When is a duck not a duck?
Edgar Andrews in his book "Who made God?" describes how scientists agree that the DNA of living things is imprinted with informaiton in a manner reminiscent of an advanced modern language. As I understand Andrews without this organsised language written in a comprehensible way, life itself cannot exist. In his book Andrews says that in the same way that that if a monkey started to type random letters on a computer key board - it would never in a million years produce the works of Shakespeare, this advanced language could never be written by accident - it needed a designer: "I was brought up to believe the duck theorum - 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is probably ... a duck'. That is why I have problems with people who (1) admit that nature gives every evidence of being intelligently designed; (2) introduces an alternative materialistic explanation for the appearance of design; and then (3) without further discussion conclud