Biological Design Argument?

[Linusthe2nd]

No, keeping something constantly in existence is not the same as intervening or interfering as an agent, as one force among others. God does not sustain the world ‘by design’, but by metaphysical necessity (He is the source of all being). So, no, I never made the assertion that ‘by God’s design God interferes with the world constantly’.

But that is the point Al, God operates innermostly in every movement and change taking place in the universe at this moment, whether we consider the processes taking place as evolutionary processes or not. He operates every moment as the First cause of change and motion, the sustainer of the existence of things, and the final cause ordering all actions and processes.

Intelligent Design is nothing but the unfolding of God’s government of the universe he created and his providential care in its regard. This is seen in paragraphs 302 - 308 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It can be summarized by the quote from Vatican 1 found in paragraph 302 : " By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures. "

If you have a copy of the Catholic Catechism by the Servant of God, Fr. John Hardon, read the chapter on creation. Very enlightening in this regard.

So Intelligent Design is nothing but God’s intimate government and providence in nature, guiding all things to the completion of their proper ends. Evolution in no way excludes Intelligent Design but requires it.

God’s intimite guidance of his creation applies to every bit of it, including biological systems. God’s government and provident governance is universal. Linus2nd

 

[edwest2]

To the OP. I recommend the book: Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson. From the back cover: “Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

I said:
**
In other words, his hand is evident in the process at all times, since He designed it.**

You say this is circular reasoning. It is not. We look from effect to cause in everything.

If you painted a picture (effect), it would (I hope) show evidence of design (cause), and it would show that your hand was at all times evident in the process of painting the picture. I would not attribute the picture on the canvas to some accident of paint splashed over the canvas.

By the same token, when you see an intelligently designed universe, one that works according to immensely complex laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that the human mind still cannot fathom completely, you may infer not only intelligent design, but a hand that was involved in the intelligent design at all times from the moment of creation on.

 

[Bradski]

I said:**
In other words, his hand is evident in the process at all times, since He designed it.**

You say this is circular reasoning. It is not.

Let’s look at another example. A painting if you like, as you brought up that example. It may be by Matisse. You say:

“His hand is evident in the painting since he painted it”.

Do you not see that you haven’t brought anything to the table except the fact that you believed he painted it?

Yes, I know you could, and probably would, say that there are specific aspects of the painting that probably point it to be a Matisse, but that’s not actually what you said. I commented on what you said, as you have quoted it above, and, taken as it stands, it is an example of circular reasoning. You have already decided that the painter was Matisse and so you then (obviously) see handiwork that points to Matisse.

And I used this to give the lie to ID, which does the same thing that your comment, in isolation, does. They haven’t gone looking at a painting to decide who may have painted it. Because they have already decided that they know, beyond any shadow of doubt that it is by Matisse. So what other conclusions can they possibly come to when they look for evidence?

 

[Ion]

Let’s look at another example. A painting if you like, as you brought up that example. It may be by Matisse. You say:

“His hand is evident in the painting since he painted it”.

Do you not see that you haven’t brought anything to the table except the fact that you believed he painted it?

Yes, I know you could, and probably would, say that there are specific aspects of the painting that probably point it to be a Matisse, but that’s not actually what you said. I commented on what you said, as you have quoted it above, and, taken as it stands, it is an example of circular reasoning. You have already decided that the painter was Matisse and so you then (obviously) see handiwork that points to Matisse.

And I used this to give the lie to ID, which does the same thing that your comment, in isolation, does. They haven’t gone looking at a painting to decide who may have painted it. Because they have already decided that they know, beyond any shadow of doubt that it is by Matisse. So what other conclusions can they possibly come to when they look for evidence?

Come on man, you know there is only one painter…
From the hand back to head it is called feedback, and not circular reasoning.

 

[Al_Moritz]

But that is the point Al, God operates innermostly in every movement and change taking place in the universe at this moment, whether we consider the processes taking place as evolutionary processes or not. He operates every moment as the First cause of change and motion, the sustainer of the existence of things, and the final cause ordering all actions and processes.

…]

So Intelligent Design is nothing but God’s intimate government and providence in nature, guiding all things to the completion of their proper ends. Evolution in no way excludes Intelligent Design but requires it.

God’s intimite guidance of his creation applies to every bit of it, including biological systems. God’s government and provident governance is universal. Linus2nd

Of course I agree with you. We are dealing here with a simple confusion of terminology. The term Intelligent Design mostly is used to refer to biological so-called Intelligent Design, that deals with things like so-called Irreducible Complexity and God’s intervention in such processes as ‘handiman’ or as ‘sculpting artisan’, as just one force in nature among others. It is that concept that I reject. This doesn’t exclude miracles and the like of course, but as I prefer to put it, I believe in a God who performs miracles when he wants to, not when He has to. That to me is a much greater concept of God.

But in the sense that evolution and all processes in the universe are designed, or ‘intelligently designed’ if you will, because the laws of nature are designed by God and sustained at every moment, we are completely on the same page. Rest assured

And yes, God interferes in the world as agent at will, but I believe that, while He does interfere in physical processes from time to time (e.g. in physically manifest miracles which include the resurrection of Christ of course), He mostly interferes in the spiritual domain, which includes the human immaterial soul.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And of course, the Holy Eucharist is the greatest, constantly repeated miracle at all times since Jesus Christ installed it.

 

[Sair]

We design a hammer for the purpose of hitting something. Nature designs wood and steel so that we can design a hammer. Nature designs an ocean so that we can design ships. Nature designs air so that we can design airplanes. Nature designs earth so that we can design cars and trains. Nature designs brains so that we can figure out all the things Nature has designed!

If everything was not designed, why does everything appear to be designed?

Even the Big Bang appears designed to contain the seeds (elements) of who we are today.

The only problem is, all of this assumes that Nature is an entity with intention and foresight. How would you demonstrate that such is the case?

It’s not enough to look backwards and say, “Oh, the Big Bang contains the seeds of who we are today” - so what? Wondrous and humbling though it is to consider the evolutionary path from a singularity to human existence, to claim that this is the manifestation of some preordained plan is only to adopt a highly anthropocentric view of the universe, as if mere humans and human endeavours were always planned, were somehow the highest aspiration of a - supposedly, according to such perception - conscious entity called ‘Nature’ which nevertheless gave rise to a universe so much more vast than our own earth and demonstrably indifferent to our own relatively petty experiences in our own relatively minute life spans.

There are plenty of times in our own lives, even, when we can look back, for example, at some painful event and say, “Oh, well, it’s obvious that such-and-such event happened for the reason of getting me to the position I’m in now.” But at the time, you wouldn’t have had any idea of how the future would unfold. Back then, it was just a hard time in your life that you had to get through, somehow. There’s no evidence of pre-planning here - only hindsight touched up with artistic licence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And of course, the Holy Eucharist is the greatest, constantly repeated miracle at all times since Jesus Christ installed it.

Thanks Al. I may not be able to respond adequately because I’m way behind time wise. So many or our ( eveyone’s ) problems is really semantic - saying what we mean clearly. That is why I think it is a good idea to stick to Thomas’ definition of terms as far as that is applicable. Sometimes our attempts to find a proper metaphorical expression gets us off the track. S.T., Part 1, ques 103-109 gets deeply into what we are talking about.

Linus2nd

 

[Bradski]

We design a hammer for the purpose of hitting something. Nature designs wood and steel so that we can design a hammer. Nature designs an ocean so that we can design ships. Nature designs air so that we can design airplanes. Nature designs earth so that we can design cars and trains. Nature designs brains so that we can figure out all the things Nature has designed!

If everything was not designed, why does everything appear to be designed?

This is teleological madness. No doubt my nose was designed so I’d have something on which to prop my sunglasses. My head was designed so I’d have somewhere to put my hat. No doubt my backside was specifically put there so I’d have something to scratch when I get out of bed in the morning.

I kid you not, but sometime back in another forum, some young Creatinist idiot seriously suggested, when asked why the stars were so far away, that God had put them there so we’d have something to look at through telescopes.

 

[Blinky]

This is teleological madness. No doubt my nose was designed so I’d have something on which to prop my sunglasses. My head was designed so I’d have somewhere to put my hat. No doubt my backside was specifically put there so I’d have something to scratch when I get out of bed in the morning.

I kid you not, but sometime back in another forum, some young Creatinist idiot seriously suggested, when asked why the stars were so far away, that God had put them there so we’d have something to look at through telescopes.

Why are there stars anyway? What is their purpose?

 

[Ion]

This is teleological madness. No doubt my nose was designed so I’d have something on which to prop my sunglasses. My head was designed so I’d have somewhere to put my hat. No doubt my backside was specifically put there so I’d have something to scratch when I get out of bed in the morning.

I kid you not, but sometime back in another forum, some young Creatinist idiot seriously suggested, when asked why the stars were so far away, that God had put them there so we’d have something to look at through telescopes.

I’v always wanted to buy a telescope!

 

[Ion]

Why are there stars anyway? What is their purpose?

The stars are there so we can admire a beautiful sky at midnight!

 

[Ion]

Why are there stars anyway? What is their purpose?

First of all it is written in the Bible, they are to light the sky.
Second, they are really beautiful.
Third, up to our Lord comming, we are not going anywhere. We did try the moon though, but energetically outerspace is to expensive. And is reasonable to live only on Earth,because we eat the Earth, and we would eat the whole universe as well.
Will we stick our head into a wormhole to look arround? Of course we will, but only after our resurection.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Quote:

1. Evolution does** not** explain the origin of life nor the increase in complexity.
2. There is no evidence that physical reality popped into existence by itself.
3. There is no evidence that physical reality has always existed.
4. There is no evidence that physical reality is the sum total of reality.
5. There is no evidence that purposeless particles can produce rational persons.
6. One Supreme Being is a more economical, rational, intelligible, coherent and fertile explanation than a vast number of quanta of energy which haven’t the slightest notion of what they are doing and are devoid of self-control, hindsight, insight and foresight, appreciation of beauty or capacity for love.
7. Design** includes** Evolution.

Add:
There is no evidence of macro evolution.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;10657912:

Fine tuning claims the universe is amazingly finely tuned to be hospitable

for life. “The improbability of the fortuitous origin of life” claims that the universe is very inhospitable for life.

Exactly!

Sorry, but “Exactly!” …what?

“Exactly!” you accept that the two are diametrically opposed, and you withdraw your claim that the one proves the other?

Or “Exactly!” you have completely missed or ignored my point?

DrTaffy;10657912:

The two are not quite

irreconcilable, but to make both claims you have to meet not only the incredibly high burden of proof for each claim, but also show that the ‘inhospitable’ universe of the “improbability of the fortuitous origin of life” argument is as hospitable as any possible universe could be. Otherwise the universe is not finely tuned.

The best available explanation is superior to no explanation whatsoever…

a) That is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance
b) I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one(s) with (famously) no need for the God hypothesis.
c) that is in any case a non sequitur. You have not met the burden of proof necessary to claim that
INDENT life is too improbable to occur naturally in this universe
(2) this universe is ‘finely tuned’ to make life as probable as possible
or
(3) (in order to reconcile 1 and 2) that “too improbable to occur naturally” is as probable as life can be in any possible universe.[/INDENT]

How can one possibly discuss the three topics without reference to one another? They are inseparable in a discussion of biological Design.

You can reference them (although I don’t see that you cannot discuss one without needing to discuss another) but you don’t need to confuse them. e.g. by replying to a response about fine tuning as though it were a response about abiogenesis.

It isn’t a problem for me because the point of a philosophical discussion is not to pick a fight or convert anyone but to clarify each person’s views. It is certainly not a one-sided affair where one person has nothing to offer. As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…

So why demand (apparently) that I make a bold assertion for you to attack? I have made assertions, in this thread and others, but where they appear (to me) to require supporting evidence I have tried to provide it. e.g. giving a link to John Webb’s evidence that physical ‘constants’ may in fact vary over space in this universe.

Otherwise, it is true that where you are the only one making bold assertions, you are the only one who needs to provide evidence to support those assertions. If that seems unfair to you, the only thing I can suggest is limiting yourself to assertions you can support with evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

Fine tuning claims the universe is amazingly finely tuned to be hospitable for life. “The improbability of the fortuitous origin of life” claims that the universe is very inhospitable for life.

Exactly!
Sorry, but “Exactly!” …what?

“Exactly!” you accept that the two are diametrically opposed, and you withdraw your claim that the one proves the other? Or “Exactly!” you have completely missed or ignored my point? The two are not quite irreconcilable, but to make both claims you have to meet not only the incredibly high burden of proof for each claim, but also show that the ‘inhospitable’ universe of the “improbability of the fortuitous origin of life” argument is as hospitable as any possible universe could be. Otherwise the universe is not finely tuned.

1. The universe is extremely inhospitable - as we have seem from the virtual extinction of life on this planet on several occasions.
2. Yet life has emerged because the physical constants of this universe correspond exactly to the requirements for life.
3. So many other conditions have to be fulfilled that life is extremely rare even in this universe - let alone all possible universes.
4. Yet against overwhelming odds life has survived and is flourishing on this planet .

The best available explanation is superior to no explanation whatsoever…

a) That is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance
b) I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one(s) with (famously) no need for the God hypothesis.

a) and b) are contradictory unless you explain why the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one.

c) that is in any case a non sequitur. You have not met the burden of proof necessary to claim that

    (1) life is too improbable to occur naturally in this universe
    (2) this universe is 'finely tuned' to make life as probable as possible
    or
    (3) (in order to reconcile 1 and 2) that "too improbable to occur naturally" is as probable as life can be in any possible universe.

You have not even provided a scientific explanation, let alone met the burden of proof!

How can one possibly discuss the three topics without reference to one another? They are inseparable in a discussion of biological Design.

You can reference them (although I don’t see that you cannot discuss one without needing to discuss another) but you don’t need to confuse them. e.g. by replying to a response about fine tuning as though it were a response about abiogenesis.

Fine tuning is directly based on the inadequacy of the abiogenesis hypothesis.

It isn’t a problem for me because the point of a philosophical discussion is not to pick a fight or convert anyone but to clarify each person’s views. It is certainly not a one-sided affair where one person has nothing to offer. As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…
So why demand (apparently) that I make a bold assertion for you to attack? I have made assertions, in this thread and others, but where they appear (to me) to require supporting evidence I have tried to provide it. e.g. giving a link to John Webb’s evidence that physical ‘constants’ may in fact vary over space in this universe.

Please produce the verifiable evidence that physical constants vary - **and vary sufficiently **- to refute the improbability of life in this universe.

Otherwise, it is true that where you are the only one making bold assertions, you are the only one who needs to provide evidence to support those assertions. If that seems unfair to you, the only thing I can suggest is limiting yourself to assertions you can support with evidence.

You seem to be unaware that “I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one” is a very bold assertion - for which you certainly need to provide evidence…

If that seems unfair to you, the only thing I can suggest is limiting yourself to assertions you can support with evidence!

 

[tonyrey]

Fine tuning claims the universe is amazingly finely tuned to be hospitable for life. “The improbability of the fortuitous origin of life” claims that the universe is very inhospitable for life.

Exactly!
Sorry, but “Exactly!” …what?

“Exactly!” you accept that the two are diametrically opposed, and you withdraw your claim that the one proves the other? Or “Exactly!” you have completely missed or ignored my point? The two are not quite irreconcilable, but to make both claims you have to meet not only the incredibly high burden of proof for each claim, but also show that the ‘inhospitable’ universe of the “improbability of the fortuitous origin of life” argument is as hospitable as any possible universe could be. Otherwise the universe is not finely tuned.

1. This universe is extremely inhospitable - as we have seem from the virtual extinction of life on this planet on several occasions.
2. Yet life has emerged because the physical constants of this universe correspond exactly to the requirements for life.
3. So many other conditions have to be fulfilled that life is extremely rare even in this universe - let alone all possible universes.
4. Yet against overwhelming odds life has survived and is flourishing on this planet .

The best available explanation is superior to no explanation whatsoever…

.

a) That is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance
b) I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one(s) with (famously) no need for the God hypothesis.

a) and b) are contradictory unless you explain why the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one.

c) that is in any case a non sequitur. You have not met the burden of proof necessary to claim that

    (1) life is too improbable to occur naturally in this universe
    (2) this universe is 'finely tuned' to make life as probable as possible
    or
    (3) (in order to reconcile 1 and 2) that "too improbable to occur naturally" is as probable as life can be in any possible universe.

You have not even given a scientific explanation, let alone met the burden of proof!

How can one possibly discuss the three topics without reference to one another? They are inseparable in a discussion of biological Design.

You can reference them (although I don’t see that you cannot discuss one without needing to discuss another) but you don’t need to confuse them. e.g. by replying to a response about fine tuning as though it were a response about abiogenesis.

Fine tuning is directly based on the inadequacy of the abiogenesis hypothesis.

It isn’t a problem for me because the point of a philosophical discussion is not to pick a fight or convert anyone but to clarify each person’s views. It is certainly not a one-sided affair where one person has nothing to offer. As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…
So why demand (apparently) that I make a bold assertion for you to attack? I have made assertions, in this thread and others, but where they appear (to me) to require supporting evidence I have tried to provide it. e.g. giving a link to John Webb’s evidence that physical ‘constants’ may in fact vary over space in this universe.

Please produce the verifiable evidence that physical constants vary - and vary sufficiently - to refute the improbability of life in this universe.

Otherwise, it is true that where you are the only one making bold assertions, you are the only one who needs to provide evidence to support those assertions. If that seems unfair to you, the only thing I can suggest is limiting yourself to assertions you can support with evidence.

You seem to be unaware that “I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one” is a very bold assertion - for which you certainly need to provide evidence…

If that seems unfair to you, the only thing I can suggest is limiting yourself to assertions you can support with evidence!

 

[Al_Moritz]

Fine tuning is directly based on the inadequacy of the abiogenesis hypothesis.

What? Ouch. I am afraid you neither have an understanding of fine-tuning nor of abiogenesis.

 

[tonyrey]

What? Ouch. I am afraid you neither have an understanding of fine-tuning nor of abiogenesis.

An unsubstantiated assertion…