Biological Design Argument?

[Linusthe2nd]

It is a property of everything. Being a property of everything, it is useless. It is also a nonsense word I generated (alternate vowels and consonants).

My point is that if everything is X then property X is useless because everything has it and nothing lacks it.

rossum

Well, this is how you put it originally, " 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? "

Nothing here makes sense. Perhaps if you could say it again ( and not try to be cute). Just say what you want to say - but clearly.

So the term " oduronit " is not a real word but someting you invented. But what you meant to say by it is unclear. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We do not need an exact knowledge of the external world. Europeans survived perfectly well for thousands of years without an exact knowledge of Australia. We do not need an exact knowledge; we need a “good enough” knowledge. That is, good enough in our environment. In the historical European environment, a knowledge of Australia was not needed and so could be omitted from their models.

And indeed, this is true and it applies to the entire human race.

Our senses are all imperfect hence our internal models are also imperfect. They are however, good enough to allow us to survive. As you correctly point out, models that deviated too far from reality would not survive. Models that are close enough to reality will survive.

O.K., but you have implied or insisted that these " internal models " are produced by us and therefore are " designed " by us. That is what I disagree with. It is true that our intellects form images of reality as informed by the data given off by reality and received through the senses. My point is that we touch reality, but through the senses. We don’t construct anything. We know what we sense and reflect on. We know reality, as it is. The history of man and his survival througout of time.

We do not design anything. The mind repots what the senses give it and that is reality as it exists.

Read the link to ST. Thomas I gave you, he explains it better than I can.

Cheers. Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is a property of everything. Being a property of everything, it is useless. It is also a nonsense word I generated (alternate vowels and consonants).

My point is that if everything is X then property X is useless because everything has it and nothing lacks it.

rossum

Everything in the universe is made up of subatomic particles. It doesn’t follow that the term “subatomic particles” is a useless one, as you claim.

Furthermore, you are conveniently forgetting that the ability humans have to apprehend design and to embed design into things we create came about from “nature.” It would, at least on the face of it, make more sense to claim that the ability to design arose as a larger aspect of design in the universe than merely as a random chance event. The capacity we have to understand and incorporate design in life is better explained as an offshoot of existing design than as a novelty peculiar to humans, especially when design in the universe is clearly evident and explains our capacity to design with teleological intent.

My sense is that scientism is averse to the idea of design beyond human endeavor precisely because it places in jeopardy the myth of scientists venturing boldly where no intelligence has ever gone - the unknown mysteries of the universe. That Someone is already there with a bigger plan than we can imagine means humans are not free to impose our own inclinations on nature. It is not a tabula rasa yet to be written upon by human whim, but instead a profound mystery to be understood with a measure of humility and submission.

 

[ngill09]

Everything in the universe is made up of subatomic particles. It doesn’t follow that the term “subatomic particles” is a useless one, as you claim.

Furthermore, you are conveniently forgetting that the ability humans have to apprehend design and to embed design into things we create came about from “nature.” It would, at least on the face of it, make more sense to claim that the ability to design arose as a larger aspect of design in the universe than merely as a random chance event. The capacity we have to understand and incorporate design in life is better explained as an offshoot of existing design than as a novelty peculiar to humans, especially when design in the universe is clearly evident and explains our capacity to design with teleological intent.

What about ants’ ability to design? Only explainable as a product of precise design?

My sense is that scientism is averse to the idea of design beyond human endeavor precisely because it places in jeopardy the myth of scientists venturing boldly where no intelligence has ever gone - the unknown mysteries of the universe. That Someone is already there with a bigger plan than we can imagine means humans are not free to impose our own inclinations on nature. It is not a tabula rasa yet to be written upon by human whim, but instead a profound mystery to be understood with a measure of humility and submission.

Hardly. Most scientists and science enthusiasts I know are very humble when faced with the mysteries of the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

Why not have chance lead to the creation of a huge number of experiments, most of which fail? The ones that succeed incorporate the features that were arrived at by chance, leading to a following generation whose odds of surviving are better than the previous one. This is how evolution is thought to work. No design is necessary. Just random combinations of features, some of which are failures from day one, but others of which are successful.

If the power of reason is the result of random combinations of features there is no reason why it should be trustworthy. Would you rely on random combinations to make your important decisions?

 

[Aloysium]

It is a property of everything. Being a property of everything, it is useless. It is also a nonsense word I generated (alternate vowels and consonants).

My point is that if everything is X then property X is useless because everything has it and nothing lacks it.

rossum

ॐ

 

[Semangelof]

I like to listen to a lot of debates, Christian vs atheist, Jew vs Christian, Catholic vs Protestant etc.

The last one I listened to was a Christian debating an atheist. As in all of these types of debates there was an insistent destruction of knowing. In this case it reached so far as to say that there is no truth, there is no thought, there is no existence.

I am not intelligent enough to see how this is possible. I won’t be able to understand how I could not exist, or how something can come from nothing. I see a single orderly universe bound by the same laws of life and death, and mathematics.

Now when I order a pizza I open the box and make sure it has pepperoni. I don’t ask the delivery guy to prove that the pepperoni actually exists, I don’t even ask him to prove that it’s not turkey pepperoni. I make a reasonable assessment at the door because it would be fatally unreasonable to assume the pepperoni doesn’t exists. In fact if I demanded such an extraordinary burden of proof from that poorly paid man the pizza would become cold and spoiled before I was satisfied.

Now when the tax man comes to my door you can bet I will require an unapproachable amount of evidence before I pay a dime. I would try my best to prove that I don’t even exist to avoid those taxes.

Now am I being scientist here? Objective? fair? ;of course not. I’m choosing the level of proof I require to suit my myself. I don’t want to go to jail, but I do want to eat a pizza while it’s hot.

I’m not being scientific in my life, and I’m not the only one. Even the scientists do this. If they didn’t they would die of starvation or by accident through foolishness. They leave common sense at the door when they put their lab coat on, and that’s fine.

However, at the end of the day the lab coat gets put on the hook, and common sense is picked back up off the shelf and carried home. Why? Because the scientist knows they won’t even make it home without it. They realize it’s more important to live than prove that there is no meaning to life, even if the meaning to life is to prove that it has no meaning.

Now some of you see God as the taxman. Knocking on your door to take you to jail. And I don’t blame you for creating an unreasonable burden of proof. I would too.

But this is not the case!

You are all redeemed now! Your ransom is paid. Your captor has no claim on you. God is not coming to your door to put you in chains, your captor has already done that and locked you away. Jesus came to set you free. The captor can no longer claim us, but we can either claim the captor or Jesus. That is the good news of the Messiah.

I am not bound in a law like those chains you fear. I am set free from sin and death. I do not continue to follow a moral law out of fear, but out of desire. Having seen the truth of goodness I seek its ways in all that I do. The pure form of Love I have found, and I am not bound by force but desire.

 

[nmgauss]

If the power of reason is the result of random combinations of features there is no reason why it should be trustworthy. Would you rely on random combinations to make your important decisions?

If I encounter a puppy that was conceived by random combinations of genes from its parents, and that puppy exhibits the characteristics I am looking for, then I would rely on my good fortune of having encountered a fortuitous success. The successful puppy need not have been predesigned. It was the luck of the draw that produced that puppy.

The same occurs with humans. Each baby is an experiment with random combinations of genes from its parents. If the vast numbers of genes in that gene pool are desirable, then it is highly probable that the baby will be successful. However, if Huntington’s Disease is present in one of the parents, then it is 50/50 whether the baby will develop the same disease.

Can we say that designing a baby with the Huntington’s Disease gene is a desired goal?

 

[tonyrey]

If I encounter a puppy that was conceived by random combinations of genes from its parents, and that puppy exhibits the characteristics I am looking for, then I would rely on my good fortune of having encountered a fortuitous success. The successful puppy need not have been predesigned. It was the luck of the draw that produced that puppy.

Precisely! In an immensely complex universe it is inevitable that there are fortunate as well as unfortunate coincidences but it doesn’t follow that the laws of nature are also due to the luck of the draw!

The same occurs with humans. Each baby is an experiment with random combinations of genes from its parents. If the vast numbers of genes in that gene pool are desirable, then it is highly probable that the baby will be successful. However, if Huntington’s Disease is present in one of the parents, then it is 50/50 whether the baby will develop the same disease.

Can we say that designing a baby with the Huntington’s Disease gene is a desired goal?

No! Unfortunate coincidences are inevitable.

 

[nmgauss]

Precisely! In an immensely complex universe it is inevitable that there are fortunate as well as unfortunate coincidences but it doesn’t follow that the laws of nature are also due to the luck of the draw!

Why not? The randomness of puppy creation is applicable to all plants and animals that reproduce by the union of female and male genes. In the wild no intelligent being is manipulating the gene combinations to achieve a desired result. On the other hand, for domestic animals, the selection process by humans entails the use of intelligent design to achieve desired results.

In nature, an oak tree gives off millions of male pollen grains in hopes that the wind will blow some onto a relatively small number of female pistils Out of these unions, some will result in acorns and others will not. When these acorns fall to the ground, many will be eaten. Of those acorns that are not eaten, if they happen to fall on a suitable spot of ground, some will sprout successfully and others will not. Of those that sprout, some of the young shoots will be eaten and others will not. Those that establish themselves successfully may be burned by a wildfire before they can produce acorns. Others may become sick with oak root fungus and die before producing acorns.

All of these events are the luck of the draw. How can intelligent design control all these variables?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If I encounter a puppy that was conceived by random combinations of genes from its parents, and that puppy exhibits the characteristics I am looking for, then I would rely on my good fortune of having encountered a fortuitous success. The successful puppy need not have been predesigned. It was the luck of the draw that produced that puppy.

The same occurs with humans. Each baby is an experiment with random combinations of genes from its parents. If the vast numbers of genes in that gene pool are desirable, then it is highly probable that the baby will be successful. However, if Huntington’s Disease is present in one of the parents, then it is 50/50 whether the baby will develop the same disease.

Can we say that designing a baby with the Huntington’s Disease gene is a desired goal?

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

 

[nmgauss]

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

Is it possible to say this in fewer words? I got lost in the verbiage.

 

[rossum]

O.K., but you have implied or insisted that these " internal models " are produced by us and therefore are " designed " by us.

Correct. I didn’t make the models in your head and you didn’t make the models in my head. We each made our own models.

My point is that we touch reality, but through the senses.

Consider sight. Light reflects off a horse and enters our eye. This light is converted into electrical impulses in our optic nerves and those impulses travel to our brain. The brain receives a pattern of electrical impulses. It matches this pattern with previously stored patterns – the brain is good at pattern matching – and assigns the designation “horse” to this set of electrical impulses in the optic nerve. That may be “touching” reality, but it is touching with a long pole which has a boxing glove attached to the end. It is an indirect form of “touch”.

We know reality, as it is.

No we don’t. We cannot smell reality as accurately as a dog does. We cannot see reality as sharply as an eagle does. We cannot even sense the polarization of light like a bee does. There is much of reality that we do not, and can not, know.

We do not design anything.

Are your internal models that same as the internal models of someone who is colour blind? What of someone who is fully blind? Our internal models are specific to ourselves. We make them and we use them.

It is a basic error to mistake our internal model of something for the thing itself.

The mind repo[r]ts what the senses give it and that is reality as it exists.

False. The mind can only report on a series of electrical impulses arriving along sensory nerves. Those impulses are imperfect translations of the incoming sense data. I am no longer young, so I can no longer hear very high frequencies that I used to be able to hear. My senses are imperfect, and so can only provide an imperfect reflection of external reality for my brain to build a model from.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Why not? The randomness of puppy creation is applicable to all plants and animals that reproduce by the union of female and male genes. In the wild no intelligent being is manipulating the gene combinations to achieve a desired result. On the other hand, for domestic animals, the selection process by humans entails the use of intelligent design to achieve desired results.

In nature, an oak tree gives off millions of male pollen grains in hopes that the wind will blow some onto a relatively small number of female pistils Out of these unions, some will result in acorns and others will not. When these acorns fall to the ground, many will be eaten. Of those acorns that are not eaten, if they happen to fall on a suitable spot of ground, some will sprout successfully and others will not. Of those that sprout, some of the young shoots will be eaten and others will not. Those that establish themselves successfully may be burned by a wildfire before they can produce acorns. Others may become sick with oak root fungus and die before producing acorns.

All of these events are the luck of the draw. How can intelligent design control all these variables?

It is not the variables that are controlled but the overall trend and direction of events. Luck alone cannot guide a process over billions of years and guarantee a successful outcome. Life on this planet has survived in the face of overwhelming odds and not only survived but developed with utterly unpredictable complexity into incredibly complex beings who are capable of transforming the entire world with their power of reason, insight and understanding. Chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the transition from inanimate molecules to rational beings.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Is it possible to say this in fewer words? I got lost in the verbiage.

When doing philosophy one enters the deepest realms of human thought and comprehension. To sum up is the only answer to your question. Divine Prividence means that God governs and guides and preserves his entire creation throughout time, right down to the " random " movements of sub-atomic particles. But his causality does not interfer with the natural causality he built into the inner most powers of each particle of matter. His primary causality is more evident in non-living entities than in living entities and more evident in grosser entities and systems than in the smaller. Yet he governs all according his Eternal Plan. Nothing is outside its reach. Thus there are no accidents, no chance events or movements or changes, nothing fortuitous, not even in realm of sub -atomic activity which seem to our weakend intellects and scientific powers to be otherwise.

We live under the hand of the Divine. Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is not the variables that are controlled but the overall trend and direction of events. Luck alone cannot guide a process over billions of years and guarantee a successful outcome. Life on this planet has survived in the face of overwhelming odds and not only survived but developed with utterly unpredictable complexity into incredibly complex beings who are capable of transforming the entire world with their power of reason, insight and understanding. Chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the transition from inanimate molecules to rational beings.

The weakness in using survival as the mechanism by which traits are filtered is that there is nothing in the overall schema that says living things ought to tend towards survival unless that has been written in “the plan,” so to speak. Why should living things survive? It is just as likely, in fact enormously more so, that this long chain of life could have run afoul of the filtering forces and died a quick death anywhere along the 3-4 billion year old process. It would seem a stroke of unimaginable fortuitous luck that life has even survived, let alone flourished and become as variegated as it has. To argue that things have survived because they were the most “fit” is begging the question. It also glosses over the great increases in complexity and sophistication at the morphological level that had to occur to arrive at the incredible array of extant species.

Speaking of reification, and rossum has, the manner in which evolution (of which we shall not speak) is treated in many arguments is a classic example of this fallacy.

 

[tonyrey]

The weakness in using survival as the mechanism by which traits are filtered is that there is nothing in the overall schema that says living things ought to tend towards survival unless that has been written in “the plan,” so to speak. Why should living things survive? It is just as likely, in fact enormously more so, that this long chain of life could have run afoul of the filtering forces and died a quick death anywhere along the 3-4 billion year old process. It would seem a stroke of unimaginable fortuitous luck that life has even survived, let alone flourished and become as variegated as it has. To argue that things have survived because they were the most “fit” is begging the question. It also glosses over the great increases in complexity and sophistication at the morphological level that had to occur to arrive at the incredible array of extant species.

Speaking of reification, and rossum has, the manner in which evolution (of which we shall not speak) is treated in many arguments is a classic example of this fallacy.

Your last point is delightful in the way it turns the tables against disciples of Darwin and devotees of the blind Goddess.

 

[rossum]

The weakness in using survival as the mechanism by which traits are filtered is that there is nothing in the overall schema that says living things ought to tend towards survival unless that has been written in “the plan,” so to speak. Why should living things survive? It is just as likely, in fact enormously more so, that this long chain of life could have run afoul of the filtering forces and died a quick death anywhere along the 3-4 billion year old process. It would seem a stroke of unimaginable fortuitous luck that life has even survived, let alone flourished and become as variegated as it has. To argue that things have survived because they were the most “fit” is begging the question. It also glosses over the great increases in complexity and sophistication at the morphological level that had to occur to arrive at the incredible array of extant species.

Is the world overrun with Oak trees? No it isn’t. How many acorns does a mature Oak tree produce in its lifetime? On average only one of all those acorns will make it to maturity. You are correct, for a great deal of life a quick death is expected.

As to life dying out entirely, that is quite possible. If life had originated towards the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment, then it would have probably been destroyed. We are the descendants of the first (re-)origin of life after the LHB finished.

Remember that every single one of our ancestors, for billions of generations, successfully reproduced. That allows some very long odds to be beaten. As soon as there is one failure to reproduce, then there are no more descendants: “If your parents didn’t have any children, then the chances are you won’t either.”

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Some new stuff:

First Migration from Africa Less Than 95,000 Years Ago: Ancient Hunter-Gatherer DNA Challenges Theory of Early Out-Of-Africa Migrations

Blue-Eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor

 

[nmgauss]

It is not the variables that are controlled but the overall trend and direction of events. Luck alone cannot guide a process over billions of years and guarantee a successful outcome. Life on this planet has survived in the face of overwhelming odds and not only survived but developed with utterly unpredictable complexity into incredibly complex beings who are capable of transforming the entire world with their power of reason, insight and understanding. Chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the transition from inanimate molecules to rational beings.

How does the creation of dinosaurs fit in with Intelligent Design? They lived on this planet for 200 million years and then went extinct? How does the Book of Genesis figure in this scenario?