Atheists, is there a language that does not come from a mind?

Question

Our DNA and the DNA of all other living organisms is in the form of a code or language, is it not? Do languages spontaneously develop, or do they always have intent and an idea to communicate from some source behind them?

To understand the entire question and its complexity, please see

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

This in not religious spam, it a scientific look at information systems theory as relates to pattern vs. design in language. It is a lot to read, so I broke it down in my question, but it is well worth reading for anyone interested in evolution, from any viewpoint.

Please, I'm not looking for dogmatic answers of any persuasion, but a thoughtful response to a challenging question.

jon- I was assuming no such thing. I was just looking for a refutation of Marshall's argument if one exists, from those most equiped to deal with the subject matter. There's no need for personal insults.

Thi question is also posted to the R&S section for those interested in reading more comments.

Answer 1

I suppose it depends how you interpret the code, or put differently, whether its a code or not. For example, you could say god designed the water molecule polar on purpose, that way he knew the negatives would line up with positives on freezing, decreasing its density and ultimately preventing the death of all sea life during ice ages. But you could also view it from lifes point of view, for if this was not a property of water, life would cease to exist anyway. Is this a code? You could say this is one of the simplest languages ever. This "language" definitely occured spontaneously in the formation of water molecules, such a language does seem to have intentions, but another way to look at it is that this is a fundamental property of the universe anyway, and so occured by chance. Perhaps if this were not a physical property of magnetism, life wouldn't have occured. And this is where i feel an important distinction should be made, the language of the universe and the language created by creations of the universe that are not fundamental necessitive properties of existence. Basically we're all governed by a language are we not? Whether something has intention is to be decided by the interpreter, so your question ultimately goes back to whether god created language or is this a fundamental property of a spontaneous (and feasible) universe anyway. When you factor in evolution, such a language is able to be created, and this is WITH intent. But did the fundamental properties of the universe (also a language as explained above) occur spontaneously? or was it that it had to happen anyway because of its design? No-one knows, and you can't prove either of them.

Sorry i should have added, the way quantum mechanics is developing there doesn't seem to be any room or need for a creator. But noone can disprove god i guess
Very nice question by the way

Answer 2

Here is the "proof" (argument, that is) that is presented by your linked source:
(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.
(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the existence of a Superintelligence.

The second premise is false. There is no evidence that animal languages are designed . . . they evolve to enhance survival and increase reproductive success of organisms that use them. Humans are able to design their own languages, if only computer languages. Although I'm no linguist, I'd say that the rest come about through gradual changes over time (eg, Germanic, Arabic, and Romantic languages) and probably not through any sudden, major, or intentional modification. That says nothing of the design or evolution of other languages in the animal kingdom.

Therefore the argument does not prove (or even strongly suggest) that God exists. That is an interesting question. It is a little philosophical for the Biology section, but I guess that's where you're most likely to find well-adjusted and knowledgeable atheists. Good night!

Answer 3

Genetic codes are not a language in the sense that open content languages like English or Arabic are languages. There is no valid parallel between genetic codes, which are part of the tendency of living things to elaborate spontaneously, and human languages which are on orders of magnitude higher planes.

In any case, there is no evidence to indicate that human languages are designed. They evolve through use.

Answer 4

the thing is, biology is not "proven" by philosophy.

it has meaning, we only know meaning due to a creator, therefore it must be true.

its just another try at the ontological argument. St. Anselm tried it, as did Descrates, Spinoza, Hume etc.

It still has no place in Biology.

good luck!

Answer 5

First, you insult many biologists in assuming they are all atheist. Then you give us a web site full of unsupported assertion, non-sequiturs and fallacious arguments. Then you are not looking for dogmatic answers!!
I suggest you return your enfeebled intellect with it's extreme bias to religion and spirituality; where you belong.

No need for personal insults? Then why did you bring one? We have an evolutionary biologist here, who just happens to be Catholic. I would suggest that calling him an atheist might be considered an insult. Obviously, you are too thick to see that.
Aside from that, anonymous totally destroyed your assertions. I think you may be too thick to see that, also.