Biological Design Argument?

[ngill09]

I am assuming your assumption is not relevant to answering the question and your assumption is not correct.

I have no idea how the stars came into existence based on science. There are explanations that are interesting that do not answer the question. Creation is a simple way to view the world that I accept and the logic of what you suggest may mean something to you however not to me.

Assuming English isn’t your first language is giving you the benefit of the doubt given your apparent inability to ever understand my points. If that is not the case, then I must conclude that you’re simply disingenuous.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I am a scientist. I take walks, look at the trees, the birds, swallow, breathe, eat and imagine all the other things that have physiologic function and I ask myself…if this was the result of some big bang, then why can’t we reproduce that bang and reproduce some semblance of what we experience in the world, in our own life. I haven’t seen that happen and so I have awe and believe it is supernatural.

I am a scientist and believer too, and I am puzzled by your comment. As a scientist you should know why we can’t materially reproduce the Big Bang, shouldn’t you? The God question stands somewhat apart from that. Also, like others I don’t see your point, and why should the Big Bang not be the initiator of physical, chemical and biological evolution that we see? You seem to imply that God didn’t design the world through the Big Bang. I beg to differ.

 

[CopticChristian]

Assuming English isn’t your first language is giving you the benefit of the doubt given your apparent inability to ever understand my points. If that is not the case, then I must conclude that you’re simply disingenuous.

Assuming that you are excellent in communication would offer the reality that anyone that does not understand your explanation is consistent with your ability to explain.

The first tenet of communication is the response you get is feedback. Failure in understanding is based on inability to properly and simply communicate and not the failure of the reciever.

I just had this conversation with a colleague. I explained that however many times it takes me to explain something is the number of times I need to explain if I want understanding because when explaining the onus is on me not the person that is receiving the explanation.

Shall we try again for a simple explanation.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If that is not the case, then I must conclude that you’re simply disingenuous.

Yeah, I am starting to wonder what kind of scientist he is.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yeah, I am starting to wonder what kind of scientist he is.

Wow. This is certainly a judgement in the negative. I know from past posts that you are versed in life science and as I recall have a blog. I appreciate your candor.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Wow. This is certainly a judgement in the negative. I know from past posts that you are versed in life science and as I recall have a blog. I appreciate your candor.

My apologies, my reaction may have been over the top. Perhaps you can explain yourself as a scientist and with respect to the views you hold.

Are you really critical of the Big Bang?

Do you accept evolution?

Are you currently working in the lab in research?

 

[tonyrey]

What scientifically distinguishes a living complex self-replicator from a non-living complex self replicator?

 

[ngill09]

rossum;10690600:

A living complex self-replicator has an urge to survive, developmental plasticity and - in the case of homo sapiens - the power of reason, free will, moral responsibility and the capacity for love.

Your question seems to imply that science alone explains everything - including spiritual development. Is that your view? If so how do you explain the existence of souls - scientifically of course?

Do souls even exist scientifically?

 

[tonyrey]

Question for people positing a “probability” that the various constants of the universe are what they are: What is the underlying probability distribution for these values and how did you derive that distribution given only 1 data point?

1. Your assumption that there is only one data point implies that this is the only universe.
2. In other words you rule out other possible universes without any supporting evidence.
3. Scientific theories are often based on the principle that this is not the only universe.
4. There is no valid reason to assume this is the only possible universe.
5. There are an immense (perhaps infinite) number of possible universes.
6. There is no reason to assume the physical constants in this universe must have their present value.
7. There are an immense (perhaps infinite) range of values in possible universes.
8. Therefore the probability of the values in this universe is miniscule.
9. The precise correspondence of the values in this universe to the requirements for life requires explanation.
10. The simplest and most probable explanation is that the values in this universe are not fortuitous but designed.

 

[rossum]

A living complex self-replicator has an urge to survive, developmental plasticity and - in the case of homo sapiens - the power of reason, free will, moral responsibility and the capacity for love.

Bacteria do not have any “urge to survive”. Do they count as living or non-living complex self-replicators?

Your question seems to imply that science alone explains everything - including spiritual development. Is that your view? If so how do you explain the existence of souls - scientifically of course?

I am Buddhist so I do not believe in the existence of any soul. If you do believe in souls then it is up to you to explain them, not me.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

I do not believe that science explains everything, but it does explain the origin of man’s material body. It also partly, though not fully, explains the other five constituents that go to make up a human being.

Science deals with STEM: Space, Time, Energy, Matter. To the extent that humans are partly formed from energy and matter, and embedded within space and time, then it is to be expected that science will provide an explanation for our STEM components.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Do souls even exist scientifically?

Not in my view of reality but then I am not a materialist.

 

[ngill09]

1. Your assumption that there is only one data point implies that this is the only universe.
2. In other words you rule out other possible universes without any supporting evidence.
3. Scientific theories are often based on the principle that this is not the only universe.
4. There is no valid reason to assume this is the only possible universe.
5. There are an immense (perhaps infinite) number of possible universes.
6. There is no reason to assume the physical constants in this universe must have their present value.
7. There are an immense (perhaps infinite) range of values in possible universes.
8. Therefore the probability of the values in this universe is miniscule.
9. The precise correspondence of the values in this universe to the requirements for life requires explanation.
10. The simplest and most probable explanation is that the values in this universe are not fortuitous but designed.

1. I do not “assume” there is only one data point, I observe only one data point. If you’ve seen another universe, I’d be happy to hear about it.
2. I do not “rule out the possibility of other universes”. I simply don’t see any reason to assume they exist or can exist.
3. Examples, please. And let’s stay within established science that can make testable predictions.
4. Again, I’ve never assumed it’s the only possible one.

5 and 6. This needs to be demonstrated. You can’t just assume that because you can imagine something that it is therefore possible. I can imagine pi to equal 5, that doesn’t mean it can.

1. Similarly, there’s no reason to assume they can change.
2. You can’t just imagine up data points and call your inferences valid. I can’t just say "I can imagine a blade of grass of any length from 0 to 1,000,000,000 feet long, therefore the probability of a blade of grass being less than a foot long is 1 in a billion.
3. I agree. But I don’t think the explanation can be found in the writings of ancient humans.
4. I don’t see how proposing a designer whose properties would be similarly unlikely solves the problem.

 

[tonyrey]

Bacteria do not have any “urge to survive”. Do they count as living or non-living complex self-replicators?

 

[prodigalson2011]

1. I don’t see how proposing a designer whose properties would be similarly unlikely solves the problem.

This sounds alot like Dawkins’ fallacious “complex God” argument. To exactly what properties do you refer, and based on what alternatives do you postulate their probability?

This betrays a serious misunderstanding of Catholic theology and theism in general. God is the simplest of beings: he has no “parts” and, ergo, no complexity. Without complexity, the question of probability is moot.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am a scientist and believer too, and I am puzzled by your comment. As a scientist you should know why we can’t materially reproduce the Big Bang, shouldn’t you? The God question stands somewhat apart from that. Also, like others I don’t see your point, and why should the Big Bang not be the initiator of physical, chemical and biological evolution that we see? You seem to imply that God didn’t design the world through the Big Bang. I beg to differ.

You infer quite a bit. I believe that it would be possible for God to create through the big bang and your belief that I imply otherwise is not correct. You may have tried…

Do you believe that God could have created the universe and the world we live in via the big bang?

Yes, of course.

 

[CopticChristian]

My apologies, my reaction may have been over the top. Perhaps you can explain yourself as a scientist and with respect to the views you hold.

Are you really critical of the Big Bang?

No, as it regards the possibility that it could have been a creative event, then no.

Do you accept evolution?

Having studied and regurgitated it knowing that you have a blog and have read your thoughts, I accept it insofar as the Church teaches that I do not deny Adam and Eve as should you.

Are you currently working in the lab in research?

To be a scientist, you have to currently work in the lab doing research?

 

[Al_Moritz]

You infer quite a bit. I believe that it would be possible for God to create through the big bang and your belief that I imply otherwise is not correct. You may have tried…

Do you believe that God could have created the universe and the world we live in via the big bang?

Yes, of course.

I am glad my fears were unfounded. But I am still confused by your post that sparked the discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10695969&postcount=134

 

[Al_Moritz]

Having studied and regurgitated it knowing that you have a blog and have read your thoughts, I accept it insofar as the Church teaches that I do not deny Adam and Eve as should you.

I uphold the existence of Adam and Eve, yes. I also believe that theological monogenism is compatible with genetic polygenism.

 

[rossum]

If bacteria had no urge to survive they wouldn’t adapt to their environment to preserve themselves.

They have no “urge”. There is no “urge” needed to drive natural selection. All that is needed is to breed more successfully than your neighbour. That can be as simple as having a shorter piece of DNA to do the same job: copying a short piece of DNA takes less time than copying a long piece of DNA, and that can be important at the scales bacteria are living.

Yet you believe in spiritual development…

Correct. An eternal soul is a complete bar to spiritual development. Anything which is eternal cannot change, and without change there can be no spiritual development.

How is the other part explained?

Study Buddhism.

Do you have a problem with the scientific explanation for the STEM part?

rossum

 

[ngill09]

This sounds alot like Dawkins’ fallacious “complex God” argument. To exactly what properties do you refer, and based on what alternatives do you postulate their probability?

This betrays a serious misunderstanding of Catholic theology and theism in general. God is the simplest of beings: he has no “parts” and, ergo, no complexity. Without complexity, the question of probability is moot.

So you don’t believe in the Trinity?