Biological Design Argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bennierja
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
nmgauss

Does that include the modern day Jesuits?

Yes, if they still believe in God. 😉
 
Charlemagne_II said:
What is the chief or best argument against biological design?
Click to expand...
  1. Lack of independent evidence for a designer. You cannot have design without a designer.
  2. Sufficiency of chemical or biological mechanisms to explain observed phenomena. A designer is not required, and so can provisionally be eliminated using Occam’s razor.
  3. A designer fails to solve the problem which the design proponents assert that it does: the origin of complexity. Where does the complexity of the designer itself originate?
rossum
 
rossum said:
  1. Lack of independent evidence for a designer. You cannot have design without a designer.
Click to expand...
Lack of empirical evidence, perhaps, but deductive evidence, not so.
  1. Sufficiency of chemical or biological mechanisms to explain observed phenomena. A designer is not required, and can provisionally be eliminated using Occam’s razor.
Click to expand...
Chemical and biological mechanisms do not sufficiently explain the intricate laws that govern their behavior.
  1. A designer fails to solve the problem which the design proponents assert that it does: the origin of complexity. Where does the complexity of the designer itself originate?
Click to expand...
rossum
Click to expand...
A pure intellect is not complex. It is irreducibly simple.
 
ngill09 said:
Cancer, probably.
Click to expand...
Catholics understand that disease is a consequence of original sin. Life also fights against the 2nd law to survive. Environment and epigenetic inheritance also are showing to be key.

The body actually fights against cancer every single day. Most cancers are taken care of by a healthy body.

Adam and Eve had the preternatural gift of bodily immortality and freedom from sickness. This design was very good, they lost these gifts.
 
rossum said:
  1. Lack of independent evidence for a designer. You cannot have design without a designer.
  2. Sufficiency of chemical or biological mechanisms to explain observed phenomena. A designer is not required, and so can provisionally be eliminated using Occam’s razor.
  3. A designer fails to solve the problem which the design proponents assert that it does: the origin of complexity. Where does the complexity of the designer itself originate?
rossum
Click to expand...
The language of DNA is excellent evidence for design.
 
buffalo said:
**Catholics understand that disease is a consequence of original sin. ** Life also fights against the 2nd law to survive. Environment and epigenetic inheritance also are showing to be key.

The body actually fights against cancer every single day. Most cancers are taken care of by a healthy body.

Adam and Eve had the preternatural gift of bodily immortality and freedom from sickness. This design was very good, they lost these gifts.
Click to expand...
Yeah, do you have any evidence for the bolded or are you content with baldly asserting it?

Also: human teeth. They suck.
 
ngill09 said:
Yeah, do you have any evidence for the bolded or are you content with baldly asserting it?

Also: human teeth. They suck.
Click to expand...
It is Catholic dogma.

An argument about bad design does not eliminate design itself. Further to analyze design one must know the mind and intent of the designer.

You are not a design denier are you?
 
buffalo said:
It is Catholic dogma.

An argument about bad design does not eliminate design itself. Further to analyze design one must know the mind and intent of the designer.

You are not a design denier are you?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by “design”. I do deny that snowflakes, tornadoes, caterpillars, and yes, even human beings, were designed by any person. They occur naturally. If you want to talk about what “nature” is, that’s a different discussion.
 
ngill09 said:
Depends on what you mean by “design”. I do deny that snowflakes, tornadoes, caterpillars, and yes, even human beings, were designed by any person. They occur naturally. If you want to talk about what “nature” is, that’s a different discussion.
Click to expand...
It should be obvious to you that Catholics believe we were designed. And that God was behind it. If you don’t believe that then why are you here?

Ed
 
ngill09 said:
Depends on what you mean by “design”. I do deny that snowflakes, tornadoes, caterpillars, and yes, even human beings, were designed by any person. They occur naturally. If you want to talk about what “nature” is, that’s a different discussion.
Click to expand...
Right, patterns exist in nature. But, you will see no symbols or designs there.

Designs though are always based on symbols, codes and the like. Designs always contain patterns. They come from a mind.

Here you will see a design in a pattern

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
prodigalson2011 said:
Lack of empirical evidence, perhaps, but deductive evidence, not so.
Click to expand...
Deduction is not evidence, it is deduction. So far all the deduction I have seen on the ID side is faulty.
Chemical and biological mechanisms do not sufficiently explain the intricate laws that govern their behavior.
Click to expand...
And your evidence to support this unevidenced assertion is?
A pure intellect is not complex. It is irreducibly simple.
Click to expand...
A pure intellect contains an idea of what it is going to do before it acts. That idea is at least as complex as the item it is going to produce. If the designer had an idea that it was going to produce an earthworm, then its intellect would have contained the DNA sequence of that earthworm, and hence had all the complexity of the earthworm plus a little bit for its own intellect.

If there was no DNA sequence in the designer’s mind then according to Dr Dembski’s Explanatory Filter, the earthworm contains no CSI because there is no prior specification. If there is no CSI present then the earthworm is the product of chance and not of design.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top