Mr Mapou,

As a result, if DNA is a meaningful code, it could only exist if it was devised by an intelligent coder.

No, it could be the outcome of an evolutionary competition between coevolutionary teams. Teams that understand each other better outcompete teams with less workable code.

Well, it seems that what we have here is a little self-referential nightmare. DNA is necessary for the evolution of life and yet it cannot come to existence unless it evolves. Something is fishy in this picture.

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. The “status quo” claims that these cell structures, and the information they represent, was generated by natural law and chance.

Not only has this never been demonbstrated; it has never been shown to be remotely possible. It is assumed via ideology to be the case. If we challenge the “status quo” to produce their proof, it is incumbent upon them to produce it.

It is not the job of the challenger to “disprove” an assumption for which no evidence or proof is offered. Claiming some right of “status quo” to be absolved of supporting one’s own claims is religioous fanaticism, not proper science.

And yes, by continuing to clamor for the “status quo” scientific community to support thier assertions, and their failing to do so, and their failing to meet the argument but instead choosing to hide from the challenge through policy and law is a method of “gaining traction”, because while close-minded funda-materialists will never change their view, those with less calcified vision will see the problems revealed by such refusal and misdirection.

So, by all means, keep insisting that the “status quo” is not required to support its assertions.

How could our current and temporary state of ignorance be the context to understand that anything is ‘necessarily’ the case?

A question much more to the point would be

“So is the process of gene expression necessarily created by intelligence, given that we don’t understand RNA and DNA and gene expression?”

We observe no set up system where non intelligence codes and decodes.

Obviously, coding and decoding information requires intelligence.

So the process of gene expression is intelligent?

“No, it could be the outcome of an evolutionary competition between coevolutionary teams. Teams that understand each other better outcompete teams with less workable code.”

As a result, if DNA is a meaningful code, it could only exist if it was devised by an intelligent coder.

No, it could be the outcome of an evolutionary competition between coevolutionary teams. Teams that understand each other better outcompete teams with less workable code.

R0b, you said: “But pragmatically, the onus is on the side that seeks to change the status quo.”

This is how the scientific establishment would have it

Whether or not the scientific establishment would have it that way, and whether or not it’s fair, that’s how it is. If you don’t believe me, just keep assigning the burden to the scientific community, and see if ID ever gains any traction.