Рет қаралды 159,867
Darwinian evolution's champion Richard Dawkins logically proves intelligent design. Richard Dawkins proves intelligent design by confirming the premises of the DNA argument for intelligent design as formulated by Stephen C. Meyer, thereby showing in spite of himself how to arrive at the conclusion of intelligent design using elementary logic and facts of science.
If you like the video, please push the like button and subscribe. Hopefully there'll be more videos on Dawkins.
--- Argument:
1. Genes (a central component of life) are digital information*.
2. To the best of OUR KNOWLEDGE, digital information is always a product of intelligence.
3. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, genes (a central component of life) are a product of intelligence.
--- Answers to common objections:
* #1: DIGITAL INFORMATION IS THE SAME AS ORDER!
No, digital information -- such as the instructions of computer code, the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone or Shakespeare's Hamlet -- is not to be confused with order which can be seen in the spontaneous structure of a snowflake or a crystal.
Order is different from digital information in the sense that order would have the DNA molecule comprised of any A-T or C-G pair in any position along its sequence without this impairing the double helix structure.
But since there is order as well as digital information in the DNA molecule, the positions of A, T, C and G not only hold the DNA molecule together but are highly specific so as to translate meaningful code.
#2: THIS IS CHERRY-PICKING OF THE WORST KIND!
No, lol.
This is Richard Dawkins affirming the premises (1) and (2) of the argument for intelligent design. The fact that he chooses a personal view that is different from the conclusion arrived at by the syllogism in the video is immaterial to his confirmation of its premises.
Just like someone who believes that
(1) all men are mortal,
(2) Dawkins is a man, yet thinks
(3) Dawkins is not going to die,
is someone who correctly accepts the premises but then chooses a conclusion different from that which is logically binding.
#3: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DIGITAL INFORMATION?
The term digital information is used in reference to information that is encoded using digital units, regardless of whether that is according to a binary system (0, 1 or A, B), a quaternary system (0, 1, 2, 3 or A, T, C, G), an alphabetical system or else.
Digital information is not synonymous with computer information or a computer program, in the sense that it can also be information written on a rock using numerical or alphabetical symbols (e.g., the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone).
#4: RICHARD DAWKINS DOEN'T REALLY BELIEVE DNA IS DIGITAL.
It is pointless to object by saying that Richard Dawkins does not say DNA or genes are really digital information. A minute and a half in the video, he says, "genes are information, they are coded information. It even looks like computer information. A chromosome is a great long computer tape. It's linear, runs one-dimensional digital code. It's not binary, it's quaternary, but apart from that it's just the same as computer tape."
Furthermore, he states in his book River Out of Eden on page 17, "After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike."
He also writes on page 19, "Genes are pure information - information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do."
#5: IS THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED IN THE VIDEO ABOUT GOD?
The argument, particularly premise 2, is about the ability of the mechanism (in this case: one that makes use of intelligence) to encode information.
Even if intelligence entails a conscious agent by definition, the mechanism stated in the premise is not to be confused with the agent or agents or any possible identity thereof.
And even though there are larger implications for one's worldview depending on whether intelligent design is true or false, the subject of this video remains the evidence for or against it.
___
Thanks for watching. Salam.
~Verdant Servant
/ verdantservant