What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.
This is not the same thing, and you are committing a logical fallacy in drawing an analogy to Darwin. Darwin's theory, the Theory of Evolution is completely separate from who Darwin was and what he believed. The theory itself stands or falls on its own merits, not on what Darwin thought about X, Y, and Z, including the theory itself, or god (he was a devout christian, by the way, and got ridiculed for it while on the ship, and which is why he delayed publication of "Origin of Species" for 30 years). The theory has nothing to do with Darwin, in terms of its efficacy and ability to explain our universe. This goes for any person who makes a theory. As for these two other authors, they are not creating a new theory. They are offering educational material, in which case, credentials matter, because credibility matters.
reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation
...okay. It's not that I can't seem to logically grasp Meyers. I've listened to the arguments from IDers including Meyer's and Behe, and none of them are logically valid and sound. No matter how much scientific understanding they have of the workings of the cell, their conclusions are based on arguments from ignorance and inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning.
what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.
You're assessment of what DNA is, being complex, specifiable, and "digital," is not evidence of a creator. You validated my assertion here, even after you denied it and told me I knew nothing about ID, that you are using pure inductive reasoning to reach your conclusions. You try to use all of these concepts, such as this information being "shannon information," as if this somehow vindicates this use of pure induction, and trying to re-package it as if it were deductive. What difference does it make that this information is specifiable, digital, complex, and shannon information? NONE! IDers are leading the evidence to a creator, not following the evidence to where it leads. If this is where the evidence led, then all scientists would see this. I am sure you explain this away by saying scientists are operating under the presuppositions of metaphysical naturalism.
deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)
Who cares if DNA is digital? First of all, it isn't, because quite simply, digital code uses a sequence of zeros and ones, which each correspond respectively, to "no" and "yes" and are used to answer "questions" by the programs in the computer. This is not how DNA works, and the language is obviously not the same. Funny that those at harvard don't mention a creator:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv4XJHT2J7w]Is DNA the future of large scale digital storage Channel 4 News - YouTube[/ame]
You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity.
This is a complete non-sequitur, and you are attacking straw-men. There isn't equal chance for them to attach to the bases. If there were, we wouldn't be here, because DNA wouldn't work. It relies on chemistry to work, where certain chemicals only "fit" with others, like a key in a lock. We see this fact of chemistry being taken advantage of all over cell anatomy. I don't see how this demonstrates god, at all.
You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces complex, specifiable digital code.
No, we don't at all. This is where you are completely wrong. Who made this standard that you are producing, that we MUST find another cause now in operation, that can produce "complex, specifiable DIGITAL CODE" and to satisify who? Creationists? Yeah, those who aren't so consumed with denying evolution and metaphysical naturalism don't have to worry about complying with such standards. The only thing we have to find is the truth, here, in this universe.
