"An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source?
Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." By this authoritative definition, living systems are also recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level.
Back in the mid-1700's, David Hume successfully invalidated the "machine" analogy in biologic systems because we could only guess at what existed at the molecular level.However, the phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have finally and unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are, in fact, machines - even to the deepest, molecular level. machines, regardless of how simple, are built, created, they don't just appear by magic.
"It has only been over the past twenty years with the molecular biological revolution and with the advances in cybernetic and computer technology that Hume's criticism has been finally invalidated and the analogy between organisms and machines has at last become convincing… In every direction the biochemist gazes, as he journeys through the weird molecular labyrinth, he sees devices and appliances reminiscent of our own twentieth-century world of advanced technology." (Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 340.)
"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! (George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954.)
Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, declares:
Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)
H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK):
In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it. (H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, 138.)
That says it all.
I'm glad you finally admit that. Now, since the TOE has nothing at all to do with magic, and ID has everything to do with unprovable, magical creation events, perhaps we can now comfortably thow ID overboard per your excellent refutation of its foundations.
No, that copies and pastes just the most selectively culled bit of the literature. And shall we guess you stole the anthology without attribution?