Biological Design Argument?

[tonyrey]

The writer, Meyer, is a director of the Discovery Institute. There is a book available called Of Pandas and People, written by Senior Fellows of the DI (the 1993 second edition had an intro written by Meyer himself). The original editions talked simply about Creationism. Intelligent design was never mentioned.

However, when it was clear that Creationism was never going to be allowed to be taught in schools, they simply replaced all references to Creationism in the book with Intelligent Design. Read here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

The judge in the Dover trial specifically referred to Pandas in his decision, stating:

"As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:

(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;

(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and

(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content … The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision".

If you wanted to show that Creationism and ID are in fact the same thing, then what better proof could you have.

Yeah, Tony. Lots of people confuse the two. Maybe you have an explanation for the above?

Whether or not some misguided individuals have equated ID and Creationism doesn’t alter the fact that the Catholic Church and many philosophers with both Catholic and non-Catholic views believe Design includes Evolution and reject the fundamentalists’ doctrine that the universe was created a few thousand years ago.

Stephen Meyer has pointed out in his book “Signature in the Cell” that this allegation is simply a ploy to bring Design into disrepute. It is highly significant that Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University - who is an atheist - submitted the book to the “2009 Books of the Year” supplement for The Times and described it “as a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin…. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.”

How do you explain that?

 

[tonyrey]

The issue is the probability of rational life before it existed.
Is God rational? Then there is no “before”. Remember that creationism is not an explanation for the origin of life. Psalm 42:2 applies.

To equate Design with Creationism is an elementary mistake.

The occurrence of an event does show that the event is definitely not impossible.

Irrelevant. Observation is not explanation…

What is the cause of the physical cause?

What is the cause of your proposed non-physical cause?

You are assuming that everything has a cause - which implies an infinite regress.
How do you justify that?

I am saying that the multiverse is one of the possible causes of our current universe that has been proposed. Another proposed cause is the Abrahamic God. You are asserting that certain properties are required of any possible cause. I am saying that the multiverse lacks some of your ‘required’ properties, and that hence they are not actually required, but have to be separately established. The proposed multiverse meets all the requirements for a cause of the universe, yet lacks many of the properties assigned to the Abrahamic God. Thus we can see that those additional properties are not essential for a cause of the material universe.

How does the proposed multiverse explain the existence of souls and spiritual development?

The properties I ascribe to the Cause of the universe are based on facts about the universe in which we live, notably the existence of rationality without which all your arguments are worthless…

Rationality is a derived property, not a basic property.

How do you know that?

It is possible for there to be a material universe without rationality. Such a universe may well have existed for the first 13 billion years of our current universe. Humans are only a recent arrival on the scene.

I agree - the significant word being “material”.

That definition is based on the false assumption - even by your standards - that the material universe comprises the whole of reality. Do you regard souls as part of the universe? Are they material objects?

Souls, gods, angels, kinnaras, gandhabbas etc are all components of the “all that exists” universe. At no point did I limit my definition to only material things. Note that the Abrahamic God is also included in “all that exists”.

Then how do spiritual beings fit into your scheme of things? How did they originate?

The flaw in your detector, as far as I can make it out, is its assumption that it is necessary to prove the Designer is omniscient.

Indeed. I make it clear that the ability to detect design is limited to certain types of design only. You could usefully consider how many material objects would cause the detector not to detect design. Every grain of sand in the bed of any river would trigger a detection of design. Your assertion of design is useless because everything is designed.

You have overlooked the detection of rational beings in addition to the purposeless side effects which are inevitable in any highly complex universe.

Yet that is not essential in order to establish the superiority of Design over non-Design, which is a hopelessly inadequate and self-destructive explanation.

You are merely asserting your position here.

I have listed the criteria.

You have not provided us with any evidence that non-design is inadequate. We can see non-design operating in real life and in the laboratory. Dembski’s “Search for a Search” argument requires that non-design works on Earth.

What about the inevitable, purposeless side effects?

No reasonable person would rely on fortuitous events to solve the problems of daily life, let alone explain spiritual development, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Such questions do not relate to biological design. Is a bacterium intent on freedom, justice and beauty? A bacterium is a living biological entity.

What about the origin of spiritual development, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love?

 

[rossum]

To equate Design with Creationism is an elementary mistake.

I did not such thing. I merely pointed out that if your eternal God is Himself rational, then there is no possibility of a time before the existence of rationality.

Irrelevant. Observation is not explanation…

I did not put it forward as an explanation. I put it forward as evidence of possibility. If an event happens, then we can be sure that the event is possible and not impossible.

You are assuming that everything has a cause - which implies an infinite regress. How do you justify that?

If you are assuming that some things do not have a cause, then so will I. I assert that the universe, defined as “all that exists”, does not have a cause.

How does the proposed multiverse explain the existence of souls and spiritual development?

I am Buddhist, so I reject the concept of a soul. Spiritual development is a path. The presence of the mountain explains the existence of a path to the summit. The existence of the universe, including nirvana, explains the presence of the path to nirvana.

How do you know that?

Because all non-eternal things have a cause, and hence are derived.

Then how do spiritual beings fit into your scheme of things? How did they originate?

From the appropriate causes. All gods, and other spiritual beings, are impermanent. Both heavens and hells are temporary as are their inhabitants.

You have overlooked the detection of rational beings in addition to the purposeless side effects which are inevitable in any highly complex universe.

I am attempting to detect design, not rationality. Anything purposeless would not trigger a design inference, unless it was designed to be purposeless. As Dr Dembski admits, any form of design detection will have difficulty detecting design in something which has been designed to appear as if it is undesigned. For example, are the sounds you hear during a performance of John Cage’s 4’33" designed or not designed?

What about the inevitable, purposeless side effects?

Purposeless? Cannot the designer have a hidden long-range purpose for apparently useless side-effects? What evidence do you have that such effects are not germane to some other purpose of the designer?

What about the origin of spiritual development, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love?

I have talked about the path (= spiritual development). You are reifying the others. I reject all forms of reification. They are simply derived phenomena arising from causes. We appear to be agreed that anything non-eternal arises from causes. While your reified versions may appear to be eternal, my versions are not reified and so are not eternal. Hence they arise from causes.

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

Whether or not some misguided individuals have equated ID and Creationism doesn’t alter the fact that the Catholic Church and many philosophers with both Catholic and non-Catholic views believe Design includes Evolution and reject the fundamentalists’ doctrine that the universe was created a few thousand years ago.

Hold on, do not introduce confusion, please. Yes, evolution is designed by God, but that does not mean that there is design within evolution (which is the idea underlying biological ID). All the scientific findings point to the idea that evolution is a self-sufficient process – there is no tinkering within the evolutionary processes by a designer required. It appears that God designed evolution as a self-sufficient process.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al
**
All the scientific findings point to the idea that evolution is a self-sufficient process – there is no tinkering within the evolutionary processes by a designer required. It appears that God designed evolution as a self-sufficient process. **

You might want to rethink what you have just said. Drink some coffee first!

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al
**
All the scientific findings point to the idea that evolution is a self-sufficient process – there is no tinkering within the evolutionary processes by a designer required. It appears that God designed evolution as a self-sufficient process. **

You might want to rethink what you have just said. Drink some coffee first!

I said what I said. Read again. God designed the universe as self-unfolding (with His metaphysically necessary continuous sustenance of its being of course). There is no contradiction here.

That doesn’t imply that God never intervenes in the world, only that He doesn’t do that unnecessarily.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al

**That doesn’t imply that God never intervenes in the world, only that He doesn’t do that unnecessarily. **

But you just said that by God’s design God interferes with the world constantly, as opposed to unnecessarily.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al

**That doesn’t imply that God never intervenes in the world, only that He doesn’t do that unnecessarily. **

But you just said that by God’s design God interferes with the world constantly, as opposed to unnecessarily.

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’.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al
**
It appears that God designed evolution as a self-sufficient process. **

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

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al
**
It appears that God designed evolution** as a self-sufficient process.

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

Now with that I can totally agree!

 

[tonyrey]

*Whether or not some misguided individuals have equated ID and Creationism doesn’t alter the **fact ***

You are inverting my statement: “Design includes Evolution”, not “Evolution includes Design”! The very fact that Evolution is designed by God implies that there is clear evidence of Design in Evolution…

All the scientific findings point to the idea that evolution is a self-sufficient process – there is no tinkering within the evolutionary processes by a designer required.

God does not tinker but intervenes - as a loving Father must. Evolution is self-sufficient up to a point but the laws of nature cannot possibly cater for every contingency because they lack insight and understanding. It is unthinkable that God is a detached Observer who never does anything to care for His children and fails to ensure that life survives on this planet until its appointed hour of extinction. Our Creator is certainly not subject to the vicissitudes and “thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to…”

The occurrence of miracles is not a luxury but a necessity in a world where there is a element of Chance in the unfolding of events. Not only did Jesus Himself tell us to pray for our material as well as spiritual needs, the process of canonisation requires specific evidence of divine intervention related to the saint. There have been many cases of scientifically inexplicable cures as the result of intercession.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The very fact that Evolution is designed by God implies that there is clear evidence of Design in Evolution…

Sure.

Not only did Jesus Himself tell us to pray for our material as well as spiritual needs, the process of canonisation requires specific evidence of divine intervention related to the saint. There have been many cases of scientifically inexplicable cures as the result of intercession.

Of course.

 

[DrTaffy]

There is no discrimination on this forum on the grounds of belief or disbelief.

I don’t say there is. I do say that there is a ban on explicit Evolution threads, which I intend to honour. What you do is your affair.

The improbability of the fortuitous origin of life is direct evidence of fine tuning!

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.

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.

You respond to a point about fine tuning with a post about how life is improbable - almost diametrically opposed to the fine tuning argument. You then respond to that with a series of comments about evolution, then return in the next post to talking about fine tuning. I’m happy to talk to you if you will stick to a subject.

Invalid evasion!

Only if that sentence was supposed to be self-referencing (i.e. “Invalid evasion!” was an Invalid evasion!)

Otherwise Fine Tuning, Abiogenesis and Evolution are three seperate, if related topics. If you are going to respond to a comment about the first by pretending it was a comment about the second, and then criticising it for not addressing that second topic, then there is no point in debating.

You seem to have to prove nothing whatsoever!

Only when I make a positive assertion. As in this article, where I give a reference to back up my assertion.

Otherwise I am not here to pick a fight or convert anyone to my beliefs, but to clarify my understanding of Catholic beliefs. So naturally I am not making many positive assertions.

I don’t see why this would be a problem as long as you are secure in your beliefs and reasons for those beliefs.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hey Brothers and Sisters,
I have a simple question here, and I’m open to as many suggestions as possible. I’ve just read Privileged Planet (which I highly advise, btw), which has a great argument. It infers design from an unnecessary pattern of correlation between Earth’s unique suitability for life and scientific learning. It mostly covers things like physics and astronomy, but it hardly touches biology. Have any of you read some really great design arguments based on biology? I’m looking for something book-length and meaty here. Thanks for the help!

Josh

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. "

This in no way excludes an evolutionary unfolding of the universe, with the exception of the human soul and angels, which are created immediately by God without secondary causality.

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

 

[Bradski]

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

This is circular reasoning. As is this:

The very fact that Evolution is designed by God implies that there is clear evidence of Design in Evolution…

How do we know He designed it? Because we can see His hand evident in the process.
How do we know His hand is evident in the process? Why, because He designed it.

Which becomes the basis of ID:

‘We have found evidence of design, therefore there is a Creator’.
‘Why were you looking for evidence in the first place?’
‘Because there is a Creator (sorry, can’t mention any names at the point in time) and we’d like to prove it’.

Brilliant!

 

[tonyrey]

This is circular reasoning. As is this:

How do we know He designed it? Because we can see His hand evident in the process.
How do we know His hand is evident in the process? Why, because He designed it.

Which becomes the basis of ID:

‘We have found evidence of design, therefore there is a Creator’.
‘Why were you looking for evidence in the first place?’
‘Because there is a Creator (sorry, can’t mention any names at the point in time) and we’d like to prove it’.

Brilliant!

Anyone can cut and paste snippets from different posts (and by different persons) to distort their meaning, thereby revealing the absurd lengths to which they will go in a futile attempt to prove their case - without producing a jot of evidence to support their own views!

 

[Bradski]

Anyone can cut and paste snippets from different posts (and by different persons) to distort their meaning, thereby revealing the absurd lengths to which they will go in a futile attempt to prove their case - without producing a jot of evidence to support their own views!

There are two quotes from two people to show how easy it is to fall into the trap of circular reasoning.

And my belief is that ID is Creationism in a funny hat, trying to sneak in through the back door. And for my evidence, see my earlier post where it was shown that a book endorsed by the Design Institute was reissued with some changes. Those changes amounted simply to replacing the words ‘Creationism’ with ‘Intelligent Design’.

Hoisted by their own petard (which is not a phrase I commonly use, but which is quite eminently applicable in this case).

 

[tonyrey]

The improbability of the fortuitous origin of life is direct evidence of fine tuning!

Exactly!

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…

Otherwise Fine Tuning, Abiogenesis and Evolution are three seperate, if related topics. If you are going to respond to a comment about the first by pretending it was a comment about the second, and then criticising it for not addressing that second topic, then there is no point in debating.

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

You seem to have to prove nothing whatsoever!

Only when I make a positive assertion. As in this article, where I give a reference to back up my assertion. Otherwise I am not here to pick a fight or convert anyone to my beliefs, but to clarify my understanding of Catholic beliefs. So naturally I am not making many positive assertions.

I don’t see why this would be a problem as long as you are secure in your beliefs and reasons for those beliefs.

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…

 

[edwest2]

Gonzales’ book has unfortunately been rendered somewhat obsolete by recent discoveries of large numbers of exoplanets, many of which are sufficiently earth-like to render any argument based on the uniqueness of Earth moot.

See Planet Candidates for some of the basic data.

Please remember that discussion of evolution is temporarily banned, see stickies. Astronomy is fine, but moving into biology may cause problems.

rossum

Due to my experiences here, I am questioning science a lot more. Years back, I would watch TV and scientists would calmly say that if a planet were the right distance from its sun, had water and the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids), that life would appear there. Not until I began reading posts here did I realize: There is no way for them to know that.

And just because another planet is the same size as earth doesn’t mean anything.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I said what I said. Read again. God designed the universe as self-unfolding (with His metaphysically necessary continuous sustenance of its being of course). There is no contradiction here.

That doesn’t imply that God never intervenes in the world, only that He doesn’t do that unnecessarily.

I think the Bible clearly shows us that God is in charge of making things. He doesn’t allow things to happen without His word which does not return to Him void. No, I’m not talking about accidents like rock slides or other events where people were injured because they were in the wrong place or were unable to reach high ground as in a flood.

Peace,
Ed