Biological Design Argument?

[prodigalson2011]

Why have life at all?

Why not?

Why is life necessary for Earth?

It isn’t.

Why was the creation of life by God called “good”?

Because it was.

What is the matter with a lifeless Earth?

Nothing.

Again, why is that good? That is teleology.
“Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided because whether they are true or false is argued to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge.2] Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, are still prone to use language that appears teleological when they describe natural tendencies towards certain end conditions, but these arguments can almost always be rephrased in non-teleological forms.”

The semantics of my phrasing aside, the fact remains that given the initial conditions of the universe, the emergence of life was inevitable. What I said could be perfectly rephrased into deterministic terminology to a point, rendering your concerns about teleology moot.

Why is it good? That depends on whether or not there is any such thing as good.

Why is life important to God? In Buddhism, incarnate life comprises a suffering existence and is to be avoided.

God is not a Buddhist.

Why is man the ultimate goal? Why not value other complex forms of life, especially those that demonstrate the ability to solve problems?

Why do you eat at one restaurant and not another? Why do you prefer this color to that? Why can’t everyone be the president? This is just a silly question.

What if it takes an eternity for life to appear?

The very idea is logically absurd. Think about that for a second.

If it never appears, who cares?

Either a) God or, barring his existence, b) no one obviously. More silly questions.

If there is a leisurely process to the development of life, why can’t random processes be in effect?

Who said they couldn’t? There are two possibilities:

a) the universe is accidental and will unfold according to its arbitrary laws in a more or less deterministic fashion. In this case the entire universe is random.

b) the universe is a willed creation whose creator is omnipotent and omniscient, and would thus know beforehand exactly what effects would follow his cause.

The practical consequences and thus our physical perceptions of them would be the same in either case. What makes the difference is the philosophical presupposition through which one views the universe. In instance “a”, all universal processes are essentially random, whereas in instance “b” they are all willed.

 

[prodigalson2011]

St Augustine was a Neo-platonist. According to that point of view, the design of creations already exists in Forms. So if the Forms are there, who cares if they ever become concrete?

That is like saying, “If a writer has an idea for a book in his head, who cares if he ever writes it?”

Why must God direct the creation of life? Why not just let life evolve randomly at its own pace?

I have not once argued for biological interventionism. Not once. However, if we assume that a) God created the universe via the “big bang” and b) God is omniscient, it follows that God would have known from all eternity every last result of that creative act, including every form of life which it would eventually produce. Ergo, it is not “random”, however much it may appear so to a human observer.

On the other hand, a designer should not have to wait an eternity to see his creation.

An eternal being doesn’t “wait” for anything. It is outside of time altogether. As the Catholic Church teaches, all time past, present and future is eternally present to God. And again, a few billion years is not an eternity. Not to mention the fact that you’re projecting your own sense of impatience, a product of your finitude and temporality, onto an infinite and eternal being. God is not just a bigger version of you.

 

[prodigalson2011]

St. Augustine viewed creation as an instantaneous event. No leisurely process here.

“passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul (“he created all things at once”), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.”

This is an incomplete understanding of St. Augustine’s perspective. It’s a bit like taking one sentence from a political candidate’s speech and calling it his entire platform. Now, let’s see what the whole picture is. To quote Prof. Alister McGrath’s succinct paraphrasing of Augustine’s teaching:

God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of the dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds, which will grow and develop at the right time. Augustine asks his readers to think of the created order as containing divinely embedded causalities that emerge or evolve at a later stage.

Hmm. That sounds a lot like modern cosmology, doesn’t it? All the matter which comprises everything that has ever existed or will ever exist came into existence with the Big Bang. The universe has since then gradually developed via a chain of causality into the myriad forms we observe today.

So, anyway, my point still stands. Nice try, though.

 

[rossum]

That question implies it is possible in an immensely complex universe for all purposes to be fulfilled without any obstruction whatsoever. How could that assumption be justified?

It could be justified by the assumption of an omnipotent designer with perfect foreknowledge who could design the laws of the universe to produce the desired outcome.

Can the laws of nature cater infallibly for every contingency?

No, but they can cater for every contingency that the designer has foreseen. If the designer has perfect foresight then every possible contingency has been foreseen. There is no need to cater for impossible contingencies.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

That question implies it is possible in an immensely complex universe for all

It is impossible to know or prove that perfect foreknowledge can exclude all undesirable side effects in an immensely complex universe - unless you can produce a blueprint of such a system and explain how all negative consequences can be avoided.

Can the laws of nature cater infallibly for every contingency?

No, but they can cater for every contingency that the designer has foreseen. If the designer has perfect foresight then every possible contingency has been foreseen. There is no need to cater for impossible contingencies.

You are deriving a perfect universe from perfect foresight yet all physical universes are limited in some respect. Utopia is a myth.

 

[rossum]

It is impossible to know or prove that perfect foreknowledge can exclude all undesirable side effects in an immensely complex universe - unless you can produce a blueprint of such a system and explain how all negative consequences can be avoided.

So, you deny the possibility of an omnipotent designer? You say that the designer is inevitably constrained by His design? That an omnipotent designer is in fact an impossibility. I am sure that a large number of theologians will be very interested to learn of your insight.

You are deriving a perfect universe from perfect foresight yet all physical universes are limited in some respect. Utopia is a myth.

Not perfect, merely a universe which meets the purposes of its designer. As to the physical universe, it is constrained by the rules of physics. As your side is often asking, what is the origin of the rules of physics?

The physical constraints on the universe are themselves put in place by the designer. Why would a competent designer put in place constraints which got in the way of his design? Would a competent designer design a watertight container with holes in the bottom?

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, you deny the possibility of an omnipotent designer? You say that the designer is inevitably constrained by His design? That an omnipotent designer is in fact an impossibility. I am sure that a large number of theologians will be very interested to learn of your insight.

Not perfect, merely a universe which meets the purposes of its designer. As to the physical universe, it is constrained by the rules of physics. As your side is often asking, what is the origin of the rules of physics?

The physical constraints on the universe are themselves put in place by the designer. Why would a competent designer put in place constraints which got in the way of his design? Would a competent designer design a watertight container with holes in the bottom?

rossum

Perhaps the constraints are in place because the physical universe is designed a kind of quarantined “holding facility” to limit the effects of evil brought about by human free will. The physical universe could, then, be designed with limitations, constraints and even, possibly, a kind of open-endedness which allows for supernatural intervention when and where necessary. If free will is a real possibility then intervention might be necessary to offset human actions that could have catastrophic results. All of this could have been designed into the system and need not imply anything like a limitation on either omniscience or omnipotence. The limitations in the universe could be intentional in order to meet a specific set of criteria and purpose for which the unverse was designed. Perhaps, it was never intended by God to be a perfect and complete design.

There seems to be a continual misunderstanding concerning the fact that God creates (present tense) the unverse from eternity. There was no “past” where God is concerned. All is in the eternal “now.” The universe was not created by God at a (to him) past time. The past is only for observers within the universe time-space continuum, but not a past time from God’s perspective.

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible to know or prove that perfect foreknowledge can exclude all undesirable side effects in an immensely complex universe - unless you can produce a blueprint of such a system and explain how all negative consequences can be avoided.

Non sequitur. Do you know the precise limits of omnipotence? Or do you believe there are no limits to what is feasible? If so you must be omniscient!

There is still no sign of a blueprint being presented for inspection…

You say that the designer is inevitably constrained by His design? That an omnipotent designer is in fact an impossibility. I am sure that a large number of theologians will be very interested to learn of your insight.

All theologians are aware that omnipotence does not entail inconsistency. It does not entail, for example, the power to create an orderly universe in which coincidences never occur.

You are deriving a perfect universe from perfect foresight yet all physical universes are limited in some respect. Utopia is a myth.

Not perfect, merely a universe which meets the purposes of its designer.

The purposes of a rational Designer take into account the fact that total success in every respect is unattainable in an immensely complex universe.

Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. Life is not a free lunch: there is a price to pay for everything whether we are aware of the fact or not - and whether we are willing to admit it or not.

As to the physical universe, it is constrained by the rules of physics. As your side is often asking, what is the origin of the rules of physics?

The physical constraints on the universe are themselves put in place by the designer. Why would a competent designer put in place constraints which got in the way of his design? Would a competent designer design a watertight container with holes in the bottom?

Do you believe there can be a physical universe with no physical constraints whatsoever? If so please provide a description to support your hypothesis. If not which physical constraints are unnecessary?

Don’t you think it is rather presumptuous to claim to be able to design a universe superior to the one we inhabit?

 

[rossum]

Non sequitur. Do you know the precise limits of omnipotence? Or do you believe there are no limits to what is feasible? If so you must be omniscient!

I know the definition of omnipotent. I do not need to be omniscient to know that.

There is still no sign of a blueprint being presented for inspection…

I cannot present a blueprint until you have provided a complete and detailed specification of the capabilities of the designer. Since you are denying an omnipotent designer, I need to know in precisely what areas the designer is impotent.

All theologians are aware that omnipotence does not entail inconsistency. It does not entail, for example, the power to create an orderly universe in which coincidences never occur.

How do you know this? What blueprint are you working from? Would you like to share that blueprint with us?

You are assigning a lot of properties to your proposed designer. Since we disagree about the properties of the designer, then it is not a surprise that we also disagree about the properties of the design. Your designer is constrained by his design. My designer shapes his design solely according to his requirements. My designer has carefully eliminated all inconsistent requirements. Your designer appears to accept some inconsistent requirements, and hence has to compromise on the design – not all requirements can be met because they are inconsistent.

rossum

 

[Paddy_Walker]

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

i think viruses are evidence of design. i get the feeling that a virus couldn’t evolve naturally, by natural selection, because a virus is not a living thing but neither is it dead matter.
its a conundrum, they have no function for themselves, they don’t benefit from life nor have any interest in life. their only function is, it seems, to be a type of governor for other life-forms.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you know the precise limits of omnipotence? Or do you believe there are no limits to what is feasible? If so you must be omniscient!

1. Do you know the precise limits of omnipotence?
2. Do you believe there are limits to what is feasible?

I cannot present a blueprint until you have provided a complete and detailed specification of the capabilities of the designer. Since you are denying an omnipotent designer, I need to know in precisely what areas the designer is impotent.

You have asserted that the design of this universe is clear evidence of incompetence.
Please provide a blueprint of this universe without its alleged defects.

All theologians are aware that omnipotence does not entail inconsistency. It does not entail, for example, the power to create an orderly universe in which coincidences never occur.

How do you know this?

Laws of nature entail causal chains of events which intersect in time and space.

What blueprint are you working from? Would you like to share that blueprint with us?

I don’t need a blueprint because I don’t believe the design of this universe is defective whereas you do. Therefore the onus is on you to provide a blueprint of the universe without the alleged defects.

You are assigning a lot of properties to your proposed designer.

You are the one who has raised the issue of the designer.

Since we disagree about the properties of the designer, then it is not a surprise that we also disagree about the properties of the design.

The issue is not the designer but design.

Your designer is constrained by his design.

The issue is whether the design of the universe is defective. You have failed to explain how all negative coincidences could be avoided and how no one could ever be in the wrong place at the wrong time. How could it be arranged so that accidents and disasters never occur?

My designer shapes his design solely according to his requirements. My designer has carefully eliminated all inconsistent requirements. Your designer appears to accept some inconsistent requirements, and hence has to compromise on the design – not all requirements can be met because they are inconsistent.

You have no designer! For you everything just happens to exist for no reason or purpose. In other words you believe in blind Necessity - which is the Supreme Factor in your scheme of things although how spiritual development fits into that scheme remains a mystery!

 

[nmgauss]

i think viruses are evidence of design. i get the feeling that a virus couldn’t evolve naturally, by natural selection, because a virus is not a living thing but neither is it dead matter.
its a conundrum, they have no function for themselves, they don’t benefit from life nor have any interest in life. their only function is, it seems, to be a type of governor for other life-forms.

“The origins of viruses in the evolutionary history of life are unclear: some may have evolved from plasmids – pieces of DNA that can move between cells – while others may have evolved from bacteria. In evolution, viruses are an important means of horizontal gene transfer, which increases genetic diversity.[7] Viruses are considered by some to be a life form, because they carry genetic material, reproduce, and evolve through natural selection. However they lack key characteristics (such as cell structure) that are generally considered necessary to count as life. Because they possess some but not all such qualities, viruses have been described as “organisms at the edge of life”.[8]”

 

[rossum]

I don’t believe the design of this universe is defective

Was the universe designed for life? If it was, and the design is not defective, then life should appear in the universe without the need for any further intervention. The archer shot his arrow with the design to hit the target. If his aim was not defective, then the target will be hit with no further intervention.

Hence, in a universe that is designed for life, a natural process, such as abiogenesis, can be expected to produce life. A natural process, such as evolution, can be expected to produce the variety of life that the designer intended. The designer has hit His target with no further intervention.

Of course, these conclusions do not apply if the universe was not designed for life…

You have no designer!

I do not accept the requirement for a designer.

For you everything just happens to exist for no reason or purpose.

False. The reason I exist here and now is because I failed to achieve enlightenment in my previous life. There is a reason/cause for everything, and that includes there being a reason/cause for all the gods.

rossum

 

[nmgauss]

In 1990, the late American astronomer, Carl Sagan, made a philosophical defense of abortion in an article he wrote with his third wife, Ann Druyan, for Parade magazine. One of their key arguments hinges on the belief that there is no moral difference between killing an embryo and killing a sperm or egg cell. In their own words:

Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.

In some animals, an egg develops into a healthy adult without benefit of a sperm cell. But not, so far as we know, among humans. A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg—despite the fact that it’s only potentially a baby—why isn’t it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?1

Sagan goes on to suggest that if abortion is murder, then masturbation must be “mass murder.” The main problem with this conclusion is that it ignores the fundamental difference between a sperm and an egg prior to fertilization, and the zygote which results through fertilization. The difference is genetic. Former United States Surgeon General and pediatric surgeon, C. Everett Koop, wrote:

A sperm has twenty-three chromosomes; even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm. An egg also has twenty-three chromosomes, and it can never make another egg. Thus, we have sperm that cannot reproduce and eggs that cannot reproduce unless they get together.2

Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days, never developing into anything other than what they are. The sperm shares the genetic code of the man, the egg shares the genetic code of the woman. It is only in combination, when the 23 chromosomes from the father join the 23 chromosomes from the mother, through fertilization, that a new, biologically distinct human beings comes into existence. This one fertilized cell, in fact, contains all the information necessary for a lifetime of human growth. Quoting C. Everett Koop again, "All that makes up the adult is present as the ovum and the sperm are united—the whole genetic code!"3

To date, murder uniquely applies to killing human beings. Therefore, the question of when personhood (or, if we like, ensoulment) arises is key to the abortion debate. When does the fetus become human? When do distinct and characteristic human qualities emerge?4"

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t believe the design of this universe is defective

You are assuming life is no more than a biological phenomenon - which is inconsistent with your belief in spiritual development.

The archer shot his arrow with the design to hit the target. If his aim was not defective, then the target will be hit with no further intervention.

The aim is not defective because life is not a matter of hitting one target but an immense number of targets over a period of billions of years.

Hence, in a universe that is designed for life, a natural process, such as abiogenesis, can be expected to produce life.

It is necessary to prove that abiogenesis is an undirected process, an assumption which is by no means self-evident given that life is undoubtedly teleonomic.

A natural process, such as evolution, can be expected to produce the variety of life that the designer intended. The designer has hit His target with no further intervention. Of course, these conclusions do not apply if the universe was not designed for life…

You are assuming evolution is an undirected process which is belied by the fact that life has developed progressively from monocellular organisms to immensely complex multicellular organisms which have achieved the remarkable feat of understanding how they have developed and become capable of spiritual development. In other words purposeful activity has appeared out of the blue for no reason whatsoever!

You have no designer!

I do not accept the requirement for a designer.

Even though you are a designer!

For you everything just happens to exist for no reason or purpose.

False. The reason I exist here and now is because I failed to achieve enlightenment in my previous life.

You may well have failed to achieve enlightenment regarding reality in this life!

There is a reason/cause for everything, and that includes there being a reason/cause for all the gods.

Occam’s Razor disposes of the unnecessary multiplication.

What is the reason/cause for everything?

 

[rossum]

You are assuming life is no more than a biological phenomenon - which is inconsistent with your belief in spiritual development.

Where did you get that idea. Don’t Christian angels and devils live in the universe? How can they act in the universe if they are not in the universe? Material life is a biological phenomenon.

The aim is not defective because life is not a matter of hitting one target but an immense number of targets over a period of billions of years.

The archer does not just hit the target, she also hits an infinite number of points between where she is standing and the target. This is a weak argument from you.

It is necessary to prove that abiogenesis is an undirected process, an assumption which is by no means self-evident given that life is undoubtedly teleonomic.

Science does not prove things. All of science is provisional and open to change if further evidence is found. Currently there is no evidence that abiogenesis was directed. If you have such evidence supporting that, then get it published in a science journal.

You are assuming evolution is an undirected process

I am assuming nothing. There is evidence that evolution is undirected. See the Luria–Delbrück experiment and the Lederberg experiment. Scientists do not like assuming things, unless they absolutely have to. Instead they check, measure and confirm things. Unfortunately, some non-scientists do not have the same habit of checking things first. Hence the large amount of misinformation about science on anti-evolution websites.

What is the reason/cause for everything?

You are caused by your parents. I am caused by my parents. Unless you are my sister (I only have one sibling) we have different parents. That is four causes for the two of us. The word “the” and the singular “reason/cause” in your question are incorrect.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Random Haikus
Appearing in the silence
Wherein lies the truth

Arguing Buddhist
Sits before the Zen Master
A caning ensues

ॐ is no answer
For that deepest in our hearts
Jesus is the Way

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming life is no more than a biological phenomenon - which is inconsistent with your belief in spiritual development.

Spiritual beings are not located in time or space.

Material life is a biological phenomenon.

You are again assuming life is no more than a biological phenomenon even though human life, for example, is not reducible to biological events. Or do you believe spiritual development is composed solely of biological events?

The aim is not defective because life is not a matter of hitting one target but an immense number of targets over a period of billions of years.

The archer does not just hit the target, she also hits an infinite number of points between where she is standing and the target. This is a weak argument from you.

Your argument is nonsensical

It is necessary to prove that abiogenesis is an undirected process, an assumption which is by no means self-evident given that life is undoubtedly teleonomic.

Science does not prove things. All of science is provisional and open to change if further evidence is found. Currently there is no evidence that abiogenesis was directed. If you have such evidence supporting that, then get it published in a science journal.

You are barking up the wrong tree! This is a philosophy forum: the evidence for Design is the existence of purpose in the universe which is beyond the scope of science, restricted as it is to physical causes.

You are assuming evolution is an undirected process

I am assuming nothing. There is evidence that evolution is undirected. See the Luria–Delbrück experiment and the Lederberg experiment.

A logical error. It does not follow from the occurrence of random events that all events are random. Moreover there is no reason why random events should not be the product of Design.

Scientists do not like assuming things, unless they absolutely have to. Instead they check, measure and confirm things. Unfortunately, some non-scientists do not have the same habit of checking things first. Hence the large amount of misinformation about science on anti-evolution websites.

There is also the large amount of misinformation about philosophy - and about Design in particular - on atheistic evolution websites.

What is the reason/cause for everything?

You are caused by your parents. I am caused by my parents. Unless you are my sister (I only have one sibling) we have different parents. That is four causes for the two of us. The word “the” and the singular “reason/cause” in your question are incorrect.

Are you acquainted with Occam’s Razor? It’s extremely sharp - and eliminates superfluous nonsense very effectively!

 

[rossum]

Spiritual beings are not located in time or space.

Mary was at a specific location in time and space. The angel was also at the same specific location in time and space, otherwise Mary would not have been able to sense the angel. Or have I misunderstood the doctrine of the Annunciation?

Or do you believe spiritual development is composed solely of biological events?

No, but I do believe that physical development is composed solely of physical events. Evolution describes the origin of the physical human body. Abiogenesis describes the origin of physical life on earth.

Your argument is nonsensical

Then your arrow cannot reach the target without teleportation.

You are barking up the wrong tree! This is a philosophy forum: the evidence for Design is the existence of purpose in the universe which is beyond the scope of science, restricted as it is to physical causes.

I would remind you that the title of this thread covers biological design. Biology is not beyond the scope of science. If you want to discuss philosophical design, then perhaps a different thread might be more suitable.

A logical error. It does not follow from the occurrence of random events that all events are random.

I have shown evidence that mutations are random. If you claim that there are non-random mutations, then it is up to you to provide evidence. Science works on inferential logic, which is why it is always open to new evidence. All the evidence so far shows that mutations are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype. Unless and until there is evidence of non-random mutations then science will continue to work with the evidence it has rather than with the evidence it might have in the future.

Moreover there is no reason why random events should not be the product of Design.

If a perfect designer wishes to hide, then why should we go against her wishes?

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Mary was at a specific location in time and space. The angel was also at the same specific location in time and space, otherwise Mary would not have been able to sense the angel. Or have I misunderstood the doctrine of the Annunciation?

rossum

This presumes that the human mind is unable to apprehend non-physical reality. While it may be true that the senses provide access to physical reality, your conclusion that Mary could not “sense” the angel unless the angel were in time and space leaves out the possibility that the human mind can access non-spacial and non-temporal realities. Clearly, ideas or abstractions are not in space or time. You might claim these are not “real,” but surely that only means to you that they are non-physical, which begs the question of whether or not they are “real” in some other way.