific definition: that of somebody who specifically rejects the theory of evolution in favour of specific religious (or, at least, theistic) interpretation of creation. The confusion in terms comes up occasionally, but rarely causes any significant problems.
Ive listened to speaches and debates on youtube where stephen myer said and i agree with him on this, it makes perfect sense to me, he was asked about this very thing; he said ID can still be used by theistic evolutionists.
Why? He said because God would have STILL intelligently designed the system of evolution.
So, in otherwords, theistic evolution is NOT a PURELY darwinian unguided process. God still intelligently designed that process.
Now, if a theistic evolutionist wer to say he does not believe God designed the process, then that person is NOT logically consistent with the theism he says he believes in.
Now, let me point out the other thing stephen says. He says theres two kinds of IDers, theistic evolutionists and iders who are not evolutionists. Both are iders. And thats perfectly logical as well to say they are. ID is a large unbrella.
