Jason in Denver got me thinking about ways to get design-adherents (the honest ones, not the zealots) to at least think outside their boxes.
Like many of these claimants, Jason cited "all scientists" for their belief that "DNA is a code." He then falsely equates "[genetic] code & information" with "[intelligent, purposeful] code & information."
And as usual, the typical counterarguments were raised, pointing out the circularity, the equivocation fallacy, etc. No effect.
It's clear that the believers who come across or even come up with this argument stop thinking about it way too soon. So enamored are they that they refuse to see any faults or look for any weaknesses.
That's probably why Jason kept repeating himself and apparently missing, completely, your counterarguments. He couldn't see them, because in his mind the argument was airtight (because it was pleasing, not because it was logical).
So I got to wondering: would an argument from authority carry some weight?
Clearly, one of the more pleasing elements about this claim is the fact that virtually all scientists use the terms "genetic code" and "genetic information." And it is indeed largely true.
So what if we counter with: "so why aren't all scientists theistic?
"The vast VAST majority of them are atheists, WAY more than the population at large.
"So if these people, who ALL use those terms, aren't believers, don't you think YOU must be missing something?
"Do you HONESTLY think you've thought of something that 95% of the scientists have somehow missed?
"How is that possible when we have all these canned counterarguments ready before you even complete your first sentence?"
I've never used it so I can't say, but I thought it might "open a door" that standard arguments seem never to open. It "affixes" itself onto an element of their own argument, an element that appeals to them and therefore might be likely to make them actually think twice. Maybe.
P.S. - my thinking on this is along the lines of my still-untried counter to Paley's Watch: I suggested interrupting them at the start and ask, "Why a desert/forest/field? Isn't it because you're assuming that the desert/forest/field is NATURAL and NON-DESIGNED? Versus the watch which you assume IS designed? Gee, I hope you're not going to claim that these two things, which you've placed in CONTRAST with one another, are somehow the SAME."