[Conservative Texan Mom]

(Base it on induction and we'll talk.)


Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.

My attempt at inductive reasoning

The genetic code is similar to a language in the following ways.

Languages have alphabets. The genetic code has the equivalent in a chemical alphabet made from five chemicals, Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C), Thymine (T)DNA and uracil (U)RNA.

Languages have spelling. The genetic code uses it's alphabet in combination of three to make "code" words, an equivalent of spelling.

Languages have grammar. The genetic code has a one signal for start, and three code words to act as stop signals, the equivalent of grammar

Languages have meaning, and intended purpose. The genetic code is a set of instruction specific to the life it belongs to. It's intended purpose is the building, repairing, and maintaining that life.

All known forms of high level language (containing alphabet, spelling, grammar, meaning, and intended purpose) have been inventions from an intelligent source. Since the genetic code meets this same criteria, it must have been an invention of an intelligent source.


http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/BioInfo/GP/GeneticCode.html
http://exobio.ucsd.edu/Space_Sciences/genetic_code.htm
http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/geneticcode.html

[Fester Chugabrew]

Good post!

Intelligent design fits objective reality handily from both an inductive and deductive standpoint. It takes a philosophy of some kind to explain it away. Let an evolutionist fill in the blank: "The presence of organized matter performing specific functions is best explained by . . ."

They do not have an answer. They pretend such an answer resides outside the realm of science altogether. To a degree it resides outside the realm of absolute certitude in this life. So do many other things science contends with. Science does not even know how many rubber bands are manually discarded each year. I hardly think it capable of reconstructing genetic history on the basis of morphological similarities.

Besides, it stands to reason that common ancestry could easily be mistaken by science for a common Creator.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it."

Science at it's core is based on inductive reasoning. Pure deduction, like Descartes advocated, may give you logically true statements, but these statements will have no relation to reality unless the premises are checked against the real world. My point was that all of the deduction in the world won't help you without some real life observations to back it up. That's why Descartes, as brilliant as he was, often made the simplest of errors in his deductions because he didn't think it was necessary to actually observe the world.

Math can be purely deductive. Science absolutely needs induction (though obviously deductive reasoning is useful too).