navig8tr

Yes, but doesn't the argument still work in an inductive sense? Like the swan example, wasn't it reasonable to believe that all swans in the world were white when white swans were the only swans ever observed. The time to believe in black swans was when the existence of black swans had been proven.

Good point.

What if we were to change the syllogism slightly: DNA is a code All codes that we know the origin of were designed So, DNA was designed This is a logical proof that DNA was designed. Could it then be possible that evolution was the designer? Albeit a mindless designer. After all, it mindlessly created all the diversity of life from a single cell. Is it such a leap to say that it also created DNA?

This is exactly what it leads to. To me, the difference between the two is obvious--one in fact does occur naturally while the other does not. To simply assert that goddidit regarding dna is a non-answer, and it explains nothing Thus, we should never stop looking for naturalistic explanations. However, I can't deny the accuracy of the analogy and the inductive value of the argument. Given this, should we believe that dna was created by a mind until a better, naturalistic explanation is found? Or have we already discovered the better explanation--evolution. Is it reasonable to assume that DNA evolved over time given our current evidence for evolution, or would this be as unjustified as the god explanation? If the syllogism is sound, then it boils down to two choices. Which argument is stronger--the inductive value of the 'codes from mind' argument or the scientific evidence that DNA came about through evolution? As a naturalist I reject all supernatural explanations, but in this case am I justified in doing so? So many questions...this would be so much easier with a logical disproof of the argument!

Well, I agree, but how do I convince a creationist that dna wasn't created by a mind. Also, the writer of the syllogism says this is not an argument from ignorance, but rather inductive reasoning--all codes we see were created by a mind, therefore, dna was created by a mind. What makes this an argument from ignorance rather than inductive reasoning?

Hello all, Recently, I came across this argument for the existence of god: 1) DNA is a code 2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a mind 3) So, DNA was created by a mind Basically, it's saying that since all the codes we have observed (language, programming languages, morse code etc) have all been created by a mind it is reasonable to assume that DNA was also created by a mind. The writer of the argument goes on to say that there are no instances of naturally occurring codes so the syllogism is inductively valid. However, even if we accept the assertion that there are no naturally occurring codes, I believe that the argument is using a false analogy between DNA and code. So, I ask the experts: Is DNA a code in the same way that a language or programming language, or even morse code is? Or is the word 'code' just a shorthand way of describing DNA? Thanks for any responses.