اقتباس:
Yes, I started to avoid this word, because I really didn't want confusion here. To us many things can serve as something they were not designed for. Even things which were man-made, I can treat my TV as a bookshelf. It is possible for me to do it. But that doesn't mean TVs are meant to be bookshelves. I can treat a cave as a house, even though, it wasn't meant to be one. If I give it such a role/meaning, it is totally subjective.
We call natural things sources of information, but we don't mean they were designed to hold any.
From what we know objectively, information appears only when something is studied and then conclusions are made.
Unless this is a human product. But even then, some objects, like a chair, do not hold information. You may analyze them and draw conclusions which will become information, but that is completely different.
Well I did not claim that ANY object will hold information. That is obvious. But we know from our experience what type of things will hold information like books for example. I talked earlier about the common features of languages which are pattern and purpose (output). If we found something in nature that resembles the work of human designers then we are justified to infer that it was designed. Even if we do not know where it comes from and how it happened. Notice that I am talking about DNA only here. Not any random phenomenon will contain the same pattern as found in DNA. Scientists as well talked about DNA resembling information or a library. Even it was a metaphor, these metaphors was meant to describe how DNA is similar to the information storage systems .The scientists did not describe any other phenomena as it was described for DNA. So we have unique case here. DNA is not just some random natural phenomena that scientists described being information arbitrarily. We never heard scientists say that thunders contain pattern of signals and therefore it metaphorically an information storage systems. So here we can see why we are justified to infer that this pattern of chemicals resembles a pattern found in languages created by human being. And therefore, we can infer that it was designed.
اقتباس:
And I don't believe natural objects which appear in patterns are enough to say they are composed as some sort of a language or information, because that would require thinking, intention and message.
Well that's your belief. If your belief tells you that all explanations must be naturalistic, than that is another issue. You are free to believe whatever you want. There is always a POSSIBILITY that not all studied process/systems must have naturalistic explanations. Yea information would require thinking, intention and message. And the designer of DNA is capable of doing that and encoding this information into a pattern of chemicals.