Recently, a commenter has been, well, commenting around my old posts about `Deconstructing God`. His name is Tom Lee. Hi Tom!
He asked me to visit the website of one Perry Marshall[1], I’ve linked to the more relevant discussion which he proudly claims to have won on the IIDB forums, his website proper is linked there. His central thesis — which is all I’m going to talk about, as his website is _chock_ full of… ahem… arguments — is as follows:
DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
Let’s pick it apart.
"DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism." Fine, but what is a pattern, code, language or information storage mechanism? I argue that a pattern is a purely human construction — Nature has no such notion. Nature is blind, it cannot have a concept of a pattern. So sure, this premise is true, but only vacuously. This is argued here[2] and responded to here[3] with the following:
I define "Coded information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
But this is not a true definition — we can apply it to anything! Solar Flares are just a simple code which indicates to other stars the happyness of that particular star, and other stars will respond in kind. Obviously since more than one star has solar flares, then there is communication between stars. They must be intelligent!
Of course, this is absurd, but the benefit of Marshall’s definition is precisely what I provided. He argues earlier in the thread that anyone who can provide an empirical example of a code that was not designed has toppled his proof. His definition requires "a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism" and that this definition includes DNA. He argues that any other empirical example that is biological in nature, occured as a result of DNA, thus, they are all moot. Someone in the thread suggested (like my example) that photons provide a natural means of communication between stars, Perry never seems to address this, but that is likely due to the fact that the thread is _massive_.
In summary, I think that Perry is suffering from the law of large numbers. Anything observed in large enough quantities appears to have a pattern. Consider a field of wildflowers of differing colors and heights. If the field is large enough, and you admit a complicated enough interpretation, you could say that the flowers have grown in such a way as to reproduce a coded representation of Hamlet. This is the Bible Code all over again. The Bible is a massive, effectively random grouping of characters. If you have a complicated enough pattern of skips and jumps, of course you will find something, as you would in any large collection of letters. As happened with Moby Dick. So sure, DNA is a code, but only vacuously so. However, heres the rub, Perry never accepts this, he changes his definition enough so that he never has to say he was wrong. The reason this discussion ended was not because Perry won, but because he refused to argue in the first place. Instead, he clung to his fallacious argument, and those who were trying to have a logical discussion simply got bored arguing with a brick wall.
It’s not only Creationists who do this, it’s completely possible for anyone to do this. Atheist or Christian. However, this is not the case for the Atheists here, in my opinion.
Moving on, let’s consider the following:
"All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information."
Petitio Principii, "All codes are created by conscious mind" — says who? Why must this be the case — even if it were the case that Perry had a proper, valid definition of ‘code’, he still is begging the question that every code is necessarily designed. And lets not kid ourselves, "Created by concious mind" is just a sugary version of "designed by god." That is, just because we cannot find a code that Perry can’t subsequently shove into his definition of ‘non-naturally designed code’, doesn’t mean their isn’t one. Let’s, therefore, examine a parallel syllogism to Perry’s, similar to the one here[4], ours will differ only slightly.
Premise: All Computers have CPUs
Premise: All Computers are descended from the ENIAC
Conclusion: All things descended from the ENIAC are Computers
However, this is patently untrue, many things descendent from the ENIAC are not computers — Digital Alarm Clocks, for example. This is similar to Perry’s claim.
These are my issues with Perry’s claims, I find both of his premises wanting, thus I find his conclusions do not follow from his premises. However, let’s examine why Perry calls this one a "Win" — in fact, his claim is based on the idea that all those who were arguing with him stopped, but it appears that the thread is still live. I see posts from today! What appears to have happened is that those who were arguing w/ Perry started answering other questions from other creationists, and arguing with them, for whatever reason. Perry read this as capitulation, I read it as a thread evolving into a new conversation about something else. At best, this is a draw for Perry, but I’d actually call it a win for those arguing, as they now have a lovely, long term thread chock full of interesting debate, and one small aside that lasts for about 15 pages about someone who had a lousy idea, got convincingly (at least, to anyone with a modicum of understanding about the theories involved) debunked, but didn’t accept it and move on.
I’m not saying Perry isn’t sincere, I’m not trying to convince him to be an atheist. On the contrary, I don’t think it’s right (ethically) to try to "convert" anyone to anything. I think that Perry has a preconception, a preconception which apparently he is uncomfortable with, as he feels he must justify it to everyone. I have a preconception too! My preconception is that Math is the single most powerful tool we have to understand the world. This is a completely unfounded notion, but I still hold it. In fact, the position is irrational, but I still hold it. The difference between my preconception and Perry’s is that I don’t feel I have to justify it to anyone. You are more than welcome to disagree, I’ve a fair chance that my preconception is wrong, but that won’t change my preconception. Perry, on the other hand, wants to convince you to share his preconception, for what reason we cannot know, but my guess is that his preconception makes him uncomfortable, there is a cognitive dissonance he is trying to resolve, and he attempts to do so by convincing others with lousy arguments.
That said, let me respond to Tom about another thing. I’m changing the deal we made. I have no websites for you, I thought about it, and theres no way to I could give you any without feeling like I was trying to convert you. As I’ve already mentioned, I don’t think that’s ethically sound, so feel free to send me more sources to look at, I’ll try to get to them when I have time, but otherwise, my only referring website is this one. 
[1] http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=135497&page=1
[2] http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?s=26648a0c67d7015d4ba8f7cf13f7d5b4&p=2691385#post2691385
[3] http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=2692636#post2692636
[4] http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=2694067#post2694067