In a comment to a prior post frequent guest Seversky writes:
If I tell you that I tried to drop a stone but it flew up in the air and disappeared out of sight, would you believe me? Probably not. Why not? Because every time you have dropped a stone it has fallen to the ground and, when you check with other people, they report the same experience.
Mankind’s uniform and repeated experience over countless trillions of trials: Release stone; stone drops to ground. Never in a single one of those trials has it been: Release stone; stone flies up in the air. Sound reasoning Sev.
Now, let’s try Sev’s formula with respect to an extraordinarily complex semiotic code:
If I tell you that an extraordinarily complex semiotic code came about through blind, unguided, and mindless natural processes, would you believe me? Probably not. Why not? Because every time you have seen an extraordinarily complex semiotic code you have found it was the product of a mind, and, when you check with other people, they report the same experience.
Yep, that works. Mankind’s uniform and repeated experience over countless trillions of trials: Extraordinarily complex semiotic code whose provenance is know with certainty; provenance is a mind. Never in a single one of those trials has it been: Extraordinarily complex semiotic code whose provenance is know with certainty; provenance is blind, unguided, and mindless natural processes.
How has Sev made the case for Design? Easy. The genetic code is just that, a code. In fact, according to Bill Gates, who knows a thing or two about codes, it is the most elegant and extraordinarily complex semiotic code known to man. It takes a tremendous amount of blind, grit-your-teeth faith in metaphysical materialism to believe it came about by blind, unguided, and mindless natural processes. And this leads to an abductive inference that “mind” is the best explanation for the origin of that code.
Thanks Sev!