The Argument from DNA is very rarely presented in its syllogistic form… rather, it’s just asserted – in one way or another, its proponents simply claim that language is always a product of a mind, and that since DNA is a language, it too must be a product of a mind – and that mind is, wouldn’t you know, the super specific god of they just so happen to believe in – amazing right?
But if it was put into a syllogistic form, it would go as follows:
• Language is a product of a mind.
• DNA is a language.
• Therefore, DNA is a product of a mind.
Now before we proceed, I want to stress that within this video I expose and explain several flaws and fallacies within the Argument from DNA in detail, but for a brief summary (extremely brief), here’s a shorter version.
1. Doesn’t Support a Specific Religion:
So, to get straight to it, even if this argument was valid, it would not logically follow that a specific god or group of gods exist. Nor would it logically follow that whatever created DNA still exists, that it is / was benevolent, or that it also created the universe. Seriously, all it would prove is that DNA had an author or authors, and that’s it… it isn’t an argument for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or indeed any religion, and hence, in the words Hitchens, “[Even] if you’ve established deism, you’ve got all your work still ahead of you to be a theist.”
2. Equivocation Fallacy:
With that point made, I’ll now explain why the argument isn’t valid, and I’ll start by completely and utterly crushing it with one swift sentence: the assertion that DNA is a language is an Equivocation Fallacy, because its proponents switch between two different definitions of the word ‘language’ throughout their premises, and thus, their argument is incoherent and therefore invalid.
To put this as simply as possible, during premise one and three, they are using a communicational definition of the word ‘language’, which is, “A method of communication, in which intended information is conveyed from one entity or group to another, through the use of mutually understood signs and semiotic rules”, but during premise two, they are using a programming definition of the word ‘language’, which is, “A set of rules that instruct elements on how to function and behave”.
3. Personal Incredulity Fallacy:
To keep it brief (see the video for more detail), the vast majority of proponents of this argument also commit a Personal Incredulity Fallacy. They do this because they don’t personally understand or accept Natural Selection, or appreciate that it’s supported by copious amounts of evidence from multiple branches of science, and so, quite literally, they just dismiss it and assert that it isn’t supported at all.
Interview:
https://youtu.be/P2leoi54i4s
No comments:
Post a Comment