Biological Design Argument?

[nmgauss]

So far no reference has been made to the difference between deductive logic and inductive logic.

Deductive logic starts with a 100% conclusive premise that for logic’s sake is assumed to be true. Then subsequent steps in the argument depend on the original premise if they are to be logically consistent.

Inductive logic starts by making observations and coming up with tentative conclusions. The theory of evolution has been proposed as a highly probable mechanism for the development of species. Nobody has come forth with a 100% assertion that evolution, as it has been studied, is actually true. Until another theory comes to replace it, it remains the foundation of our study of life.

The same happened to Newtonian physics. It was treated as a highly probable theory until quantum physics came along. Now a new theory has replaced it. But even now, this is tentative. But it is the best we can do at the moment.

 

[Aloysium]

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

How can you explain it otherwise?
Let me see, ah yes, It just happens.
That’s a great explanation.
Or am I wrong and you have a better one.

 

[ngill09]

How can you explain it otherwise?
Let me see, ah yes, It just happens.
That’s a great explanation.
Or am I wrong and you have a better one.

Somebody doesn’t know what Brownian Motion is. Hint: Is it more reasonable to suppose that the stock market fluctuates due to thousands of virtually random, unguided interactions, or that a powerful overlord is intelligently guiding every movement in stock price?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Look again at what you posted, “everything that exists seems designed to make possible everything that exists.” (emphasis added)

Things are not always what they seem to be, a mirage is just one of many examples. If all that Intelligent Design has is the equivalent of “it sure looks designed to me”, then that is not science, but subjective opinion. ID needs to produce an objective way to distinguish design from non-design. That objective way needs to be tested, hence my request to tonyrey for something that is not designed to enable proper testing.

" ID needs to produce an objective way to distinguish design from non-design. That objective way needs to be tested, hence my request to tonyrey for something that is not designed to enable proper testing. " This statement is just your opinion. It limits proof to a particualr mode of proof. It freezes out modes of proof out side that mode.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Accidents, disasters, diseases and deformities** are** instances of non-Design. They are unintended coincidences which are inevitable in any immensely complex system. In a word they are dysteleological, i.e. negative, irrational, harmful, destructive, valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

These things are only apparant. There is no such thing as chance or coincidence except to a limited perspective. What appears chance or coincidence to us is not according to God who governs all things according to his Providence.

" 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. " ( CCC, par 302, Vatican 1, Dei Filius 1: DS 3003 )

This is covered in detail in ST. Thomas’ Summa Theologica, Part 1,ques 22, Sed Contra , Reply, and ans 1- 5. newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm#article2

Thomas points out that some things, things we consider bad or evil, may seem fortuitous such as accidents or crimes, but are still under the guidance of God’s Providential Plan for all his creation. It is too long to quote here but a brief taste can be seen here:

We must say, however, that all things are subject to divine providence, not only in general, but even in their own individual selves. This is made evident thus. For since every agent acts for an end, the ordering of effects towards that end extends as far as the causality of the first agent extends. Whence it happens that in the effects of an agent something takes place which has no reference towards the end, because the effect comes from a cause other than, and outside the intention of the agent. But the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles; not only of things incorruptible, but also of things corruptible. Hence all things that exist in whatsoever manner are necessarily directed by God towards some end; as the Apostle says: “Those things that are of God are well ordered [Vulg.‘Those powers that are, are ordained of God’: ‘Quae autem sunt, a Deo ordinatae sunt.’ St. Thomas often quotes this passage, and invariably reads: ‘Quae a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt.’]” (Romans 13:1). Since, therefore, as the providence of God is nothing less than the type of the order of things towards an end, as we have said; it necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence. It has also been shown (14, 6, 11) that God knows all things, both universal and particular. And since His knowledge may be compared to the things themselves, as the knowledge of art to the objects of art, all things must of necessity come under His ordering; as all things wrought by art are subject to the ordering of that art.

Reply to Objection 1. There is a difference between universal and particular causes. A thing can escape the order of a particular cause; but not the order of a universal cause. For nothing escapes the order of a particular cause, except through the intervention and hindrance of some other particular cause; as, for instance, wood may be prevented from burning, by the action of water. Since then, all particular causes are included under the universal cause, it could not be that any effect should take place outside the range of that universal cause. So far then as an effect escapes the order of a particular cause, it is said to be casual or fortuitous in respect to that cause; but if we regard the universal cause, outside whose range no effect can happen, it is said to be foreseen. Thus, for instance, the meeting of two servants, although to them it appears a chance circumstance, has been fully foreseen by their master, who has purposely sent to meet at the one place, in such a way that the one knows not about the other.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

First you will have to tell me what a/the " Oduronit " is. You must understand I pay no attention to all this flutter about ID except as an occassioal innocent bystander. I really have no interest in it, not that I think it has no value, because the whole topic seems to have become so esoteric and like so many things in life seem to devolve around so called experts. But tell me what that word means and I’ll try to answer from the perspective of an innocent bystander - just your average Joe.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

I think your example is too extreme to be useful. Obviously care needs to be taken but we need to be reasonable. Our mental " models " are generally correct. This is what makes general education possible.

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.

Here I disagree totally. We observe a real world through our senses. Our intellects are designed by God to sort out these sensations and to make meaningful judgments about them, from which our intellects form concepts, from which our intellects form complex thought, etc. This is really the only way to live a realistic life. If what we " know " is an illusion, there really is no sense in getting up in the morning. How can we get motivated to walk thorough an illusion ( your world ) all day. If we really believed that, nothing would ever get done in the world.

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

It’s a good thought but you seem to be excluding, de facto, the ordinary man in the whole process. And I think the ordinary man knows the world as good as any scientist - in a general way. And he can see design everywhere and he says, " someone has put all this together and keeps it going for a definite purpose. " He may not know what you mean by ID ( I didn’t for awhile and probably still don’t know what everyone else means ), but he knows some intelligent being is behind it all. And anyone who tells him he is all wrong will have an uphill battle and will only convince those who are atheist.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

" Nature " doesn’t design anything because " Nature " doesn’t exist.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No problem!

Those topics are irrelevant to the following points:

1. There is no evidence that any other form of life and rational existence exists in** this universe**.
2. There may well be other entirely different universes but the possibility of their existence has no bearing on the immense improbability of life with the existing laws of nature.
   
   Quote:
   Also, while the theory formerly known as string theory is strongly supported, if far from proven, John Webb’s results are no ‘unverified theory’ but empirical evidence.
   Also, given implications from the theory formerly known as string theory that the universe can switch from one potential state to another over time, and empirical evidence that conditions vary over space, is it not reasonable to assume that life only exists in those regions of space time where life can exist?
3. Evolution does** not** explain the origin of life nor the increase in complexity.
4. There is no evidence that physical reality popped into existence by itself.
5. There is no evidence that physical reality has always existed.
6. There is no evidence that physical reality is the sum total of reality.
7. There is no evidence that purposeless particles can produce rational persons.
8. 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.
9. Design** includes** Evolution.

Well said. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

rossum

The designer’s role is pushed back to selecting the laws of the universe around the time of the Big Bang. Everything else, including both biology and evolution, follows from that initial act of design.

The designer’s role is most significant. When you plant a seed, you know in advance what you plan to grow, how long it will take to grow, and the different shapes and colors that will appear during the period of growth. What grows from that seed is made possible by the choice of that seed. The designers role in the case of the universe would be vastly more complex than anything we can imagine. Yet we can see great complexity in the universe, and we can see a historical path of the universe’s growth reaching all the way from a Big Bang to you and me.

The alternative is to regard the Big Bang as an absurd and pointless event … a seed that nobody ever planted for any purpose. How really rational is that?

But the Designer is never separated from His design. He constantly his design toward its final fulfillment and keeps the subject of His design in existence. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

Since there are different numberings of the Psalms would you quote the Psalm itself or link to the one you cite? And please explain how it applies. Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

Somebody doesn’t know what Brownian Motion is. Hint: Is it more reasonable to suppose that the stock market fluctuates due to thousands of virtually random, unguided interactions, or that a powerful overlord is intelligently guiding every movement in stock price?

Please explain how randomness occurs.

 

[ngill09]

Please explain how randomness occurs.

Depends on the instance. In the stock market example I provided, it occurs by the (mostly) unguided decisions of thousands of independent actors which work together to produce a virtually random change in the price of a stock. I say “mostly unguided” because there are certain economic factors that each economic actor takes into account when making decisions, and “virtually random” because you could say that the actions of each actor are deterministic, but that’s a different discussion.

There’s also the matter of quantum mechanics in physics, but I’m not a physicist and I don’t think there’s a conclusive answer as to whether certain phenomena are irreducibly random or if there are unknown variables.

 

[Aloysium]

Depends on the instance. In the stock market example I provided, it occurs by the (mostly) unguided decisions of thousands of independent actors which work together to produce a virtually random change in the price of a stock. I say “mostly unguided” because there are certain economic factors that each economic actor takes into account when making decisions, and “virtually random” because you could say that the actions of each actor are deterministic, but that’s a different discussion.

There’s also the matter of quantum mechanics in physics, but I’m not a physicist and I don’t think there’s a conclusive answer as to whether certain phenomena are irreducibly random or if there are unknown variables.

I choose not to know much about economics for mental health reasons.

What I know of Brownian motion goes back over thirty years and has to do with air molecules filling out a balloon.

I was asking the question as to what produces randomness, because whatever that is, it can be understood as having been created through intelligent design. On the first day, light was created, white light being a random collection of electromagnetic radiation.

 

[nmgauss]

I choose not to know much about economics for mental health reasons.

What I know of Brownian motion goes back over thirty years and has to do with air molecules filling out a balloon.

I was asking the question as to what produces randomness, because whatever that is, it can be understood as having been created through intelligent design. On the first day, light was created, white light being a random collection of electromagnetic radiation.

Considering the second law of thermodynamics, a concept called entropy is involved. Entropy is an expression of increasing chaos and randomness. Nature loves chaos. When heat is released, entropy is increased. Thus burning of fossil fuels is increasing entropy. So is the consumption of glucose in the body which releases heat.

The Sun’s energy in the presence of chlorophyll is used to increase structure of plants and thus organization. When the plant dies, the residue becomes more disorganized and so increases entropy.

 

[nmgauss]

I was asking the question as to what produces randomness, because whatever that is, it can be understood as having been created through intelligent design. On the first day, light was created, white light being a random collection of electromagnetic radiation.

Is there a design principle in the randomness of meiosis? In this process, diploid cells split and become haploid and the phenomenon has been determined to be completely at random. What design principle would be followed by having this process be random?

Of course the combining of haploid from the female with that of the male to form a new combination of genes, and thus a new human, may be natures way to encourage evolution. Sometimes the new combination is a complete success, but frequently the new combination has some defects rendering the new human with genetically caused disorders. If they are severe, the new human dies early.

 

[Aloysium]

Is there a design principle in the randomness of meiosis? In this process, diploid cells split and become haploid and the phenomenon has been determined to be completely at random. What design principle would be followed by having this process be random?

Of course the combining of haploid from the female with that of the male to form a new combination of genes, and thus a new human, may be natures way to encourage evolution. Sometimes the new combination is a complete success, but frequently the new combination has some defects rendering the new human with genetically caused disorders. If they are severe, the new human dies early.

Yep, because that is how it was set up to work in terms of forming a physical creature

When you say “nature’s way” you are anthropomorphizing the process.I would change the statement to speak of God’s way to “encourage” us to be fruitful and multiply in all our diversity.

There being sickness does not preclude intelligent design.

The important thing about human beings is our having a unified spiritual and physical nature; this is clearly created by God as are simple-celled creatures, plants and animals and the “earth” which sustains us all.

The universe and this planet, it seems obvious to me, were created purposefully - intelligently designed.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Is there a design principle in the randomness of meiosis? In this process, diploid cells split and become haploid and the phenomenon has been determined to be completely at random. What design principle would be followed by having this process be random?

Of course the combining of haploid from the female with that of the male to form a new combination of genes, and thus a new human, may be natures way to encourage evolution. Sometimes the new combination is a complete success, but frequently the new combination has some defects rendering the new human with genetically caused disorders. If they are severe, the new human dies early.

See my post # 542 above. I think that answers your question. Absolutely everything that exists is under God’s Providence. There is no chance, coincidence, or randomness. This is true whether or not you consider the universe eternal or as having an absolute beginning in time, whether or not you consider the universe as evolving or not. Linus2nd

 

[rossum]

This statement is just your opinion. It limits proof to a particualr mode of proof. It freezes out modes of proof out side that mode.

I have a new method of detecting cancer. It always works 100% because I say so, and you believe me of course. Have I tested it? No, I don’t have to because I already know it works. And my new method of detecting cancer will only cost you $149.95.

Convinced? If you are, then I have this bridge in New York for sale…

If you are not convinced, then you can see why I want the design detection method to be tested. I wouldn’t accept an untested detection method for cancer; nor would I accept an untested detection method for design.

rossum

 

[rossum]

We observe a real world through our senses. Our intellects are designed by God to sort out these sensations and to make meaningful judgments about them, from which our intellects form concepts, from which our intellects form complex thought, etc. This is really the only way to live a realistic life. If what we " know " is an illusion, there really is no sense in getting up in the morning. How can we get motivated to walk thorough an illusion ( your world ) all day. If we really believed that, nothing would ever get done in the world.

You can see a horse. You can smell a horse. You can build your model of a horse using the (name removed by moderator)ut from your senses. My point is that your senses are approximate. You smell-of-horse is far less accurate than the smell-of-horse a dog will sense. Hence the (name removed by moderator)ut to your model is approximate. Similarly your sight-of-horse is much less detailed than an eagle’s sight-of-horse. What we see is a fuzzy blur compared to an what an eagle sees. Again our senses are approximate so our internal models must be approximate.

Someone who is colour blind will build a different model of a horse to someone who isn’t. Can that colour blind person function in the real world? Of course they can. The fact that their models are a bit less accurate than most people’s is not a major problem for them.

Our models cannot be anything except approximate because our sensory (name removed by moderator)uts are also approximate.

My point remains that our internal models are designed, and it is not an error to say that they are designed. The error is to mistake the internal model for the external reality. What is true of one is not always true of the other.

rossum