In the comment thread to a prior post gpuccio, markf and I had a little debate about whether functional complex specified information can be generated by random (stochastic) processes. BTW, before going on let me say that I truly appreciate markf and our other opponents who appear regularly on these pages. How boring it would be if this blog were merely an echo chamber. Now to the debate.
Gpuccio started it off with the following challenge to markf: Can you name one example of a functional incredibly improbable random digital string.
After some waffling, markf finally admitted: “The short answer is that I think it is most unlikely that there exists a digital string which is functional and complex and we have no reason to suppose it is designed – other than in living things.”
Back to gpuccio: “The strings in protein coding genes are strings which are interpreted according to a quaternary code. They are digital, complex and functional. The code is not my invention or yours, it is regularly decoded by the translation system in the cells, and we have simply learned it from the cells themselves. It is the code which allows us to read the meaning in protein coding genes. Nucleotides in themselves are not digital. They are just of four different types. It is the specific sequence they have in the gene, which in no way depends on biochemical laws, which, correctly translated, reveals their function.”
Just so.
Now here is the next question for markf: You all but admit that it is impossible to name a single example of a functional incredibly improbable random digital string – OTHER THAN IN LIVING THINGS. Why the exception? The burden is on your to demonstrate the exception is valid.
The ID position can be summarized in a series of simple syllogisms:
Syllogism 1:
Major premise: Functional incredibly improbable random digital strings do not occur.
Minor premise: DNA contains a functional incredibly improbable digital string.
Conclusion: The digital string in DNA is not random.
Syllogism 2:
Major premise: Functional incredibly improbable digital strings do not occur as a result of mechanical necessity (i.e. physical law).
Minor premise: DNA contains a functional incredibly improbable digital string.
Conclusion: The digital string in DNA did not arise through mechanical necessity.
Syllogism 3:
Major premise: Since Aristotle we have known that all events are caused by random processes, mechanical necessity (i.e., physical law) or agency (i.e., design) or a combination of these three.
Minor premise: We have just established that the digital string in DNA was not caused by a random processes or physical necessity.
Conclusion: The digital string in DNA was caused by agency.
Corollary:
All functional incredibly improbable digital strings for which we can adduce their provenance by direct observation (as opposed to inference from secondary data) are the result of agency. In other words, our overwhelming experience is that functional incredibly improbable digital strings come from one and only one source. They are the product of intelligent design.
markf you say that DNA is a digital string which is functional and complex and we have no reason to suppose it is designed. For your conclusion to be true and my conclusions to be false it must be shown that my premises or false or that my conclusions do not follow from my premises as a matter of logic (or both). Please explain in detail why you think my premises or false or my logic is faulty.
PS: You have posed your own challenge to me: “Describe any possible outcome that falsifies ID without making any assumptions about the designer.” Easy. If someone can demonstrate any functional incredibly improbable digital strings that was developed by in a stochastic system, that would probably falsify ID.