1. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    07 Jan '15 09:171 edit
    My design argument thread seems to have derailed beyond all rescue. But it derailed into a rant for a new thread, so here we go.

    I was once told that the reason I get frustrated and a tad angry everytime someone compares cellular DNA to computer programming, or complex human-built objects to living things, in an attempt to demonstrate the need for a creator, is because deep down inside I know they're right, and I just don't want to admit it. To which I sighed and walked away. I didn't have the energy to explain myself that day.

    The truth is that the first time I heard the "DNA is like a program"-analogy, I was intrigued. The first time I heard this analogy being used to posit a creator, it took me a split second to realise that the analogy breaks (what with alleles, arbitrariness of gene order, and so on). Apparently, this is not so obvious to those who really, really, really wants to believe in a creator. To them, the analogy can't break down.

    This is why I get frustrated and a wee bit angry whenever someone makes this analogy for that specific purpose, and I'm going to try and explain myself here (to the best of my abilities).

    Imagine that you've never seen an aeroplane, and I'm supposed to describe it to you. I might say that it's like a bird, in that it has wings, a tail and it can fly. This is a good analogy, as it allows you to get an initial basic idea of what a plane does, even though you still don't have a clue as to what a plane is. Now, suppose you've noticed that birds lay eggs, and if an aeroplane is like a bird, you conclude that therefore aeroplanes too, are very likely to lay eggs (remember, you've never heard about aeroplanes before, and you have no idea they're built by humans). We can all see that when used this way, to draw conclusions about the unknown, it breaks down; it becomes a bad analogy.

    An analogy is a teaching tool. Nothing more. You can only use it as far as it's meant to be used. When you start to use the analogy to confirm the unknown, you have all your work yet ahead of you. It's perfectly reasonable to posit that aeroplanes lay eggs, based on the analogy above, but now you have to actually show it.

    In other words, when you note that computer programs require a programmer, and then posit that there has to be a creator that created the initial DNA program, you've turned a useful analogy into a bad one, because you're not using it as intended; as a stepping stone to a deeper inquiry on the subject. It is the exact equivalent of positing that aeroplanes lay eggs. If you stop there, you'll only realise how silly that conclusion is when someone shows you how aeroplanes are actually made.

    It so happens that scientists have figured out enough about biology to confidently say that the process of evolution can and does explain the complexity of life, but in order to see that, you'd have to do some hard studying on the subject.

    When you step into a discussion with a superficial understanding of evolution and related branches of science, and only backup your conclusions with bad analogies that betray this lack of depth in your knowledge, you come across looking like a fool to anyone with a deeper understanding of both the limits of your analogy and the fields of science involved. When you do this with the confidence of an expert, it pisses me off. It really does.

    But I will find strength to keep fighting these tendencies, and calmly keep explaining these things, because I know that for some it's an honest logical mistake, and it's not fair to lose patience with those individuals. And sometimes I'm dead wrong, and I would hope that others have the patience to explain how I'm wrong even though they're sick and tired of having to explain the same things over and over.

    So, what's the purpose of this thread? What should we talk about? Well, I have a feeling we'll be talking about science, evolution, creationism and bad analogies, all over again.
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    07 Jan '15 10:52
    Originally posted by C Hess
    My design argument thread seems to have derailed beyond all rescue. But it derailed into a rant for a new thread, so here we go.

    I was once told that the reason I get frustrated and a tad angry everytime someone compares cellular DNA to computer programming, or complex human-built objects to living things, in an attempt to demonstrate the need for a creato ...[text shortened]... eeling we'll be talking about science, evolution, creationism and bad analogies, all over again.
    Is it your DNA or your programming that makes you so angry about this?
  3. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    07 Jan '15 11:00
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Is it your DNA or your programming that makes you so angry about this?
    I thought they were one and the same, if you ask the creationists.
  4. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    07 Jan '15 11:05
    Originally posted by C Hess
    I thought they were one and the same, if you ask the creationists.
    What about nature vs nurture?
  5. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    07 Jan '15 12:23
    Originally posted by divegeester
    What about nature vs nurture?
    What about it?
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    07 Jan '15 13:51
    Originally posted by C Hess
    What about it?
    The former is DNA hard-wired and the latter is programming through the environment. I necessarily see why using a programming analogy is inappropriate way of describing how DNA works, if it is appropriate analogy for describing how learned behaviour works.
  7. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    07 Jan '15 16:11
    A from A is inherently weak.

    "Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed."

    Wikipedia
  8. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    07 Jan '15 18:38
    Originally posted by divegeester
    The former is DNA hard-wired and the latter is programming through the environment. I necessarily see why using a programming analogy is inappropriate way of describing how DNA works, if it is appropriate analogy for describing how learned behaviour works.
    I'm not sure I understand. Did you mean to say: "I don't necessarily see..."?
  9. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    07 Jan '15 18:41
    Originally posted by JS357
    A from A is inherently weak.

    "Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has [b]yet to be observed
    ."

    Wikipedia[/b]
    Yes, that was certainly more succinct than my own OP rant. 😕 😵

    Thank you.
  10. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    07 Jan '15 19:13
    Originally posted by C Hess
    I'm not sure I understand. Did you mean to say: "I don't necessarily see..."?
    Yes, sorry.
  11. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110622
    07 Jan '15 19:24
    Originally posted by C Hess
    My design argument thread seems to have derailed beyond all rescue. But it derailed into a rant for a new thread, so here we go.

    I was once told that the reason I get frustrated and a tad angry everytime someone compares cellular DNA to computer programming, or complex human-built objects to living things, in an attempt to demonstrate the need for a creato ...[text shortened]... eeling we'll be talking about science, evolution, creationism and bad analogies, all over again.
    That's why airplanes designed by creationists have egg dispensers. 😵
  12. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    07 Jan '15 19:272 edits
    Originally posted by divegeester
    The former is DNA hard-wired and the latter is programming through the environment. I [added: don't] necessarily see why using a programming analogy is inappropriate way of describing how DNA works, if it is appropriate analogy for describing how learned behaviour works.
    We just have to avoid letting the choice of analogy fool us into thinking there are similarities between DNA and programming for which we have no evidence other than thinking our chosen analogy is evidence, such as, thinking that because a program is designed, DNA is designed.
  13. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    07 Jan '15 21:16
    Originally posted by JS357
    We just have to avoid letting the choice of analogy fool us into thinking there are similarities between DNA and programming for which we have no evidence other than thinking our chosen analogy is evidence, such as, thinking that because a program is designed, DNA is designed.
    That is exactly right, to my mind. The analogy works fine for understanding the gist of DNA's role inside a cell, but the only evidence for programming DNA is found in genetic recombinations, mutagenesis, and that sort of thing. There doesn't seem to be any need to posit an external to nature programmer.
  14. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    07 Jan '15 21:21
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    That's why airplanes designed by creationists have egg dispensers. 😵
    😵
  15. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    07 Jan '15 21:521 edit
    Originally posted by C Hess
    My design argument thread seems to have derailed beyond all rescue. But it derailed into a rant for a new thread, so here we go.

    I was once told that the reason I get frustrated and a tad angry everytime someone compares cellular DNA to computer programming, or complex human-built objects to living things, in an attempt to demonstrate the need for a creato ...[text shortened]... eeling we'll be talking about science, evolution, creationism and bad analogies, all over again.
    Why would it break with, "what with alleles, arbitrariness of gene order, and so on" and why would someone disagreeing with you make you angry? You get to personally caught up in your own opinion?
Back to Top