Replies

"Where did you get that idea?"

From ID proponents.

"Intelligent design assumes God intelligently created an intelligible universe, and created intelligent beings to observe it. So, as intelligent beings do science, they find evidence of intelligent design everywhere."

Your premises do not demand your conclusion.

"Some (namely those whose voices and words you would have outlawed in public schools) happen to take it as a given, and use the disciplines of science to ascertain in more detail how God did what He did and does what He does."

That's the problem ; they take it as a given without providing any supporting data. That isn't science, that's theology.

"The fact that certain creatures have the capacity to adapt to their environment (evolution) points to intelligent design."

No, it doesn't.

"Every instance of organized matter performing specific functions points to intelligent design."

No, it doesn't.

"A fundamental difference between evolutionists and creationists is the ultimate cause of this organization of matter and the overall presence of an objective reality available to science on an intelligible basis."

This is a grammatically obtuse sentence.

"To say the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions MIGHT be best explained by intelligent design is merely an overall, tentative summary based upon deduction."

Base it on induction and we'll talk.

"Your protestations to the contrary evidence that your concern is not science, but theology and pholosophy. "

Again, grammatically obtuse.

" Otherwise you'd keep your nose to the science grindstone and keep your mouth shut."

ID isn't science, so it has nothing to do with the science grindstone.

(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