The genetic code is a language (Talk.Origins)

Response ArticleThis article (The genetic code is a language (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Index

Claim CB180:

The genetic code is a language in the normal sense of the term, since it assigns meaning to arbitrary symbols. Language is obviously a non-material category of reality; the symbolic information is distinct from matter and energy. Therefore, life is a manifestation of non-material reality.

Source:

• Baumgardner, John, 1995. Six problems with evolution: a response to Graham Mark. The Los Alamos Monitor, 31 Mar.
• Baumgardner, John, 2001. Highlights of the Los Alamos origins debate.

CreationWiki response:

• As worded the claim does not accurately represent the content of either source article.
  • Nowhere does Baumgardner call the genetic code a language; that would be the like calling an alphabet a language. He does however discuss the genetic language itself.
  • Nowhere does Baumgardner say that the meaning of the genetic language is totally arbitrary, as indicated by the claim.
  • Nowhere does Baumgardner say that language is non-material in nature, but rather he refers to the non-material nature of information. Furthermore he only uses it to infer that a non-material reality could exist and that only as a passing thought.
• What the genetic code (or cipher as claimed by Talk Origins) is, is a highly sophisticated information storage system.
  • Any information storage system must encode some form of language, even if it does not possess all of the attributes associated with human language.
  • The fact that the meanings in the genetic code are interdependent is part of its being an exceptionally dense information storage system. This actually adds a level of complexity that actually makes things worse for Evolutionary theory, since a code of totally random symbols is far more probable than one of interdependent meanings.