Response to a review of Meyer's "Signature in the Cell"

I believe I've encountered the fellow who sent in those objections (to Meyer's book), on a debate forum a while ago. It all sounds so familiar - same references, same "life in a test tube" claims, same ad homs, same disdain,...

I enjoyed your well reasoned responses but noticed you seem to be tiring near the end.
And I can't blame you! These types can be long winded (mostly hot air) and very tiring in their persistent claims to lab 'proof'-that doesn't exist.

In my experience debating Darwinists, I always end up finding Hoyle's comments on the Darwinian mindset as being "mentally ill" to be true. (Math of Evolution)

I often try to communicate the fact that DNA, being the "genetic code", has powerful implications for a necessary intelligent origin. The word "code", by definition, implies intelligence.
Code, as a suite of symbols designed for communicating and transforming information, cannot arise without purpose, convention and thus mind.

Nature has no symbols. It simply is what it is. Symbols are purely conceptual, a mind concept. DNA, as a vast complex of coded information with purpose, thus required a mind.
There is no such thing as coded information without an intelligent origin. As semiotics is the study of sign processes (semiosis), or signification and communication, biosemiotics deals with this very aspect of biological information!
The very idea of "symbology without mind" is an oxymoron.

Most Darwinists I've dealt with though, never get this even though its as obvious as "thought requires mind"!

Anyway, thanks