Biological Design Argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bennierja
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Plato said:
Your argument is an “in principle” argument that designed things are “in principle” better if they need no further intervention.
Click to expand...
My apologies for not making myself clearer. I was arguing solely about the Fine Tuning claim. If something is fine tuned, then we can make reasonable deductions from that.

Something may be designed without being fine tuned. The claim to possess fine tuning limits the range of possibilities. Finding something outside that range will refute the claim of fine tuning, though it may not refute the more general claim of design. A piece of sloppy design, like an ill-fitting suit, would refute the claim of a fine-tuned suit from a master tailor, but would not refute the claim of a sloppy design from an unskilled tailor.
Aren’t you treating the universe as if it were some huge clockwork machine? Why does God need to be constrained in that way?
Click to expand...
If the universe is designed by God, then it is God who constrains the universe, not the other way round. Since biology is part of the universe, then on that scenario all of biology is constrained by God. The discussion then becomes whether God constrained biology at the moment of the Big Bang, and has let it run its course since then or whether He has intervened since then. If He has intervened to shift molecules around, then we would expect to see material evidence of His actions. Just as people look for material evidence (or not) of the Genesis Flood.
Why couldn’t the universe and creatures in it have been created with some measure of spontaneity, chance or dependency built into them with God tending them along the way?
Click to expand...
They could have been. With an omnimax deity there are an infinite number of possibilities. What evidence can you show to reduce the number of possible hypotheses?

rossum
 
rossum said:
They could have been. With an omnimax deity there are an infinite number of possibilities. What evidence can you show to reduce the number of possible hypotheses?
rossum
Click to expand...
If God is omnipotent, why are there any constraints? If the universe was created from nothing, then whatever laws of physics and chemistry we have detected can be changed? Putting life into a decayed human body, i.e. reversing the processes of decomposition, seems to have happened if we are to believe the Gospels. Why can’t God/Jesus do anything he has a mind to do? The fact that during the days of Jesus in Galilee the area was full God’s unpleasant creations such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, malaria, small pox, etc. was obviously not conducive to a healthy human existence. Malnutrition and starvation was a part of human living conditions in those days, as revealed by archaeological studies. I should think that knowing that 50 percent of children died before reaching the age of five in Galilee, and God wanted to help these children, he would do something to reduce the mortality.

If I were to design species and Earth to feed the starving masses, I would increase the rainfall in Israel and/or invent food sources that did a better job of feeding my people.
 
nmgauss said:
If I were to design species and Earth to feed the starving masses, I would increase the rainfall in Israel and/or invent food sources that did a better job of feeding my people.
Click to expand...
Manna from heaven? That seems to have been a strictly limited offer.

rossum
 
nmgauss said:
Does design necessarily have to have a designer? Crystals and snowflakes can be beautiful, but they also seem to occur without any outside influence. The same goes for beautiful dormant volcanoes and snowcapped mountain peaks. How about Yosemite Valley? Was this designed by a designer?
Click to expand...
Patterns are produced by nature all the time. We never see nature produce designs. Designs always contain patterns.
 
buffalo said:
Patterns are produced by nature all the time. We never see nature produce designs. Designs always contain patterns.
Click to expand...
Can one discern that certain patterns have probably been created by designers, but that others were probably not created by designers. If not, then assuming a designer is pure conjecture. In my view, it is safer to assume no designer.

For example, study of aerial photos has revealed patterns on the land that looked like designs. This is how ancient buried ruins have been discovered. But stream marks found on Mars have been evaluated as simple random water erosion without any reference to a designer.
 
nmgauss said:
Can one discern that certain patterns have probably been created by designers, but that others were probably not created by designers. If not, then assuming a designer is pure conjecture. In my view, it is safer to assume no designer.

For example, study of aerial photos has revealed patterns on the land that looked like designs. This is how ancient buried ruins have been discovered. But stream marks found on Mars have been evaluated as simple random water erosion without any reference to a designer.
Click to expand...
In this photo we have two types of patterns. Which one is designed and why?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThPvoQPPzmEaNeNo9ujt7ELgJwFRUBSEzIvAwnunwggfEbzSXH
 
buffalo said:
Maps, symbols, plans, music, and language all have a purpose and are designed.
Click to expand...
Is nature designed? If so, is it possible for a larger design to be so designed as to produce smaller designs?

If so, could nature not then be so designed as to produce life?
 
prodigalson2011 said:
Is nature designed? If so, is it possible for a larger design to be so designed as to produce smaller designs?

If so, could nature not then be so designed as to produce life?
Click to expand...
Are you asking whether a cascade of designs could be set up before the original design is finalized? Designing a bridge is a good example. To have a successful bridge design, the purpose of the bridge and the needs of the bridge users has to be finalized (Is it a railroad bridge or a highway bridge?). Design of the steel members (I-Beams, Cables, etc.) has to be finalized. Design of the steel formula (which alloys to use) has to be finalized, as well as design of the bolts holding the thing together, design of the foundation, design of the construction methods, design of the concrete members including number and strength of the rebars all have to be finalized. There is very little room for changes once the bridge is built.

So, in order to design a life form and have that life form succeed, one needs to design that life form’s source of energy, its waste disposal system, its reproducing strategy, its defense system to ward off predators, and its strategy to survive changes in its environment. In this scenario, a cascade of designs is incorporated into the successful design of the entire organism.

Multiple mental skills are required to come up with a successful design. Can one mind have all these skills?

Is this an ideal bridge as formed in the mind, or one that is designed to fit real conditions? In the case of a bridge, although an ideal earth material on which to build the bridge may not exist, one needs to determine what is available. Whether the bridge will be one span or multiple spans is determined by the width of the expanse the bridge will cover and the strength of the materials. In other words, the ideal design as formed in the mind may not be possible.
 
nmgauss said:
Are you asking whether a cascade of designs could be set up before the original design is finalized? Designing a bridge is a good example. To have a successful bridge design, the purpose of the bridge and the needs of the bridge users has to be finalized (Is it a railroad bridge or a highway bridge?). Design of the steel members (I-Beams, Cables, etc.) has to be finalized. Design of the steel formula (which alloys to use) has to be finalized, as well as design of the bolts holding the thing together, design of the foundation, design of the construction methods, design of the concrete members including number and strength of the rebars all have to be finalized. There is very little room for changes once the bridge is built.

So, in order to design a life form and have that life form succeed, one needs to design that life form’s source of energy, its waste disposal system, its reproducing strategy, its defense system to ward off predators, and its strategy to survive changes in its environment. In this scenario, a cascade of designs is incorporated into the successful design of the entire organism.

Multiple mental skills are required to come up with a successful design. Can one mind have all these skills?

Is this an ideal bridge as formed in the mind, or one that is designed to fit real conditions? In the case of a bridge, although an ideal earth material on which to build the bridge may not exist, one needs to determine what is available. Whether the bridge will be one span or multiple spans is determined by the width of the expanse the bridge will cover and the strength of the materials. In other words, the ideal design as formed in the mind may not be possible.
Click to expand...
I am asking whether the laws of nature could have been so finely tuned as to produce life free from further intervention?

I say yes. A certain and significant percentage of ID proponents seem to disagree. To me, excluding the possibility does a tremendous injustice to an omniscient and omnipotent power.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
I am asking whether the laws of nature could have been so finely tuned as to produce life free from further intervention?

I say yes. A certain and significant percentage of ID proponents seem to disagree. To me, excluding the possibility does a tremendous injustice to an omniscient and omnipotent power.
Click to expand...
In the design of a life form, being able to predict the future environment is crucial (droughts, floods, excessive heat, excessive cold, food supply, competition for food, the numbers of offspring to produce). An omniscient and omnipotent God would not let these exigencies stop Him. He would be able to predict forever into the future or else manage the environment so that his creations would survive.

But when the dinosaurs were wiped out, God would have had to admit that he goofed. He was neither omniscient (He failed to save his creations by predicting the asteroid crashing into Earth), and he was not omnipotent (He failed to prevent the asteroid from colliding with Earth). Then again, He may have planned this catastrophe because He was tired of looking at dinosaurs. Some of his creations were small mammals but suffered terrible predation from reptiles. So maybe he wanted to give mammals a chance, and wiping out the dinosaurs by allowing the asteroid to crash was a good way to it.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
I am asking whether the laws of nature could have been so finely tuned as to produce life free from further intervention?

I say yes. A certain and significant percentage of ID proponents seem to disagree. To me, excluding the possibility does a tremendous injustice to an omniscient and omnipotent power.
Click to expand...
Being omnipotent does not entail being inconsistent. There is no point in creating an orderly universe if the laws of nature are going to be constantly suspended to prevent accidents, misfortunes and disasters.
 
tonyrey said:
Being omnipotent does not entail being inconsistent. There is no point in creating an orderly universe if the laws of nature are going to be constantly suspended to prevent accidents, misfortunes and disasters.
Click to expand...
If God wants to be inconsistent, what is stopping Him? He is omnipotent. Does he have free will? Can’t he play with the universe if we wants to?
 
tonyrey said:
Being omnipotent does not entail being inconsistent. There is no point in creating an orderly universe if the laws of nature are going to be constantly suspended to prevent accidents, misfortunes and disasters.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say in relation to my post, tonyrey?
 
nmgauss said:
In the design of a life form, being able to predict the future environment is crucial (droughts, floods, excessive heat, excessive cold, food supply, competition for food, the numbers of offspring to produce). An omniscient and omnipotent God would not let these exigencies stop Him. He would be able to predict forever into the future or else manage the environment so that his creations would survive.

But when the dinosaurs were wiped out, God would have had to admit that he goofed. He was neither omniscient (He failed to save his creations by predicting the asteroid crashing into Earth), and he was not omnipotent (He failed to prevent the asteroid from colliding with Earth). Then again, He may have planned this catastrophe because He was tired of looking at dinosaurs. Some of his creations were small mammals but suffered terrible predation from reptiles. So maybe he wanted to give mammals a chance, and wiping out the dinosaurs by allowing the asteroid to crash was a good way to it.
Click to expand...
You partially answer your own objection in the final sentences, but I would go further. Actually, I would approach the question in an altogether different manner. It should be remembered that in the era of dinosaurs, the planetary atmosphere (climate, environment, etc.) was drastically different. Dinosaurs most probably served a very necessary purpose in biological development at that time which extended beyond their own kind, e.g. maintaining ecosystems, symbiotic relationships, etc. If dinosaurs had never existed, we may well not exist either.

What is equally obvious is that if God wanted us, dinosaurs eventually had to go. If dinosaurs had not gone extinct, higher mammals would have never evolved. As it happens, the extinction event which wiped the dinosaurs out stopped short of our oldest contemporary ancestor. This is yet another of the nigh incomprehensible number of coincidences that led to our emergence.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
I am asking whether the laws of nature could have been so finely tuned as to produce life free from further intervention?

I say yes. A certain and significant percentage of ID proponents seem to disagree. To me, excluding the possibility does a tremendous injustice to an omniscient and omnipotent power.
Click to expand...
Does this fit?

The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
 
nmgauss said:
In the design of a life form, being able to predict the future environment is crucial (droughts, floods, excessive heat, excessive cold, food supply, competition for food, the numbers of offspring to produce). An omniscient and omnipotent God would not let these exigencies stop Him. He would be able to predict forever into the future or else manage the environment so that his creations would survive.

But when the dinosaurs were wiped out, God would have had to admit that he goofed. He was neither omniscient (He failed to save his creations by predicting the asteroid crashing into Earth), and he was not omnipotent (He failed to prevent the asteroid from colliding with Earth). Then again, He may have planned this catastrophe because He was tired of looking at dinosaurs. Some of his creations were small mammals but suffered terrible predation from reptiles. So maybe he wanted to give mammals a chance, and wiping out the dinosaurs by allowing the asteroid to crash was a good way to it.
Click to expand...
How do we know that extinctions are a design failure. It could be that God wanted various creatures to come and go. The variations come and go but the basics are still with us - flying creatures, creatures of the sea, cattle, etc…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top