Biological Design Argument?

[Peter_Plato]

The way I look at it is this: to make a crude analogy (which you may have heard me make before on these forums), imagine God is playing billiards. Having infinite knowledge and power, he sinks every last ball on the break. Analogously, every physical event is foreseen and the “angle” and “force” of the shot adjusted accordingly before God strikes the universal cue ball. In other words, God so arranges the minute details of the Big Bang in such a way that every chemical reaction that would lead to the creation of life is inevitable. This is very much in line with the philosophy of both Sts. Thomas and Augustine. Obviously, the number of angles to be considered in the case of the universe is orders of magnitude greater than the number of billiard balls on a table, but this is God we’re talking about here.

I do appreciate this analogy, but it seems to me that the analogy presumes a kind of separation or distance between the shooter and the shot, as if there is no connection between them except in the fact that it is the shooter initiating a sequence of effects.

There are several paradigms that express the relationship between what is created and the agent creating it.

1. A static work such as a painting where the artist forms media into a representation or depiction.
2. A dynamic work such as a watch, machine or automobile where the craftsman creates a working artifact that functions according to a purpose.
3. A performance piece such as a piece of music or comedy routine where the creation is actively produced in and through the actions of the creator.
4. A living entity where an aspect of the creator becomes a part or aspect of the creation, i.e., parents bringing offspring into being.

From my perspective, if God is Creator, then all of these forms of creation might be representations of the way that God creates. I do suspect that God puts “something of himself” into creation much as a musician or father imbues the musical piece or child with a part of themselves. They put themselves into their creation in a way that shooting a billiard ball doesn’t quite capture. There may be technical skill involved in making a perfect billiard shot, but the billiard shot captures nothing of the shooter.

It would seem to me that a kind of open architecture could be an aspect of creation where matter is formed into a designation that is open to the infusion of something more, Divinity itself. In that case, matter could only be taken to a terminal point in terms of its capacity to carry the additional infused aspect, at that point it would not be so much an intervention, but rather an enhancement by the addition of something greater.

Mind, reason, ethical qualities, beauty and other non-quantifiable aspects of creation could very well be ways that these Divine enhancements to physical creation are detected or apprehended.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Could you expound upon it?

If God thought Creation (the big thought) the action would be the big bang which is a subset of His big thought. Make sense?

What are your thought on this?

**A NEO-PATRISTIC RETURN TO THE FIRST FOUR DAYS OF CREATION **
by Msgr. John F. McCarthy
** Part V. THE FIRST FOUR DAYS ACCORDING TO ST. THOMAS**

For Augustine maintains that at the very beginning of creation certain things were separated out by species in their own proper nature, such as the elements, the celestial bodies, and the spiritual substances, while other things were distinguished in seminal reasons only, such as animals, plants, and men, and that all of these latter things were later produced in their own natures in the activity by which after those six days God governs nature created beforehand. Concerning this activity in Jn 5:17 it is stated: “My Father works even until now, and I work.” (For Augustine) in the distinguishing of things the focus is not on an order of time, but of nature and of teaching. Of nature, just as sound precedes song by nature but not in time, thus things that are prior in nature are recorded earlier, as the earth is mentioned before the animals and water before the fish, and so with the other things. And of teaching order, as is evident in the teaching of geometry, for although the parts of a figure make up the figure without any order of time, nevertheless, geometry teaches that the construction is made by extending line after line. And this was the example of Plato, as it is said at the beginning of the De caelo et mundo. Thus also Moses, in instructing an unlettered people regarding the creation of the world, divided into parts the things that were made at the same time. 3

 

[prodigalson2011]

I do appreciate this analogy, but it seems to me that the analogy presumes a kind of separation or distance between the shooter and the shot, as if there is no connection between them except in the fact that it is the shooter initiating a sequence of effects.

Well, like I said, the analogy is crude. I should have also said that it was only partial. Of course, God’s relationship to the universe is more complex than that. I just find this analogy helpful in expressing the idea of non-episodic creation.

There are several paradigms that express the relationship between what is created and the agent creating it.

1. A static work such as a painting where the artist forms media into a representation or depiction.
2. A dynamic work such as a watch, machine or automobile where the craftsman creates a working artifact that functions according to a purpose.
3. A performance piece such as a piece of music or comedy routine where the creation is actively produced in and through the actions of the creator.
4. A living entity where an aspect of the creator becomes a part or aspect of the creation, i.e., parents bringing offspring into being.

From my perspective, if God is Creator, then all of these forms of creation might be representations of the way that God creates. I do suspect that God puts “something of himself” into creation much as a musician or father imbues the musical piece or child with a part of themselves. They put themselves into their creation in a way that shooting a billiard ball doesn’t quite capture. There may be technical skill involved in making a perfect billiard shot, but the billiard shot captures nothing of the shooter.

And I would agree wholeheartedly with everything you’ve said here. But I don’t think our two perspectives are mutually exclusive. I think they are rather complementary.

It would seem to me that a kind of open architecture could be an aspect of creation where matter is formed into a designation that is open to the infusion of something more, Divinity itself. In that case, matter could only be taken to a terminal point in terms of its capacity to carry the additional infused aspect, at that point it would not be so much an intervention, but rather an enhancement by the addition of something greater.

I would agree, and I would say that that infusion/enhancement is what we would call the soul.

 

[tonyrey]

A belief for which there is no evidence is worthless.

A remark that certainly applies to Buddhist beliefs about the origin and nature of reality, notably the intermittent universe and the apparent gulf between physical and spiritual reality.

Design is constantly evident in biological processes

And you have no evidence for this, it is just your opinion. We are back to “it sure looks designed to me.” Remember, “A belief for which there is no evidence is worthless”?

The universe supports life and unlike inanimate things living beings are goal-seeking. The most adequate explanation of both facts is Design.

which are purposeful unlike chemical processes.

Biological processes are chemical processes. We can trace the chemical processes involved in transmitting electrical impulses along nerves to a muscle. We can trace the chemical processes which make the muscle contract when the electrical impulse arrives.

The mechanisms of life do not explain life itself. How do you explain the origin of chemical processes and their **development **into purposeful beings?

 

[rossum]

The universe supports life and unlike inanimate things living beings are goal-seeking. The most adequate explanation of both facts is Design.

No. The most adequate explanation is natural selection. We have evidence of natural selection working over large expanses of time. We have no evidence of design at the time of the origin and development of life. Design is a very late entry on the scene.

Natural selection can easily be seen to introduce the goal, “reproduce more successfully than the other members of your species.” This single goal explains a huge amount of the way living organisms operate.

The mechanisms of life do not explain life itself. How do you explain the origin of chemical processes and their **development **into purposeful beings?

How do you explain the origin of your proposed designer(s) and their **development **into purposeful beings?

You are not explaining the origin of either life or purpose by proposing a living purposeful designer with no explanation of the origin of that designer. A living designer cannot design the first living thing, he/she/it/they can only design the second living thing at best.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are not explaining the origin of either life or purpose by proposing a living purposeful designer with no explanation of the origin of that designer. A living designer cannot design the first living thing, he/she/it/they can only design the second living thing at best.

rossum

You are using the word “living” ambiguously here as synonymous with biological. Living may not be exclusive to biological beings, therefore your argument depends completely upon equating living with biological. You are presuming what you are trying to prove.

 

[rossum]

You are using the word “living” ambiguously here as synonymous with biological. Living may not be exclusive to biological beings, therefore your argument depends completely upon equating living with biological. You are presuming what you are trying to prove.

Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” Emphasis added.

I am Buddhist, so I agree that life is not confined to the material. An immaterial living being cannot be the explanation for the origin of life. Just as material space aliens cannot be the explanation for the origin of material life.

A living designer is already alive and so cannot be the origin of life. Either life is eternal, or life had an origin in something not living.

rossum

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” Emphasis added.

I am Buddhist, so I agree that life is not confined to the material. An immaterial living being cannot be the explanation for the origin of life. Just as material space aliens cannot be the explanation for the origin of material life.

A living designer is already alive and so cannot be the origin of life. Either life is eternal, or life had an origin in something not living.

rossum

Regarding your last point (and forgive me for not reading all 800+ posts), it is my understanding that Christians believe life has an origin in something not “living”; that is, not of this world, or not a creature.

 

[nmgauss]

Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” Emphasis added.

I am Buddhist, so I agree that life is not confined to the material. An immaterial living being cannot be the explanation for the origin of life. Just as material space aliens cannot be the explanation for the origin of material life.

A living designer is already alive and so cannot be the origin of life. Either life is eternal, or life had an origin in something not living.

rossum

I thought we were talking about design of biological life? If God is not biological life, how does He get to be living?

A living entity follows the pattern of life. That is, it is the offspring of prior living beings, it requires energy and consumes food to derive this energy , it reproduces, and it dies. How does God fit into this pattern? If God is supposed to be constant and eternal, how does this belief jibe with catastrophic actions that God is supposed to make?

Study of Pre-Cambrian fossils has revealed patterns in clays that resemble the structure of amino acids. Did God create these patterns or are they merely the result of the properties of clay?. The simplest form of life is a virus. Evidence that viruses may have got their start in clays has been found. Did God miraculously create these viruses with the idea that 3.5 billion years later a creature with reason and a soul would eventually appear? That’s a heap of planning!

 

[rossum]

Regarding your last point (and forgive me for not reading all 800+ posts), it is my understanding that Christians believe life has an origin in something not “living”; that is, not of this world, or not a creature.

Which is why I quoted Psalm 42 in my post. If “living” is extended to include non-material life, then YHWH is living.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I thought we were talking about design of biological life? If God is not biological life, how does He get to be living?

If we are talking about material life, then God is indeed excluded. If non-material life is included, then so is God. This subthread started from PeterPlato’s post here, which talks about non-material life.

As you point out, non-material life is not part of biology.

rossum

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

Which is why I quoted Psalm 42 in my post. If “living” is extended to include non-material life, then YHWH is living.

rossum

I believe the Psalmist is using finite language in an effort to describe a phenomenon (an infinite creator) to the best of his ability; in one verse, the Psalmist also refers to his creator as a non-living object, namely a rock. Therefore, we would have to consider the whole text to determine the nature of the designer (from a Christian perspective).

 

[nmgauss]

ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/110401.html

Recent scientific research on clays have found that clays, through certain enzymes and electrical activity, crystalize left-handed molecules but not right-handed molecules. Theorizing that if amino acids are those molecules, DNA could possibly have arisen through normal chemical processes.

Research is not ready to announce a conclusion that DNA must have originated in clays through natural processes. But it is trending in that direction.

 

[rossum]

I believe the Psalmist is using finite language in an effort to describe a phenomenon (an infinite creator) to the best of his ability; in one verse, the Psalmist also refers to his creator as a non-living object, namely a rock. Therefore, we would have to consider the whole text to determine the nature of the designer (from a Christian perspective).

All attempts to describe the infinite using merely finite human words are doomed to fail. They can only ever be the finger pointing at the moon; they can never be the moon.

That is why science limits itself to material things. Words work a lot better in that arena, so it is easier to make progress.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The universe supports life and unlike inanimate things living beings are goal-seeking. The most adequate explanation of both facts is Design.

Natural selection** presupposes** the goal - which is survival and the plasticity which enables living organisms to survive. The mechanistic explanation is absurd. Neither we nor animals are chemical machines.

This single goal explains a huge amount of the way living organisms operate.

“a huge amount” is a very significant qualification.

The mechanisms of life do not explain life itself. How do you explain the origin of chemical processes and their development into purposeful beings?

How do you explain the origin of your proposed designer(s) and their development into purposeful beings?

Please answer the question. The topic is Design.

You are not explaining the origin of either life or purpose by proposing a living purposeful designer with no explanation of the origin of that designer. A living designer cannot design the first living thing, he/she/it/they can only design the second living thing at best.

You can ask your questions by starting a new thread. In the meantime please give your explanation of the **origin of chemical processes and their development **into purposeful beings - if you have one…

 

[rossum]

Natural selection** presupposes** the goal

No it does not. Natural selection is the result of reproductive success.

“a huge amount” is a very significant qualification.

There are other elements, such as sexual selection.

The topic is Design.

The topic is Biological Design. Purpose is not a part of biology.

please give your explanation of the **origin **of chemical processes

Ask a cosmologist, not a biologist. Chemicals originated in the Big Bang (mostly hydrogen) and in stellar neucleosynthesis (heavier elements). This is a topic for another thread since it is outside biology.

and their** development **into purposeful beings

Primarily random mutation and natural selection, with neutral drift etc. also involved. I know you reject that explanation, but you asked for my explanation. Purpose is not a reified quality, but an emergent property. It does not have an independent existence.

rossum

 

[Jotto]

If we are talking about material life, then God is indeed excluded. If non-material life is included, then so is God. This subthread started from PeterPlato’s post here, which talks about non-material life.

As you point out, non-material life is not part of biology.

rossum

Consciousness “is not part of biology?”

 

[rossum]

Consciousness “is not part of biology?”

A non-material based consciousness is not part of biology. Biology is part of science, which looks at the material world. It can deal with brains, nerves, electrical impulses and the like. Does your definition of consciousness fall within that definition?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Natural selection presupposes the goal

Reproductive success presupposes goal-seeking which is absent in chemical reactions. It is an absurd and simplistic hypothesis to reduce biology to chemistry.

“a huge amount” is a very significant qualification.

There are other elements, such as sexual selection.

Is sexual selection a chemical process?

The topic is Design.

The topic is Biological Design. Purpose is not a part of biology.

Your opinion is not shared by Nobel Laureate (and atheist) Jacques Monod.

Moreover the topic presupposes a discussion of purpose.

please give your explanation of the origin of chemical processes

Ask a cosmologist, not a biologist. Chemicals originated in the Big Bang (mostly hydrogen) and in stellar neucleosynthesis (heavier elements). This is a topic for another thread since it is outside biology.

According to you biological processes are reducible to chemical processes.

and their development into purposeful beings

Primarily random mutation and natural selection, with neutral drift etc. also involved. I know you reject that explanation, but you asked for my explanation.

Is spiritual development also the product of random mutation and natural selection? If not your interpretation of reality is incoherent with its two unrelated types of activity.

Purpose is not a reified quality, but an emergent property. It does not have an independent existence.

Purpose is** goal-seeking activity **which is the distinguishing feature of all living organisms.

 

[Jotto]

A non-material based consciousness is not part of biology. Biology is part of science, which looks at the material world. It can deal with brains, nerves, electrical impulses and the like. Does your definition of consciousness fall within that definition?

rossum

The consciousness that I experience I understand as a process which is dependent upon the neurons of my brain. But if I understand Darwinian biology correctly my experience of being able to choose between possible actions must be a delusion, an epiphenomenon. And this is necessarily so because there is no room within that underlying material processes of a human (or animal) brain for anything other than impersonal chains of electro-chemical events.

But I find myself unable to live as if my sense of subjectivity is a delusion. So I have chosen for now to accept the worldview of those quantum physicists who on the basis of the data available to them consider the field of energy that their theories hold to be the source of all matter to be a conscious reality. So while I am only able to participate in the consciousness of this ground field through the physical structure of my brain, I believe that consciousness itself exists apart from any neurological structure contained within biological entities.