The Atheist's Riddle... Oh no, I'm so scared!

I came across this Atheist's Riddle thing. Has anybody else seen this? The website can be found here, but I'll summarise the argument below.

The guy posted this on an internet chat board:

Gentlemen:

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

So what's the deal with this thing? Well, first I'd like to point out that this is yet another religious hand-waving argument, with no physical evidence to support it. It is philosophical, an argument vastly limited by the imagination of the arguer. He also attempts to put the burden of proof on us to prove him wrong, by demanding that WE provide something to discredit him, as opposed to him producing some evidence to back-up his hand-waving.

The next thing that strikes me is that this guy really likes his semantics (which is funny, because he doesn't seem to realise or care that this thing he calls a riddle, is in fact, not a riddle). He seems determined to define DNA as a 'code'. That's fine, he can call it whatever he wants. It doesn't make a difference. The reason that it doesn't make a difference is because in the next point of his proof, he asserts that no natural process can make a code. So whatever he wants to call DNA, it doesn't matter. He can call DNA a 'fhjggjksdvbdf' if he wants, because the next step is to assert that all fhjggjksdvbdfs are made by minds.

So what has he done in the first two steps? Define DNA in any way that he likes, then assert that all of those are created by minds. He has constructed his proof by assuming it to be true, by immediately dismissing the possibility that this code, or whatever he wants to call DNA, could have been created naturally. Therefore, we are not allowed to merely say, "DNA is an example of a code created by nature, you fucktard!" He hasn't allowed it, expecting us to disprove his claims (even though it isn't up to us to disprove it) without allowing us to use DNA itself as an example. It doesn't matter if there aren't other examples of codes created by nature. We only need one.

I guess one way to handle it is to just say, "DNA and RNA", and move along.

Another way is to not allow the second step to go unproven and unchallenged. Tell him that you want to use DNA as your example. Ask the believer to prove that nature can't create a code; that nature couldn't have created DNA. After all, it's an axiom of the believer's proof, so it should be able to be backed up. Because the whole proof relies on this step, the proof will collapse if the step itself has to be proven. He will not be able to do it, try as he might with more hand-waving and some fast-talking/typing. Don't back down! Make him PROVE that nature can't (not that it DIDN'T, but that it CAN'T) create a code. He will no doubt reply that YOU can't prove that nature CAN create a code, but you don't have to. You were not the one trying to advance a proof that nature created DNA, the sheep was trying to advance a proof that a god created it. Neither one of you can do it, therefore he has failed in his task. You're at a stalemate, where neither one can prove his belief about the origin of DNA. The existence of a god requires an extraordinary explanation, so the natural origin will be more likely by Occam's Razor, but you don't even need to go that far. Just be happy that this fool can't prove his case.

Wow, what a great proof! Perry, are you at all surprised that this grand proof has not been accepted by the scientific community or the world's great thinkers? You do nothing but define things in terms you want, then assert that your proof is true! Then you challenge us to disprove it! You're just another in a long, long line of arrogant, fast-talking hand-wavers without a single shred of evidence. You'd think evidence would be pretty easy to come by if this god thing existed, like you claim. Get bent!

No, wait! Before you get bent, answer this. I call it the Theist's Riddle.

1. Your god is a supernatural being; it is a spirit, with absolutely no evidence to support its existence, and a bigger problem of how it itself got created if it does indeed exist.

2. All supernatural beings are created by, and exist only in, human imaginations; there is no natural or supernatural process known to science which can create them or a place for them to exist.

3. Therefore your god was created by, and exists only in, human imaginations.

If you can provide an empirical example of a supernatural being which exists outside of the human imagination (and can prove it), you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

This is so much fun! Here's another one:

1. Humans are a form of life.

2. All life evolved naturally; there is no process known to science by which a god could create life.

3. Therefore, humans evolved naturally.

If you can provide an empirical example of a form of life that was created by a process of a god (and can prove it), you've toppled my proof. All you need is one. (It would also be nice if you'd describe the process used. We're curious.)

Now, prove me wrong! Loser.

(Edit: for a little bit more on this topic, check out my post about scientific proof vs. "religious proof")

(Another edit: for a follow-up on the Atheist's Riddle, please check this post.)