Biological Design Argument?

[Linusthe2nd]

One of the problems with ID discussions is that most of the time the participants cannot or do not agree to what they mean. And of course another problem is that there are those who reject it in any form simply on principle - which is what has happened here.

But Edward Feser, in his latest Blog entry, discusses the ID problem in the context of the " theist " vs " naturalist ‘’ between Nagel and various Theists. It only touches on " Biological Design " tangentilly but it is very interesting.

" He says, for example: We can study what Scholastics call “second causes” without constantly adverting to the intentions of the “first cause.” For instance, we can study chemical reactions and gravitation without constantly asking what God, as the source of all causal power, has in mind in making a world with chemical reactions and gravitation in it. That is why atheists and theists can do chemistry and physics and get the same results. To affirm God as “first” cause in the sense of being the source of all causal power is not say that only God ever really causes anything (as the occasionalist holds), and to say that second causes are true causes is not to say that they could operate even for an instant in the absence of God’s concurrence (as the deist holds). There is, for Aquinas and other Scholastic philosophers, a middle-ground position: Because second causes are true causes, they have causal power that can be studied and partially understood all on their own, even if a complete understanding of their causality as such (as opposed to merely their causality qua specifically chemical phenomena, their causality qua specifically biological phenomena, etc.) requires reference to the first cause.

In the same way, we can we study the teleological processes immanent to natural phenomena without constantly adverting to a divine designer’s intentions. The study of natural teleology is not a kind of disguised divine psychology. To study the natural tendencies of tree roots is the study of a feature of trees themselves, not an indirect way of trying to read God’s mind. Natural teleology really does depend upon the divine intellect directing things to their ends (as the Fifth Way shows, and contrary to Nagel’ position) but this does not mean that such teleology is not really built into natural things and knowable just by knowing the things themselves, whether or not one also affirms a designer (contrary to what ID supposes "

You can read the entire post here:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/06/nagel-and-his-critics-part-x.html#more

Linus2nd

 

[rossum]

The problem with your argument is that a trait that might be conducive to survival is not necessarily a trait that equips for the title of best reproducer.

Agreed. Living to 200 years old, but at the cost of not having any children is good for individual survival, but not good for reproduction. Natural selection would weed out that trait. It is solely dependent on the number of grandchildren (i.e. having children who can themselves reproduce).

In fact, there are existing classes and species with very high reproductive rates: fish, arthropods, molluscs, etc., that simply become fodder for other species with low reproductive rates such as mammals and birds.

Correct. There are two common strategies: ‘breed early and breed often’, like many molluscs and ‘breed rarely but look after your children’, like most mammals.

It is entirely possible that species with very high reproductive rates could go extinct quickly given predation and other environmental factors, while a species with very low reproductive rates could continue for eons given the right conditions.

You are correct to emphasise the importance of environmental conditions. High predation is an environmental condition that can cause extinction. Thick white fur is advantageous in the Arctic, which is why a lot of Arctic mammals have it. It is less of an advantage in the tropics, which is why it is never seen there. Reproductive success is always measured in an environment.

The problem with natural selection as a theory is that there is no way of determining before the fact which particular traits are actually those that assured survival.

Some traits can be determined in advance. The possession of good eyes is essential to eagles, who feed using sight. Any mutation appreciably reducing the effectiveness of their eyesight will soon be weeded out by natural selection. For humans living in an urban environment, the ability to cross a road safely is currently being selected for. We cannot make 100% predictions, but some predictions are possible.

The natural selection paradigm seems to be an example of question begging where survivability is concerned. Why did a species survive? It was better equipped to. How do we know it was better equipped to? Well… because it survived. Classic question begging!

You need to include the impact of variations. Natural selection selects between variant individuals within the species. Many individuals died, even though the species survived? How many acorns does an oak tree produce. How many of those acorns survive to grow into another Oak tree? Oaks are another example of the ‘breed often’ strategy.

Every single one of your ancestors for billions of generations succeeded in reproducing. Every single one. 100% success rate. Many of those early ancestors were in the ‘breed often’ group and yet they all succeeded in having offspring. That is a very very difficult filter to pass. 100% is the only acceptable score.

“If your parents didn’t have any children, then the chances are you won’t either.”

rossum

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Agreed. Living to 200 years old, but at the cost of not having any children is good for individual survival, but not good for reproduction. Natural selection would weed out that trait. It is solely dependent on the number of grandchildren (i.e. having children who can themselves reproduce).

Correct. There are two common strategies: ‘breed early and breed often’, like many molluscs and ‘breed rarely but look after your children’, like most mammals.

You are correct to emphasise the importance of environmental conditions. High predation is an environmental condition that can cause extinction. Thick white fur is advantageous in the Arctic, which is why a lot of Arctic mammals have it. It is less of an advantage in the tropics, which is why it is never seen there. Reproductive success is always measured in an environment.

Some traits can be determined in advance. The possession of good eyes is essential to eagles, who feed using sight. Any mutation appreciably reducing the effectiveness of their eyesight will soon be weeded out by natural selection. For humans living in an urban environment, the ability to cross a road safely is currently being selected for. We cannot make 100% predictions, but some predictions are possible.

You need to include the impact of variations. Natural selection selects between variant individuals within the species. Many individuals died, even though the species survived? How many acorns does an oak tree produce. How many of those acorns survive to grow into another Oak tree? Oaks are another example of the ‘breed often’ strategy.

Every single one of your ancestors for billions of generations succeeded in reproducing. Every single one. 100% success rate. Many of those early ancestors were in the ‘breed often’ group and yet they all succeeded in having offspring. That is a very very difficult filter to pass. 100% is the only acceptable score.

“If your parents didn’t have any children, then the chances are you won’t either.”

rossum

I think you will have to answer my post #916. If indeed, " natural selection " is a fact of evolution, neither that nor the " fact " of evolution disproves the need for an " Intelligent Designer, " transcendent to the material world by which the Secondary Causes of this world exist and by which they are guided, and by which they " Intend " to a specific and appropriate end, and by which they exist.

The only alternative is that they neither act, because without an Intended end or goal, there is no reason to do one thing rather than another; which is clearly false, because they clearly do Intend goals or ends. Nor could they exist because there is nothing to bring them into existence; which is clearly false, becuase they do indeed exist. Nor could they continue in existence, because they cannot be the cause of their own necessity. Which is clearly false, because they continue to exist.

Thus, the only alternative to an Intelligent Designer, a transcendent Creator, is that nothing exists. Alternative arguments are incoherent and the general public recognize them as such. By general public I mean ordinary men and women and a few intelligent academics who haven’t imbibed the " cool aid " passed out by the God haters and deniers who present the false front of an elite intelligencia with an ax to grind. God embarasses them and so do the masses, so they feel compelled to do away with Him.

And endless involved arguments in all the minutiae of evolution and biology and the physicality of physical beings does not improve the alternative arguments. These are mere red herrings to the central argument, the metaphysical structure and causes of real existings things, animate and inanimate.

Linus2nd

 

[rossum]

If indeed, " natural selection " is a fact of evolution, neither that nor the " fact " of evolution disproves the need for an " Intelligent Designer, " transcendent to the material world by which the Secondary Causes of this world exist and by which they are guided, and by which they " Intend " to a specific and appropriate end, and by which they exist.

Biology in general, and natural selection in particular, say nothing specific about ultimate causes of the universe, whether that cause is labelled YHWH, Vishnu or the Mulitverse. Arguments about ultimate causes stem from the very existence of the universe, not so much from the details of what goes on inside it. Biology happens at a much lower level.

The only alternative is that they neither act, because without an Intended end or goal, there is no reason to do one thing rather than another; which is clearly false, because they clearly do Intend goals or ends.

Just because something happens does not mean that it was intended. We have all heard of “unintended consequences”. If you wish to avoid unintended consequences, then you have to show certain properties of the creator/designer beyond simple the ability to create/design one universe. For example, a Multiverse has the ability to generate one (or more) universes, but it does not possess intelligence, foresight, intentions, goals etc. Those other properties have to be proved separately.

Thus, the only alternative to an Intelligent Designer, a transcendent Creator, is that nothing exists.

False. An eternal non-intelligent multiverse is one other alternative. You appear to be assuming part of what you are setting out to prove.

As to the “nothing exists” exists alternative, you might want to read Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– A Brief History of Time

If we live in a zero energy universe, and matter is a form of energy, then perhaps “nothing exists” is correct.

Alternative arguments are incoherent and the general public recognize them as such. By general public I mean ordinary men and women and a few intelligent academics who haven’t imbibed the " cool aid " passed out by the God haters and deniers who present the false front of an elite intelligencia with an ax to grind. God embarasses them and so do the masses, so they feel compelled to do away with Him.

If you look at the top right of my posts, you will see that I am Buddhist. There are a lot more gods in Buddhist scriptures than there are in Christian scriptures. Whatever else I may be, I am not a “God hater”:

Hate is not overcome by hate;
by love alone
is hate appeased.
This is an ancient law.

Dhammapada 1:5

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Every single one of your ancestors for billions of generations succeeded in reproducing. Every single one. 100% success rate. Many of those early ancestors were in the ‘breed often’ group and yet they all succeeded in having offspring. That is a very very difficult filter to pass. 100% is the only acceptable score.
rossum

This isn’t technically true, since the siblings of ancestors would also be considered ancestors and many of those need not have survived. You are being retrospectively selective when excluding branches of my family tree from being counted among ancestors. Or are you claiming aunts, uncles, siblings and cousins do not count as part of my ancestral tree?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Biology in general, and natural selection in particular, say nothing specific about ultimate causes of the universe, whether that cause is labelled YHWH, Vishnu or the Mulitverse. Arguments about ultimate causes stem from the very existence of the universe, not so much from the details of what goes on inside it. Biology happens at a much lower level.

There I disagree profoundly. It begins right at the heart of every material being, animate or inanimate. Please read the Blog by Edward Feser that I referred to. You are allowing your ideology to govern your thought processes.

Just because something happens does not mean that it was intended. We have all heard of “unintended consequences”.

Every act or change or movement is Intended, otherwise nothing would change, move, or act. Even inanimate beings must have a goal or end which they " intend. " A rock rolls down hill for a purpose, it is an Intended act.

Of course there are unintended consequences. Nevertheless, everything acts for an end, even inanimate beings. For the simple fact that if any being had no Intended end, it would not move.

Your " unintended consequences " refer to human foresight, which can fail and often does. That does not mean that God’s Intention has failed. God’s Intention always succeeds. That is why in the Old Testament, He referred to Cyrus as His servant. Cyrus did God’s will in destroying Babylon and freeing the Jews, even though Cyrus did not know God. It is in such a manner that all creation, animate and inanimate, does God’s will.

The inanimate and non-thinking do it through the laws of their nature placed in them by God to guide them, the thinking, through both the laws of their natures and through their intellects and free wills.

If you wish to avoid unintended consequences, then you have to show certain properties of the creator/designer beyond simple the ability to create/design one universe. For example, a Multiverse has the ability to generate one (or more) universes, but it does not possess intelligence, foresight, intentions, goals etc.Those other properties have to be proved separately.

Sorry, that won’t fly. The fact that it holds for one universe is all we need. Multiverses just pushe the goal posts futher down the field to no purpose except to errect a pseudo argument that doesn’t hold water - a red herring that most intelligent people recognize as such.

False. An eternal non-intelligent multiverse is one other alternative. You appear to be assuming part of what you are setting out to prove.

Such a non-intelligent multiverse is just a red herring. And I am not assuming anything. Please read Feser’s Blog.

Also, look over the Magis Center for Reason and Faith. Fr. Spitzer address your red herring quite well.
magisreasonfaith.org/

As to the “nothing exists” exists alternative, you might want to read Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– A Brief History of Time

If we live in a zero energy universe, and matter is a form of energy, then perhaps “nothing exists” is correct.

Well that just proves that Hawing is a very poor scientist. No self respecting scientist would hold that this proves the universe can or did " create " itself. Where did the positive and negative energy he speaks of come from, where did the gravity in which it reacts come from? Assuming that we grant that these were the beginnings of energy, they cannot cause themselves to exist - period. And once they have been created they must have ends or goals which are Intended. So Hawking is just another ideologue. Hawking is just a highly intelligent " snake oil salesman. " He doesn’t worry me a bit, what worries me is all those young “skulls full of mush” which drool over his every word, like he was some Wiccan god or something.

If you look at the top right of my posts, you will see that I am Buddhist. There are a lot more gods in Buddhist scriptures than there are in Christian scriptures. Whatever else I may be, I am not a “God hater”

I did not mean to imply you were such. But there are such lurking in these forums. And I’m sure you have noticed. However, I think you are a " fellow traveler " by default. You may not be a God hater, but those you follow are, make no mistake about that.

And I don’t mean to be offensive but I am pretty sure the Buddhist god or gods are not anything like the God of Christianity. I wouldn’t bet my soul on any one of them. We go through life once, we better place our bet at the rigtht window. And we only have one bet to make.

Linus2nd

 

[nmgauss]

This isn’t technically true, since the siblings of ancestors would also be considered ancestors and many of those need not have survived. You are being retrospectively selective when excluding branches of my family tree from being counted among ancestors. Or are you claiming aunts, uncles, siblings and cousins do not count as part of my ancestral tree?

In ancient Jewish Law, a direct ancestor is in the line of father, father’s father, father’s father’s father, etc. My parents siblings are not my ancestors.

This brings up the question of Jesus being of the House of David. Assuming that God is Jesus’ father and not Mary’s husband Joseph, there is no way to justify saying that Jesus was of the House of David.

theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?29656-Mary-s-genealogytheologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?29656-Mary-s-genealogy

"According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim makes it impossible, however, for Christians to insist that Jesus was king of the Jews. This is because tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father. This is clearly stated in Numbers 1:18. According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, not a human Jewish father. This human Jewish father would be essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.

Mary’s genealogy is entirely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage from King David. Mary’s genealogy is therefore not traced anywhere in the New Testament. In both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke, these New Testament authors provide a genealogy of Joseph alone, although these genealogies severely contradict each other. As mentioned above, Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to Christian doctrine, Joseph was not Jesus’ father."

 

[Peter_Plato]

In ancient Jewish Law, a direct ancestor is in the line of father, father’s father, father’s father’s father, etc. My parents siblings are not my ancestors.

In ancient Jewish Law a “direct” ancestor was in the line of the father, but that does not exclude other ancestors from being ancestors. As a Jew, you were a member of one of the twelve tribes which included all the members that descended from the twelve sons of Jacob but not necessarily in the direct line that leads to you. As a Jew, all those who descended from the particular son of Jacob that went before you would be considered an ancestor and part of your “house.”

 

[rossum]

This isn’t technically true, since the siblings of ancestors would also be considered ancestors and many of those need not have survived. You are being retrospectively selective when excluding branches of my family tree from being counted among ancestors. Or are you claiming aunts, uncles, siblings and cousins do not count as part of my ancestral tree?

They are not your ancestors. Are you descended from your cousins? Are they part of your family tree?

If you prefer, I can rephrase to read, “Every single one of your direct ancestors for billions of generations succeeded in reproducing.” My meaning and my point remain unchanged.

Natural selection is a very strong filter. As you point out, billions of siblings failed to reproduce. We are all the pinnacle of a very long and ruthless filtering process.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Every act or change or movement is Intended, otherwise nothing would change, move, or act.

Evidence please. You are assuming what you need to prove.

Sorry, that won’t fly. The fact that it holds for one universe is all we need. Multiverses just pushe the goal posts futher down the field to no purpose except to errect a pseudo argument that doesn’t hold water - a red herring that most intelligent people recognize as such.

Sorry, that won’t fly. The fact that it holds for one universe is all we need. God just pushes the goal posts further down the field to no purpose except to erect a pseudo argument that doesn’t hold water - a red herring that most intelligent people recognize as such.

Such a non-intelligent multiverse is just a red herring.

Evidence please. An eternal Multiverse does not need a cause, any more than an eternal God needs a cause. The Tripitaka tells me that the Multiverse is eternal and that no gods are eternal. I know that your scripture differs, but since we follow different religions that is only to be expected. Remember that I do not share a lot of your assumptions, particularly those that are based on the Abrahamic view of the universe.

Well that just proves that Hawing is a very poor scientist. No self respecting scientist would hold that this proves the universe can or did " create " itself.

Where did Hawking say that? All you are proving is that you have not read what he said carefully enough. All he says is that the universe contains zero energy.

And I don’t mean to be offensive but I am pretty sure the Buddhist god or gods are not anything like the God of Christianity. I wouldn’t bet my soul on any one of them.

You don’t have anything to bet with. Nothing has a soul:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

We go through life once,

Another point where Buddhism differs from the Abrahamic religions.

rossum

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?29656-Mary-s-genealogy

"According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim makes it impossible, however, for Christians to insist that Jesus was king of the Jews. This is because tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father. This is clearly stated in Numbers 1:18. According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, not a human Jewish father. This human Jewish father would be essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.

Mary’s genealogy is entirely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage from King David. Mary’s genealogy is therefore not traced anywhere in the New Testament. In both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke, these New Testament authors provide a genealogy of Joseph alone, although these genealogies severely contradict each other. As mentioned above, Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to Christian doctrine, Joseph was not Jesus’ father."

I find it humorous that you cut/paste an anonymous comment from another blog, and also placed quotes around it – as if your use of the quotation marks might lead someone to believe that the pasted comment holds authority.

I did not literally laugh out loud, but I came close to doing so…

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

You said that people with high IQ are less successful at reproducing. In my thinking you probably mean that people with high IQ have smaller families, but your words do not imply that.

I agree with the latter meaning. Now, if people with low IQ have large families, the chances are higher of having a high IQ child than with small families from that same type of parent. But if we give special aid to those children with low IQ so that they in turn have large families with more low IQ children, soon the intelligence of the population declines. That appears to be happening.

We cannot force smart parents to have large families, but the Kennedy’s of Massachusetts gives us an example of the benefit to society for this to happen. Do you suppose that God influenced the Kennedy’s to have lots of smart kids?

I do not claim to have any special knowledge with regard to God’s influence on the Kennedys - nor do I find the topic fascinating enough to speculate.

 

[tonyrey]

The flaw in your calculations is the assumption that life is reducible to chemical processes and living organisms are no more than machines. Do you really believe that? How do you justify that hypothesis?

Calculations are pointless until the claim that biology** is** reducible to chemistry is substantiated.

Even if biology is scientific it does not follow that life is scientifically explicable in every respect.

I do not claim that it is. I do claim that is is explicable in some respects. You are setting up a strawman of what I have said. Biology is part of science, and science limits itself to the material. The non-material lies outside science: gandhabbas, kinnaras, devas etc.

Calculations about the development of life are necessarily invalid because life is not entirely chemical nor even entirely biological (unless one is a materialist).

According to that argument human beings are no more than chemical machines.

But I do not make that argument, as I have told you before. I am Buddhist, not atheist. I accept the non-material parts of human beings.

The weakness in your position is that you have not explained the origin or nature of the relationship between the spiritual and material aspects of human beings.

(“parts” is an inappropriate term because human beings are integrated entities).

I await your revised calculations.

Calculations about the development of life are necessarily invalid because life is not entirely chemical or even entirely biological. Buddhism and materialism are incompatible.

Is spiritual development also the product of random mutation and natural selection?

No.Then spiritual development and physical development have nothing in common. Yet metaphysical dualism infringes the principle of economy. It is also incoherent when the two aspects of reality are unrelated, especially if one is purposeful and the other purposeless.
The failure to respond to these points weakens your argument considerably. Buddhism is spiritually benevolent but philosophically incoherent…

 

[rossum]

Calculations are pointless until the claim that biology** is** reducible to chemistry is substantiated.

I have already substantiated that claim. Science deals with STEM: Space, Time, Energy, Matter. Science does not deal with anything outside that. Biology is part of science, so biology is also reducible to STEM. While there is more to life than just the material, it is only the material part that biology deals with. We know that mathematics is very useful in science, just as mathematics is useful in biology. See the Hardy-Weinberg principle for example.

Calculations about the development of life are necessarily invalid because life is not entirely chemical nor even entirely biological (unless one is a materialist).

Calculations about chemistry are valid. Calculations about biology are valid. Calculations about gandhabbas are not valid. I have limited my calculations to the areas where calculations are valid.

The weakness in your position is that you have not explained the origin or nature of the relationship between the spiritual and material aspects of human beings.

The weakness of your position is that you have not explained the origin of your proposed designer.

Calculations about the development of life are necessarily invalid because life is not entirely chemical or even entirely biological.

My calculation were about biology and did not include the non-biological aspects of living things. Within those limits my calculations were valid. Is the calculation of the interest on someone’s bank balance invalid because it fails to take into account the spiritual aspect of the account owner?

It seems to me that you are making up excuses not to present your own calculations. Biology is science, and in science mathematics is a useful tool. In this case the mathematics shows that a designer is not required for the material aspects of life, as described by biology. That still leaves open the immaterial aspects of life, but those aspects are part of neither science nor biology.

Buddhism is spiritually benevolent but philosophically incoherent…

Your opinion on this is irrelevant to a discussion about biological design.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Calculations are pointless until the claim that biology is reducible to chemistry is substantiated.

1. There is more to life than just the material.
2. Biology is the study of life.
3. Biology is an incomplete view of life.
4. Therefore mathematical calculations about life present an incomplete view of life.

The weakness in your position is that you have not explained the origin or nature of the relationship between the spiritual and material aspects of human beings.

The weakness of your position is that you have not explained the origin of your proposed designer.

The topic is Design which - unlike Buddhism - presents an adequate, economical, coherent and verifiable explanation of the origin and nature of the relationship between the spiritual and material aspects of human beings.

Calculations about the development of life are necessarily invalid because life is not entirely chemical nor even entirely biological.

My calculation were about biology and did not include the non-biological aspects of living things. Within those limits my calculations were valid. Is the calculation of the interest on someone’s bank balance invalid because it fails to take into account the spiritual aspect of the account owner?

The comparison of life with a bank balance is absurd because life is not an inanimate, material possession.

It seems to me that you are making up excuses not to present your own calculations. Biology is science, and in science mathematics is a useful tool. In this case the mathematics shows that a designer is not required for the material aspects of life, as described by biology. That still leaves open the immaterial aspects of life, but those aspects are part of neither science nor biology.

1. The sharp distinction between the material and immaterial aspects of life is arbitrary and invalid.
2. Persons and animals are not purposeless machines.
3. Material reality does not explain its own origin or purpose.
4. Material reality does not explain spiritual reality.
5. Without spiritual reality material reality would not exist.
6. Spiritual development is more valuable and significant than material development.

Buddhism is spiritually benevolent but philosophically incoherent…

.
Your opinion on this is irrelevant to a discussion about biological design.

1. The inadequacy and incoherence of Buddhism highlights the superiority of Design which explains and integrates the verifiable, valuable and purposeful relationship between the material and immaterial aspects of life.

 

[rossum]

1. There is more to life than just the material.
2. Biology is the study of life.
3. Biology is an incomplete view of life.
4. Therefore mathematical calculations about life present an incomplete view of life.

1. Agreed.
2. Disagree. Biology is the scientific study of life. Hence biology is limited to the realm of science – it only studies those parts of life that are within science. God is alive, but cannot be studied using biology. We use theology, not biology, to study God.
3. Agreed.
4. Mathematical calculation about biology does not present an incomplete view of biology.

The topic is Design

The topic is Biological Design. Biology is within science, and deals with chemicals like DNA and RNA. Where is the evidence of any non-human designer rearranging DNA and RNA? We have evidence of human designers doing just that. Where is the actual scientific evidence of any non-human designers doing it?

1. The sharp distinction between the material and immaterial aspects of life is arbitrary and invalid.

The sharp distinction between the material and immaterial aspects of reality is one of the reasons for the great success of science. Science recuses itself from questions about whether YHWH or Vishnu is the true God of the universe, and concentrates on material things like studying electronics to make better computers.

1. Persons and animals are not purposeless machines.

But they do have mechanical aspects. Muscles and bones can be studied in terms of mechanical levers. These studies give useful insights.

1. Material reality does not explain its own origin or purpose.

1. Material reality does not explain spiritual reality.

1. Without spiritual reality material reality would not exist.

1. Spiritual development is more valuable and significant than material development.

How are these points relevant to biology? We are discussing biological design, not cosmological design or the impact of karma on the material universe. You do know that the relationship between the immaterial and the material is dealt with by karma, don’t you?

1. The inadequacy and incoherence of Buddhism highlights the superiority of Design which explains and integrates the verifiable, valuable and purposeful relationship between the material and immaterial aspects of life.

I already know that you are not Buddhist. How is this relevant to you providing evidence of biological design? It appears to me that you have no real evidence beyond your own personal opinion, so you are blustering and thrashing around looking at irrelevancies in order to cover up your complete lack of relevant evidence.

Where is your evidence of your proposed designer manipulating RNA or DNA in biological organisms?

If you don’t have any then please say so and we can move on to another topic.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

The topic is Biological Design. Biology is within science, and deals with chemicals like DNA and RNA. Where is the evidence of any non-human designer rearranging DNA and RNA? We have evidence of human designers doing just that. Where is the actual scientific evidence of any non-human designers doing it?

There is evidence that no chemical or physical processes arranged the nucleotide bases into the very complex order required for the formation of DNA and RNA. There is no discernible physical reason for that complex ordering. That fact does open the sphere of inquiry substantially. Until science can provide the causal links, there is reason for speculation. Admittedly, that is not positive evidence, but it is an open door that should not be ignored merely to maintain the theoretical reach of the scientific method. If science has come upon a legitimate issue that it cannot answer, that possibility should be given fair hearing, not dogmatically denied.

Science should be given the opportunity to present a case, but so should the opposing view receive a fair hearing, not merely denial on the basis that it is not science. Why be opposed to finding out the truth in the matter?

 

[nmgauss]

1. Therefore mathematical calculations about life present an incomplete view of life.

The topic is Design which - unlike Buddhism - presents an adequate, economical, coherent and verifiable explanation of the origin and nature of the relationship between the spiritual and material aspects of human beings.

1. The sharp distinction between the material and immaterial aspects of life is arbitrary and invalid.
2. Persons and animals are not purposeless machines.
3. Without spiritual reality material reality would not exist.
4. Spiritual development is more valuable and significant than material development.
5. The inadequacy and incoherence of Buddhism highlights the superiority of Design which explains and integrates the verifiable, valuable and purposeful relationship between the material and immaterial aspects of life.

Calculations require variables. E=MC2 has three variables denoting energy, mass, speed of light. Which of these variables can be assigned to spirituality?

How can Design be verified by tests?

Do sponges have a purpose?

 

[rossum]

There is evidence that no chemical or physical processes arranged the nucleotide bases into the very complex order required for the formation of DNA and RNA.

You may well be right for DNA, it is not easy to form spontaneously. You are wrong for RNA, which does form spontaneously. Whatever source you are using is misinforming you.

There is no discernible physical reason for that complex ordering.

Again your soources are wrong. There are discernible physical reasons for the ordering of some (not all) RNAs. Current research is looking at whether that is enough to explain the origin of life. We don’t yet have an answer to that one.

Science should be given the opportunity to present a case, but so should the opposing view receive a fair hearing, not merely denial on the basis that it is not science. Why be opposed to finding out the truth in the matter?

Nobody is opposed to looking at the truth. People, including myself, are opposed to pretending that something which is not science is science, and so should be taught in science classrooms. Teach it in philosophy classrooms by all means, but if it isn’t science don’t teach it in science classrooms.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

1. There is more to life than just the material.
2. Biology is the study of life.
3. Biology is an incomplete view of life.
4. Therefore mathematical calculations about life present an incomplete view of life.
5. The sharp distinction between the material and immaterial aspects of life is arbitrary and invalid.
6. Persons and animals are not purposeless machines.
7. Material reality does not explain its own origin or purpose.
8. Material reality does not explain spiritual reality.
9. Without spiritual reality material reality would not exist.
10. Spiritual development is more valuable and significant than material development.

None! There are far more important aspects of reality. Do you base all your decisions on energy, mass, speed of light?

How can Design be verified by tests?

By detecting purposeful activity.

Do sponges have a purpose?

If they didn’t they wouldn’t survive.

BTW It would be far more to the point to refute my statements than ask unrelated questions…