Biological Design Argument?

[Linusthe2nd]

This solution fails because it splits God into two parts, intrinsic non-change coupled with extrinsic change. If there is only one God, then at least one of those parts cannot be God. You either retain the unchanging non-creator as God or you have the changing creator as God.

The difficulty of reconciling change with non-change is an old one. The multitude of emanations in the Kaballah is just one example of an early attempt at a solution.

You are reifying again. If there are intrinsic and extrinsic parts of God, then we can split God into two parts with opposed properties, the intrinsic part and the extrinsic part. Each part can then be analysed separately. Any attempt at establishing an intrinsic/substantial/real part as opposed to an extrinsic/accidental/reflection part will come up against the same problem.

rossum

St. Augustine in Book 12, ch 17, para 2 of the City of God gives an answer - pretty deep though. “…For that which specially leads these men astray to refer their own circles to the straight path of truth, is, that they measure by their own human, changeable, and narrow intellect the divine mind, which is absolutely unchangeable, infinitely capacious, and without succession of thought, counting all things without number. So that saying of the apostle comes true of them, for, “comparing themselves with themselves, they do not understand.” 553 For because they do, in virtue of a new purpose, whatever new thing has occurred to them to be done (their minds being changeable), they conclude it is so with God; and thus compare, not God,-for they cannot conceive God, but think of one like themselves when they think of Him,-not God, but themselves, and not with Him, but with themselves. For our part, we dare not believe that God is affected in one way when He works, in another when He rests. Indeed, to say that He is affected at all, is an abuse of language, since it implies that there comes to be something in His nature which was not there before. For he who is affected is acted upon, and whatever is acted upon is changeable. His leisure, therefore, is no laziness, indolence, inactivity; as in His work is no labor, effort, industry. He can act while He reposes, and repose while He acts. He can begin a new work with (not a new, but) an eternal design; and what He has not made before, He does not now begin to make because He repents of His former repose. But when one speaks of His former repose and subsequent operation (and I know not how men can understand these things), this “former” and “subsequent” are applied only to the things created, which formerly did not exist, and subsequently came into existence. But in God the former purpose is not altered and obliterated by the subsequent and different purpose, but by one and the same eternal and unchangeable will He effected regarding the things He created, both that formerly, so long as they were not, they should not be, and that subsequently, when they began to be, they should come into existence. And thus, perhaps, He would show, in a very striking way, to those who have eyes for such things, how independent He is of what He makes, and how it is of His own gratuitous goodness He creates, since from eternity He dwelt without creatures in no less perfect a blessedness…”

City of God etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/AugCity.html

What he is saying is that God’s act of creation is nothing more than the actualization of His eternal will. To God it is part and parcel of His Eternal " Now, " and is thus not a change. But to our time bound intellects it appears to involve a change in the Almighty. In fact it is no change.

Linus

 

[levinas12]

First of all, to make the discussion more accessible to amateurs like myself who don’t understand at a glance words like “exoplanet,” the word simply means planets outside the Solar System. rossum, it seems incredible to me that after reading Privileged Planet you think the overwhelming body of evidence contained therein can be rendered obsolete by a mere increase in the number of discovered planets. Did you seriously think that the author’s didn’t foresee the discovery of more planets? It also seems incredible that you missed the entire argument of the book - it was much more nuanced than a traditional design argument which infers design merely from complexity and rarity of life. As I summarized in the OP, it inferred design from the unnecessary pattern of correlation between Earth’s unique suitability for life and scientific learning.

In reading your article on planet candidates, I learned about planets that are like Earth in this or that respect. This planet is about the same size of Earth. That planet is in the stellar habitable zone, like Earth is. Show me one planet that is anywhere near as ideal as Earth for life, in other words, that actually has more than a couple of these features, especially the perfect moon relationship. Truth be told, I thought the authors demonstrated quite conclusively that life would require at least all the features listed in their book, and probably many more yet undiscovered particular to Earth, including: partially liquid iron core, magnetic field, plate tectonics, proximity to sun, size of planet, a moon of just the right size, a moon with just the right proximity, the right star (I saw all kinds of planets from your article that were around red dwarfs and other seriously problematic stars), sister planets to provide bombardment shielding, the right metallicity, the right star age, the right planet age, the right planet makeup of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen, and the list goes on and on and on.

You tell the forum there is a growing list of planet candidates, and concerning some of those planets the scientists are still debating whether or not it is a gas giant. These planets are so far away, it’s hard to even clearly see their existence, let alone get near determining whether they have a fraction of these life-essential qualities. It is incredible to me that you disregard the book’s argument out of hand with such weak evidence.

This is a very nice summary of Privileged Planet. I can see you have a good grasp of the relevant issues.

This question naturally follows upon Aristotle who saw that “nous” is embedded in nature.

It’s ironic that Kant’s question has taken an unexpected “empirical” turn (but “empirical” here has nothing with British empiricism - and, in a way, moves beyond Aristotle (and Kant) by asking about the “material” conditions of possibility of “human” being and, in particular, “science”.

Again, thank you for the clarity of your posting.

 

[levinas12]

First of all, to make the discussion more accessible to amateurs like myself who don’t understand at a glance words like “exoplanet,” the word simply means planets outside the Solar System. rossum, it seems incredible to me that after reading Privileged Planet you think the overwhelming body of evidence contained therein can be rendered obsolete by a mere increase in the number of discovered planets. Did you seriously think that the author’s didn’t foresee the discovery of more planets? It also seems incredible that you missed the entire argument of the book - it was much more nuanced than a traditional design argument which infers design merely from complexity and rarity of life. As I summarized in the OP, it inferred design from the unnecessary pattern of correlation between Earth’s unique suitability for life and scientific learning.

In reading your article on planet candidates, I learned about planets that are like Earth in this or that respect. This planet is about the same size of Earth. That planet is in the stellar habitable zone, like Earth is. Show me one planet that is anywhere near as ideal as Earth for life, in other words, that actually has more than a couple of these features, especially the perfect moon relationship. Truth be told, I thought the authors demonstrated quite conclusively that life would require at least all the features listed in their book, and probably many more yet undiscovered particular to Earth, including: partially liquid iron core, magnetic field, plate tectonics, proximity to sun, size of planet, a moon of just the right size, a moon with just the right proximity, the right star (I saw all kinds of planets from your article that were around red dwarfs and other seriously problematic stars), sister planets to provide bombardment shielding, the right metallicity, the right star age, the right planet age, the right planet makeup of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen, and the list goes on and on and on.

You tell the forum there is a growing list of planet candidates, and concerning some of those planets the scientists are still debating whether or not it is a gas giant. These planets are so far away, it’s hard to even clearly see their existence, let alone get near determining whether they have a fraction of these life-essential qualities. It is incredible to me that you disregard the book’s argument out of hand with such weak evidence.

This is a very nice summary of Privileged Planet. I can see you have a good grasp of the relevant issues. Kant’s question about the conditions of possibility of “human” being is alive and well – but today it’s taken quite an unexpected “empirical” turn ( “empirical” here has nothing to do with British empiricism - it’s much closer to what Aristotle meant by the “nous” embedded in nature).

Again, thank you for the clarity of your posting.

 

[levinas12]

I should add that Kant’s question is about the conditions of possibility for Newtonian science in the wake of Hume’s devastating “empiricism” of impressions. Kant had to step back from the “empirical” into the “transcendental” in order to shore up the “scientificity” of Newton’s physics.

Privileged Planet moves on the plane of the “empirical” but still asks about conditions of possibility (in this case, the “material” conditions of possibilities for life on the planet earth). The book extends this mode of questioning to “science” itself. For example, it’s hard to imagine how astronomy would be possible on a planet constantly shrouded in heavy clouds.

What’s intriguing here is the “materiality” of the conditions of possibility (as opposed to the “transcendental” conditions put forward by Kant).

Again, this does not assume an intelligent designer. Nor does it assume that this planet is unique. Whether by chance or designer, this planet is still mindblowing in its “parameters”.

I think Aristotle felt this same “wonder” when he saw functionality in nature (and Darwin felt it too).

 

[rossum]

But here I am speaking of the eternal life of salvation. The condition of the soul in this condition will certainly include many of the elements of " nirvana, " but infinitely more.

The Christian heaven, as generally described, would be eternal suffering for a Buddhist and very very different to nirvana.

You are in a five star hotel, with all the luxuries and amenities you could ever think of. In the next room your partner and children, whom you love dearly, are being tortured. You can hear them screaming and there is live TV feed of their suffering. Are you happy? Would you like this situation to carry on for ever?

Jesus said, “Love your neighbour as yourself.” The Buddha said, “Love others as you love yourself.” All good Christians and good Buddhists love their neighbours. That means loving everyone, even those people in hell. You cannot be with them, because you are in heaven. They are suffering and you know it. Heaven sounds like hell, and an eternal heaven would be an eternal hell.

Buddhism has temporary heavens and temporary hells. All living things will reach nirvana eventually; some sooner than others but in the end all will make it. The worst that can happen is to be one of the last to attain nirvana.

Do not make the error of assuming the Buddhist approach to things is the same as the Christian approach.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Buddhists don’t have the monopoly of meditation!

It follows that Buddhism is not the sole way to attain happiness and fulfilment.

The serenity, joy and fulfilment that come from a virtuous life are powerful evidence for Design because they are not accidental features of existence…

So, your designer is incapable of designing something that looks accidental? Obviously not an omnipotent designer then.

Accidental features of existence do not imply that nothing is Designed. It is not a question of all or nothing: there is an element of Chance within the framework of Design…

Even Dr Dembski acknowledges that a designer can fool people into believing that something is accidental when it is actually designed. Is a Jackson Pollock painting designed or accidental?

There is no reason to believe everything is accidental. Is logic a matter of deception?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Is a Jackson Pollock painting designed or accidental?

It’s awful.

 

[edwest2]

The Ten Happiest Jobs

1. Clergy

Thank you,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It’s awful.

Jackson Pollock? Yech. Double yech.

Ed

 

[ngill09]

It’s awful.

I’m not big on that kind of art, but I Pollock’s paintings are extremely mathematically interesting. Google “Pollock and fractals” for more.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m not big on that kind of art, but I Pollock’s paintings are extremely mathematically interesting. Google “Pollock and fractals” for more.

physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/01/facts-on-pollocks-fractals.html

blouinartinfo.com/news/story/24851/method-for-evaluating-pollocks-is-bunk-researchers-say

From the last article:

However, Katherine Jones-Smith, a doctoral student at Case Western Reserve University, states in the Nature article that Taylor’s method is flawed. While researching his theories, she found that simple, childlike drawings made using Adobe Photoshop exhibited the same fractal characteristics that Taylor said were in Pollock masterpieces.

I stand by my original statement.

 

[rossum]

It follows that Buddhism is not the sole way to attain happiness and fulfilment.

Correct. Non-Buddhists can attain nirvana; a pratyekabuddha (lone Buddha) is someone who discovers the path to nirvana for himself and attains nirvana for himself alone.

Most religions contain some of the path. Buddhism has the map to the quickest and easiest path.

Accidental features of existence do not imply that nothing is Designed.

However they do imply that not everything is designed – if they were designed then they wouldn’t be accidental. Since the Christian God is said to have designed the entire universe, then the existence of any accidental feature at all invalidates the Christian version of design.

It is not a question of all or nothing: there is an element of Chance within the framework of Design.

I have no problem with design, humans do it a lot of the time. I do have a problem with design when there is no evidence for a designer and no properly tested method of detecting design.

While Dr Dembski and others have proposed various methods of detecting design, no double blind tests have been run on their methods. Unless and until their proposed methods have been properly tested then I remain sceptical of the results. As an example, Professor Behe’s initial proposal of Irreducible Complexity turned out to be flawed, and Behe had to change it. His new version has yet to be tested.

rossum

 

[Semangelof]

I couldn’t get through it all, I saw it would be pointless in a few pages. So I mean all this generally, and not to any individuals.

Maybe I am not intelligent enough to understand these types of arguments but It seems to me that to prove a point by means of a fatal destruction of common sense is pointless.

There are plenty of people who do that naturally, they live locked up in rubber rooms. When we get to the point where nothing can be known, no system can be determined we far surpass useful debate.

At the very least I think these debates should be limited against hippocracy. If you cannot function as a free member of society by the same means one purports then it shouldn’t enter into debate. Either that or we should release the mad people we have locked up and make them teachers.

I think it’s far more important to live another day by means of eating food instead of rocks and not walking in front of traffic because you can’t determine what a car is than knowing that you know that you know that you know that you know…

If this is wisdom I’ll choose ignorance. At least I can live another day in it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Which is one of the major problems with design. How do we see if something cannot have been designed? If there is nothing which cannot have been designed, then design is rendered moot. Point your design detector at anything, and the green light glows. Bird? Designed. Grass? Designed. Rock? Designed. Star? Designed. Galaxy? Designed.

What can we point our design detector at to make the red light glow?

If everything is designed, then design is not a useful concept. At the very least we need something not designed in order to test that our design detector is working correctly.

rossum

Rossum, to say, " If everything is designed, then design is not a useful concept, " is the poorist logic I’ve ever heard. It proves that their must be a " designer. " And, whether or not evolution of any type is a fact, ultimately this requires an Absolute Designer, who is absolutely other than and transcendent to the " design " he put into his creation. It demands the existence of a First Cause Christians call God. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If a mirage does not contain water, why does a mirage appear to contain water?

Our senses are not completely reliable; they can be fooled and give us false impressions. Appearances can deceive.

rossum

If that is true why do you get up in the morning? You trust your judgment about the world you live in enough to get married, to send your kids to school, to plan for your retirement, to get and education. Your actions in your dayly life prove you do not really believe what you just said.

Obviously we can be wrong about some thinfs to a certain degree, that doesn’t mean we can’t know the truth about our world and what it all means. Linus2nd

 

[rossum]

Rossum, to say, " If everything is designed, then design is not a useful concept, " is the poorist logic I’ve ever heard.

Everything in the material universe is Oduronit. Hence we can deduce that there must be an Oduroniter. What properties of the Oduroniter can you describe to me? How does the existence of the Oduroniter affect science or how we interact with the universe?

What use is the concept of Oduronit?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

It follows that Buddhism is not the sole way to attain happiness and fulfilment.

Can you explain why nirvana and the way to attain nirvana exist?

Accidental features of existence do not imply that nothing is Designed.

However they do imply that not everything is designed – if they were designed then they wouldn’t be accidental. Since the Christian God is said to have designed the entire universe, then the existence of any accidental feature at all invalidates the Christian version of design.

Can you explain how it is possible for no person or animal ever to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - as when they are killed by an earthquake?

Do you believe the universe could exist without any accidents?

It is not a question of all or nothing: there is an element of Chance within the framework of Design.

I have no problem with design, humans do it a lot of the time. I do have a problem with design when there is no evidence for a designer and no properly tested method of detecting design.

While Dr Dembski and others have proposed various methods of detecting design, no double blind tests have been run on their methods. Unless and until their proposed methods have been properly tested then I remain sceptical of the results. As an example, Professor Behe’s initial proposal of Irreducible Complexity turned out to be flawed, and Behe had to change it. His new version has yet to be tested.

You don’t believe it is possible to recognise messages or artefacts produced by intelligent beings?

 

[rossum]

If that is true why do you get up in the morning?

Because my senses give me a useful approximation of the real world. A mirage is an example of a situation where the useful approximation fails – it is only an approximation after all.

We need to beware of making the mistake of believing that the approximate model we build in our heads is an exact reflection of the real world. The water in a mirage does not exist in the external world, but it does exist inside our heads. Our internal models are approximate, not exact.

Relevant to this discussion, our approximate models of the world are designed – designed by ourselves. It is a common error to say, “That looks designed”, when what is designed is not the external object but our internal model. The appearance of design has as much reality as the appearance of water in a mirage. Both are part of our internal model, not part of reality.

That is why I lay emphasis on an objective, tested, method of determining design. Our own senses are insufficient because this is one of the cases where the inevitable approximation can lead to error.

Obviously we can be wrong about some thin[g]s to a certain degree, that doesn’t mean we can’t know the truth about our world and what it all means.

But it does mean that we have to cross-check what we get from our senses with other data that is found in other ways. So far the proponents of Intelligent Design have been very remiss about cross-checking their assertions against independent data.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You don’t believe it is possible to recognise messages or artefacts produced by intelligent beings?

There are four possible cases here:

     Message?   Detection?
     --------   ----------
A:     Yes        Yes

B:     Yes        No

C:     No         Yes

D:     No         No

In some cases, A, it is likely to be possible. In other cases, B, it may well be impossible because those other beings are so different to us. In a third group of cases, C, we may get a false positive and think that there is a message or artefact when in fact there is no such message or artefact.

My major concern with design detection is the case of false positives, case C above. I am not aware of any testing of any design detection methodology currently proposed by the Discovery Institute or similar.

It is trivially easy to generate long sequences of designed DNA and equally long sequences of true random DNA. Why haven’t the Discovery Institute generated such sequences and tested their design detection methods? Showing that their methods had been tested, and had passed the tests, would go a long way to dampening scepticism about the DI’s claims.

rossum

 

[nmgauss]

How can Brownian motion and electron movement within the atom fit in with the Designed Intelligence position?