The order of the nucleotide bases in the DNA molecule has no molecular chemical or physical cause. There is no scientific explanation for why the bases line up in the configuration they do, yet that order is precisely what allows the functionality of the cell, the transcription of code that allows reproduction and production of the functional proteins that are essential to life. If science can offer no explanation, then that does open the field somewhat.
What you would have to do is offer a plausible solution to this issue rather than go on muttering, “It’s not science.” What we have arrived at is precisely a lacuna that a merely materialistic perspective resorting to physical causation cannot overcome.
I have presented this analogy in a previous post and others before you have not supplied a reasonable response other than to sidestep the problem. Why don’t you have a go at it?
Suppose you spend an afternoon observing the behaviour of ants milling about an anthole. After some hours you notice the dark colour and positioning of the ants on the light concrete appears to resemble the letter W. There is in some sense, a complexity in the shape of the letter W that makes it somewhat improbable, however, given the time you have spent observing them and all the random arrangements the ants have produced with their bodies, there is some degree of probability that the W appeared by “chance”, despite the fact that it has a complex shape. No need to infer intelligence.
Now suppose you keep watching the ants at work and after a few minutes their bodies have taken the arrangement of the letters WANSTRONIAN. This becomes more intriguing to you because the shapes of the letters are not merely complex but also specific because, you notice that the letters match precisely and specifically the letters of your name. This specified complexity of the letters, makes it highly improbable that the event happened by chance. Are you justified in inferring some kind of intelligence behind the action of the ants? Is there a better explanation? Do you need to have evidence of the agent before being justified in claiming there is “some kind” of intelligence at play here? Doesn’t the degree of the specified complexity in the letters warrant an inference to an intelligent agent?
What if, as the afternoon continues, you watch the ants continue to build new letters on the sidewalk. As they work you recall that you tried to eradicate this anthill a week before using a pesticide that wasn’t as effective as you had hoped. An hour later the complete message from the ants comes through. It states, “WANSTRONIAN WE WILL INVADE YOUR HOUSE AT MIDNIGHT!”
Notice this complete message is not only complex, not only highly specified as it uses many letters from the English alphabet but it has taken on a new quality in that the letters precisely match a functional and intended purpose, i.e, to communicate with you in response to your failed attempt at destroying the anthill.
Would you not agree that any explanation not entailing some kind of intelligence would fail despite the fact that you have no evidence for an “actor” other than the message itself?
Dembski and Meyer would both argue, I think, that this event, having specified and functional complexity to a degree that the probabilistic resources available - time, nature of ant brains and ant behaviour, would make an inference to intelligence “of some kind” behind this event not merely highly probable but definite. You would have to conclude there is some kind of intelligent agent behind the ant event even though you have no idea who or what the agent could actually be.
At this point, science could be appealed to in order to “fill the gaps.” “We don’t understand, but there MUST be some biochemical reason behind this event that we don’t yet understand!” could be used, but is susceptible to the same response that science habitually has delivered to theism: a science of the gaps has been conjured to replace method.
In case you missed it, the nucleotide coding in DNA has no biochemical explanation or cause and the functional complexity present there far exceeds the ant example, that if intelligent origin is reasonable to posit in the case of the ants, it is, likewise reasonable to posit in the case of DNA. Science has to provide a biochemical explanation or back away from its “omniscient” posturing. There is warrant to posit, in the absence of a scientific explanation a possible intelligent one.
ID proponents need not insist on having proved intelligent design, but that a strong philosophical argument exists for including “design” as a possible explanation in the absence of any plausible scientific hypotheses. It is up to science and good deductive logic to establish certainty.
What is required from you, Wanstronian, is either a scientific (molecular or physical) explanation for DNA coding, or a good philosophical reason why intelligence cannot be considered. Merely insisting “It’s not science!” does not meet even minimally acceptable standards because its tantamount to insisting, “I don’t want to talk about it.”
To answer this post, three key questions need to be addressed.
- If faced with the ant situation, could you reasonably avoid positing intelligence as a probable cause for the appearance of the letters? If so, what is a reasonable and sufficient alternative explanation?
- Is the coding in the DNA molecule less probable than the ant writing? If you think so, demonstrate how.
- What is a good scientifically testable explanation for the order of nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule?
Please do not attempt to sidestep this post by avoiding these three questions in your response.
Irrefutable!
