I am disappointed that your expose of Mr. Marshall seems like little more than arrogant name calling than a persuasive argument.

I’m a little baffled by your comment. You say there isn’t a persuasive argument there, but you don’t refer to any part of my post to back up your claim. I call Mr. Marshall’s argument purely an argument from ignorance, because that’s what it is. That’s not name-calling. I even link to Wikipedia above to explain what an argument from ignorance is.

DNA is a code, because the sequence of nitrogen bases it contains represents the amino acids in the protein that will be created during translation. Every possible triplet of bases corresponds to a specific amino acid, and each triplet corresponds to the same amino acid in every organism ever discovered. It is a code, and a code that needs no mind to design or interpret it.

You say DNA code is not a machine code. So what? As I understand a code, it is a physical representation of something which something is quantatively different from the physical representation of the something and the code needs a mind to interpret it. I cannot find an interpreting mind to put DNA information in operation. Consequently, I assume DNA operates purely by chemical processes. However, if that is so, in what sense is DNA a code or a re-presentation of something else?

If ANY of the above is true, or even partially true, teleology is a viable explanatory alternative to random natural processes alone.

All of the “above” you refer to are different ways of saying that life on Earth is designed at some level. You’ve basically said that if life was designed, life was designed. That statement is tautological.

If the evidence points to a directed world, and it does, then I suggest keeping an open mind.

You have not presented any evidence for design in the world, beyond the pseudo-design produced by natural selection.

Your ideas here are interesting, but I see no way to subject them to rigorous scientific testing. How would we test whether consciousness, for example, is the product of roaming “spirits?” Are these spirits detectable? If consciousness is something separate from the body, then why does damage to the brain affect consciousness? If consciousness is dependent on the body, in what sense does it exist outside the body? If there is no evidence that consciousness exists outside the body, then why postulate that it does?

In short, Mr. Bowman, I don’t see how any of the ideas you’ve presented in your comment are useful scientifically. To be perfectly honest, it sounds like New Age twaddle to me.

You wrote:

“Allow me to paraphrase: “I can’t think of any other way DNA could come about except by conscious design, therefore it was designed.” ”

Now allow me to paraphrase the antithesis: “I can’t think of any other way DNA could come about except by self-catalyzing replication of proteins, therefore it evolved.

You did allow that the hypothesis is tenuous at this time. I would add, highly speculative, BUT worth pursuing. So is teleology, I might add. And no, teleology doesn’t prove God (or gods), but there IS evidence of design.

Logical questions are why all the precursors, and why over so much time, if man was intended? Why 350,000 species of beetles, for example? Kind of goes against the anthropomorphic principle does it not?

My predictions:

1. Earth was a kind of ‘biologic workshop’ for non corporeal entities (spirit forms, perhaps). Today it’s more of a ‘theme park’.

2. The created entities at the higher levels didn’t develop consciousness, but rather became ‘vehicles’ for spirit forms to inhabit, allowing a corporeal existence. This would include the ability to eat, mate, run, challenge, fight, kill, be killed, etc, i.e. partake in an adventurous role of sorts, and an ongoing one. We race cars and airplanes. Spirit forms inhabit bio forms (and race cars and airplanes).

3. The embryogenesis process is the formative process, and is ‘designed in’. Thus the answer to the chicken/ egg question would be the egg, or more definitively, earlier forms.

4. Evolution as we know it is also a designed in process for 1) adaptation to environmental variations over time, and 2) to provide diversity in the offspring.

5. We are in a lineage of the entities that that began the process.

There may well be a supreme power, or an authoritive council, that we are beholden to. That would constitute a hierarchy of which we are members. If ANY of the above is true, or even partially true, teleology is a viable explanatory alternative to random natural processes alone.

One caveat to the ’supernatural’ dilemma’ that science may face. Spirit forms are not necessarily supernatural, but as likely of an as-yet undefined construct. Since they wouldn’t replicate like bioforms, their origin may be unexplainable by processes that we currently understand.

It’s fine to jump on the religionists, who base their theology solely on ancient texts. I more respect the ones who are NOT strict literalists. Scriptures obviously contain errors, due to man’s prior lack of science knowledge, and perhaps his propensity to fabricate to some extent. Couple that with oral traditional errors, language translational errors, time frame discontinuities, and the likelihood that some religious bodies (and governments) have sought to control their clan by the untoward imposition of rules and even contrived dogma, and you have religion today. Remember, even if God inspired, it all came through the ‘man filter’.

That said, I suggest that we not base an atheist position on the problems that organized religions have caused. If the evidence points to a directed world, and it does, then I suggest keeping an open mind.

Mr. Freshwater is only known to have been a problem for 11 years. That’s because the person best in a position to know what kind of a problem he’s been has only been in her job 11 years. But Mr. Freshwater has been teaching for 21 years. It might be he’s been a problem considerably longer than 11 years.

You’ve decided that man is no more than an animal or a fungus, have you? We’re not above it all. We’re a product of evolution and just as subject to possible extinction as any other critter.

Of course humans are different from other animals, but that doesn’t mean we are not animals ourselves. There is nothing in the definition of “animal” that excludes humans.

Of course we are subject to possibe extinction! What do you think excludes us from it? If a giant meteorite slams into Earth, sets half of it on fire and blankets the rest of it in darkness, we’ll go extinct with every other large animal. Ditto if we kill off all the fisheries, cut down too many forests, etc.

If you don’t agree with the above, try actually posting an argument instead of another list of unsupported assertions.

You’ve decided that man is no more than an animal or a fungus, have you? We’re not above it all. We’re a product of evolution and just as subject to possible extinction as any other critter.

You’ve forgotten to take into account sapience. I don’t often give Richard Dawkins any credit, but at least he’s been wise enough to recognize that there’s something about humanity that’s different. He supposes that we’re the first creatures who might transcend evolution, since our intellect gives us a severe advantage over natural selection.

The rest of your post is tiresome screed. Your attempts to wave the flag of eco-nuttery are laughable at best.

–Sirius Knott

–Sirius Knott