Biological Design Argument?

[rossum]

Christianity goes back to the garden of Eden

And Buddhism goes back to at least the Buddha Dipankara, 32,000 years ago. There were many earlier Buddhas, but I don’t have dates for them.

rossum

 

[rossum]

DNA is the blueprint of life. DNA points beyond itself to life; it is ordered to life. DNA, to be useful and operative, itself requires a living organism.

You are probably correct about DNA, but you are certainly incorrect about RNA. RNA can be “useful and operative” outside of a living organism. Google “ribozymes” for an example. That is the reason for a lot of abiogenesis research being focussed on the RNA World.

You are pretending as if there is anything remotely like an adequate materialist theory to explain the development of conscious experience or consciousness; or even one that explains it as it is.

We have made a start on the origins of consciousness. Various animals, mostly mammals and a small number of birds, have been shown to possess self-conciousness.

Life remains a scientific mystery, rossum; and especially those aspects of life traditionally associated with the classical doctrine of the soul (i.e. the life-principle).

Biological life (that is material life) is much less of a mystery. Vitalism has long been disproven. I am Buddhist so there is no mystery attached to the soul: souls does not exist so there can be no mystery attached to them.

rossum

 

[nmgauss]

No. The limits can be mentioned briefly at the start, and repeated whenever a pupil askes a question outside those limits.

Not opposed, merely point out that the scientist is talking outside his or her area of expertise. That does not make the scientist either right or wrong, merely not an expert in the topic at hand. Some scientists write pro-religion books while other scientists write anti-religion books.

Probably at university level. It is a complex subject and needs a lot of background in philosophy before it can be fully appreciated. You don’t teach Bessel Functions to ten year olds.

rossum

In all my years at universities across the United States and in France, I never remember anyone asking about the limitations of science. I have taken many courses in science and engineering, and philosophy was not part of the curriculum. Even the history of science emphasizes achievements in scientific knowledge rather than doubting the applicability to human affairs.

 

[nmgauss]

Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Whether or not the Gospels record the Lord preaching about the orderly goodness of Creation is irrelevant: it is a belief already well-testified to in the Old Testament and a doctrine that the Apostles continued in their preaching.

Again, Romans 1:20, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen… so that they are without excuse”.

You are quoting St. Paul who never met Jesus. He may have been an apostle, but he is interpreting the teachings of Jesus before the Gospels were written. This is highly conjectural.

 

[rossum]

In all my years at universities across the United States and in France, I never remember anyone asking about the limitations of science. I have taken many courses in science and engineering, and philosophy was not part of the curriculum. Even the history of science emphasizes achievements in scientific knowledge rather than doubting the applicability to human affairs.

I was not thinking so much about direct questions, which are indeed rare, but about indirect questions, “What does science tell us about…” where the topic is outside of science.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

You are quoting St. Paul who never met Jesus. He may have been an apostle, but he is interpreting the teachings of Jesus before the Gospels were written. This is highly conjectural.

Catholics believe that the entirety of the Scriptures, including that which St. Paul penned, is the Word of God. Not just what Jesus proclaimed.

At any rate, it is only through the Catholic Church that you can know what Jesus even said, so if the Church says something came from God, then you have the same assurance that it came from Christ.

 

[nmgauss]

Catholics believe that the entirety of the Scriptures, including that which St. Paul penned, is the Word of God. Not just what Jesus proclaimed.

At any rate, it is only through the Catholic Church that you can know what Jesus even said, so if the Church says something came from God, then you have the same assurance that it came from Christ.

You do a disservice to Christian non-Catholics. All of Christianity respects the New Testament.
Whether you respect it or believe every word as it has been translated into English from the original Greek is not valid for a Biblical scholar who is trying to determine the veracity of that text. Scholarship takes a skeptical attitude, which is different from a credulous attitude ready to believe anything from an authoritative figure, whether supported by solid evidence or not. I’m a confirmed skeptic, so your words make little impact on me.

 

[PRmerger]

You do a disservice to Christian non-Catholics. All of Christianity respects the New Testament.

Of course.

But the only way they know what belongs in the NT is because they have given tacit submission to the Catholic Church, which discerned for all of Christendom which books were theopneustos and which were not.

Whether you respect it or believe every word as it has been translated into English from the original Greek is not valid for a Biblical scholar who is trying to determine the veracity of that text. Scholarship takes a skeptical attitude, which is different from a credulous attitude ready to believe anything from an authoritative figure, whether supported by solid evidence or not. I’m a confirmed skeptic, so your words make little impact on me.

I, too, am a confirmed skeptic.

 

[Aloysium]

You are quoting St. Paul who never met Jesus. He may have been an apostle, but he is interpreting the teachings of Jesus before the Gospels were written. This is highly conjectural.

He met Jesus on the road to Damascus:
Acts 9:3 It happened that while he was travelling to Damascus and approaching the city, suddenly a light from heaven shone all round him. 4 He fell to the ground, and then he heard a voice saying, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ 5 ‘Who are you, Lord?’ he asked, and the answer came, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And you have no evidence to disprove the existence of Russell’s Teapot. That is not how science works.

It is obvious that you have no substantive evidence, and that all biological systems function so as to bring about the end goal of reproducing successfully. Natural selection is a sufficient explanation for that goal. Any assertion of a designer needs to be supported by independent evidence of the existence of the designer(s) at the appropriate time and place.

You are falling back, yet again, or “It sure looks designed to me”. I have already told you that I do not accept your statement. I can explain the existence of MRSA. Are you telling us that your proposed designer wants to kill hospital patients by infecting them with the specially designed MRSA bacteria?

rossum

Firstly, our intellects were given to us to understand and to judge and to draw conclusions. I don’t need a scientist to tell me whether or not God exists or whether or not the entire universe, from the beginning of time, has functioned in an orderly fashion according to His Divine Will to accomplish His Divine purpose ( i.e. that it reflect as closely as possible his Goodness).

I don’t need a scientist to tell me that every facet of the existing world operates according to laws written its nature. And that this means that someone ( i.e.God ) put those laws in natures of all existing things - animate and inanimate, atoms, positrons, microbs, weather systems, people, bugs, flowers, etc. This means that God is indeed the Grand Designer. Ordinary people have known this for centuries or at least suspected it - almost universally so.

Now it has only been since the Enlightenment of the 17th century that people have been rejecting God. But it won’t do.

Even though they reject Him, they must live as if they didn’t. Because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t dare to walk out into the street each morning to go to work.

And if there was no Grand Designer, nothing would work, " the trains wouldn’t run, " let alone run on time. The scinetists’ test tubes, all his apparati, all his research would be useless because he could never count on anything operating in a uniform manner or reaching a proper end. Quite simply, life would be impossible, we wouldn’t be here. All that would exist, if anything, would be absolute chaos.

But there are those, the deniers, who prefer to live in a dream world.

Of course, immediate secondary, incidential causes, can go astray. But that does not mean that the Primary Cause ( the Grand Designer ), has " dozed off. " That is a red herring argument, as you well know.

Of course MRSA, Aids, Thyphoid, etc. are horrible afflictions. Natural evils, moral evils do not change the facts. The fact is that the universe, including our world, has been humming along just dandily for billions of years. And people have been living happily and unhappily, in years of health and in years of illness and discomfort and in years of comfort… This rather proves the point than disproves it.

But some would look at the glass and see it half empty, others would rather see it half full.

Would you have the lives of the suffering be meaningless? Would you deprive them of their only hope of joy and happiness by telling them that their lives have been pointless, that their suffering is pointless?

Linus2nd

 

[rossum]

Firstly, our intellects were given to us to understand and to judge and to draw conclusions.

Look at that “given”. Who gave? Vishnu? Thor? Durga? What is your independent evidence of the existence of any giver? I hope you realise that assuming what you have to prove is not the way to win an argument.

Of course MRSA, Aids, Thyphoid, etc. are horrible afflictions.

And all are biological. Were they designed by your proposed designer? If they were not designed, then what processes gave rise to them?

You are giving me a lot of opinion and non-biological arguments. Those do not cut a great deal of ice in a discussion about biological design.

rossum

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Look at that “given”. Who gave? Vishnu? Thor? Durga? What is your independent evidence of the existence of any giver? I hope you realise that assuming what you have to prove is not the way to win an argument.

And all are biological. Were they designed by your proposed designer? If they were not designed, then what processes gave rise to them?

You are giving me a lot of opinion and non-biological arguments. Those do not cut a great deal of ice in a discussion about biological design.

rossum

Those who are seeking the truth will recognize the truth. So I’m not worried.

Linus2nd

 

[1AugustSon7]

And Buddhism goes back to at least the Buddha Dipankara, 32,000 years ago. There were many earlier Buddhas, but I don’t have dates for them.

rossum

Right. And the aliens in Starship Troopers are at least 20 billion years old.

 

[1AugustSon7]

You are quoting St. Paul who never met Jesus. He may have been an apostle, but he is interpreting the teachings of Jesus before the Gospels were written. This is highly conjectural.

Actually he did meet God.

9 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”

Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

 

[1AugustSon7]

You are probably correct about DNA, but you are certainly incorrect about RNA. RNA can be “useful and operative” outside of a living organism. Google “ribozymes” for an example. That is the reason for a lot of abiogenesis research being focussed on the RNA World.

No, rossum, neither RNA or DNA means anything outside of a living organism.

We have made a start on the origins of consciousness.

No, rossum: again, if we have, claim your Nobel Prize.

Various animals, mostly mammals and a small number of birds, have been shown to possess self-conciousness.

Stating the obvious, rossum. It’s not the fact that they have consciousness; it’s the fact of consciousness that is “the problem” for modern science. As one of the fathers of Quantum theory put it, the mechanistic world-view leads to “a strange situation…” (Schrodinger).

Biological life (that is material life)

Oxymoron. You are asking the readers here to pretend there is no difference between a rock and a tree. By “biological life” you mean animate matter. You can’t explain the animate bit anymore than any scientist can.

is much less of a mystery.

False.

Vitalism has long been disproven.

Vital means the difference between the living and the dead. There is no chemical formula that equals ("=") life; otherwise, every atheist who hates Catholicism would be here giving it. And there’s no shortage, even if they were atheists turned Buddhists like a few people I know (and you are starting to explain why some atheists I knew became “Buddhists”) who would be here proclaiming it to dismiss us Christians.

I am Buddhist so there is no mystery attached to the soul:

Naturally since the quote you gave us earlier from a Buddhist (apparently not so ‘spirtual’) text denies it even exists at all! It’s easy (or just intellecually lazy) to dismiss the fact that your imagination, e.g., represents the likeness of bodies without those physical bodies actually being physically present in your brain (or wherever). You are also pretending that what you know as “red” is explicable in terms of modern mechanistic ‘science’; but it is actually not. Once more you are pretending as if the mind-body problem did not exist. It does. And you can keep up your protests after you claim your Nobel Prize for solving these problems. You have not.

souls does not exist so there can be no mystery attached to them.

Which is like saying blue does not exist and, therefore, there can be no mystery attached to it. Actually, for your style of eliminativism, it doesn’t exist.

So, from your representation of Buddhism, I am supposed to believe that the human experiece as we live and breathe it is a grand illusion. Buddhists are, apparently, the inspiration of the Matrix.

 

[nmgauss]

Self-delusion can be responsible for the reporting of miracles and revelations.

In the early 1770s, Franz Friedrich Anton Mesmer, an Austrian physician and theologian, developed a technique that he claimed could cure a variety of physical and mental ailments.

His theory, called “animal magnetism,” was based upon the idea that there existed “magnetic fluids” in nature, which could be used to rid the body and mind of many diseases.

While in Vienna, he claimed to have “cured” a young pianist of hysterical blindness through his magnetic therapies. (Some have interpreted St. Paul’s temporary blindness as hysterical.) Later he moved to Paris.

King Louis XVI of France, commissioned the French Academy of Sciences to investigate Mesmer and his therapeutic claims.

The academy appointed a number of prominent scientists and citizens to the investigating committee. Among the members were scientists Antoine Lavoisier, Paris mayor Jean Bailly, Dr. Joseph Guillotin, and Benjamin Franklin.

As a result of Franklin’s poor health, the committee conducted their tests and investigations at Franklin’s residence in Passy. Mesmer attempted to distance himself from the proceedings by sending an associate, Dr. Charles Deslon (Charles d’Eslon), in his place.

Deslon set about demonstrating how animal magnetism worked. One of the most dramatic tests involved “magnetizing” a tree and then having a subject identify the tree that had the most magnetic force. Deslon prepared one of the trees, then blindfolded the subject, a twelve-year-old boy, and directed him to embrace several trees in Franklin’s garden. The boy reported various sensations and said that the magnetic force was getting stronger, even though he was moving farther from the tree that Deslon had magnetized. The experiment ended when the boy fainted.

The commission’s public report concluded that there was no scientific evidence of animal magnetism and that the cures attributed to it may have either happened through a normal remission of the problem or that the cure was some form of self-delusion.

 

[Aloysium]

Self-delusion can be responsible for the reporting of miracles and revelations. . . . (Some have interpreted St. Paul’s temporary blindness as hysterical.) . . . there was no scientific evidence of animal magnetism and that the cures attributed to it may have either happened through a normal remission of the problem or that the cure was some form of self-delusion.

I assume the points you wanted to make are those in red.
Yes, there are people who have interpreted St. Paul’s temporary blindness as hysterical.
Placebo was used for millennia before medicine existed.
I am inferring that you do not believe that St. Paul encountered Jesus and that you believe that many, if not all, of the cures done by Jesus and the apostles were self-delusion.
These beliefs are in keeping with the views you have expressed in previous posts.
You are not going to be taken seriously by Catholics.
Watching someone repeatedly repudiating God and His Word is worse than seeing a train wreck.
Please stop.

 

[nmgauss]

You are not going to be taken seriously by Catholics.
Watching someone repeatedly repudiating God and His Word is worse than seeing a train wreck.
Please stop.

That depends on a person’s conviction that skepticism of the Church’s teachings is bad. Being skeptical of revelations and miracles says nothing about a person’s faith in God. It is a good habit, because it protects one from being hornswoggled. Also, believing every word in the Bible even though it is not generally read in the original Hebrew and Greek by English speaking people, often results in uncertainties of the real meaning of the words. This has been pointed out by many biblical scholars and is noted by Karen Armstrong in “The Bible: A Biography”.

 

[rossum]

Right. And the aliens in Starship Troopers are at least 20 billion years old.

Pretty much every religion has its stories – parables if you will. Those stories make a valid point, but are not always to be treated literally.

If you quote the story of Eden, then I will quote the story of Dipankara Buddha and Sumedha. Both have exactly the same value as history.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No, rossum, neither RNA or DNA means anything outside of a living organism.

False. Your sources are misinforming you. Google “ribozyme” and “Spiegelman Monster”. Do not believe everything you get from those sources, they are scientifically incorrect.

Stating the obvious, rossum. It’s not the fact that they have consciousness; it’s the fact of consciousness that is “the problem” for modern science.

It is equally a problem for theology. Is God conscious? What is the theological explanation for the origin of consciousness?

Oxymoron. You are asking the readers here to pretend there is no difference between a rock and a tree. By “biological life” you mean animate matter. You can’t explain the animate bit anymore than any scientist can.

You are projecting here. Just because you cannot explain it, does not mean that other people cannot explain it. Vitalism was discredited a long time ago.

Naturally since the quote you gave us earlier from a Buddhist (apparently not so ‘spirtual’) text…

Shall we agree that we do not insult each other’s scriptures? Buddhism is not Christianity, so of course their scriptures differ.

Which is like saying blue does not exist and, therefore, there can be no mystery attached to it. Actually, for your style of eliminativism, it doesn’t exist.

Blue is an adjective, it is not a noun. You can show me a blue object; you cannot show me blue on its own, detached from anything else. Similarly, life is a property of certain objects. It is not something that stands on its own; you cannot show me life detached from everything else.

So, from your representation of Buddhism, I am supposed to believe that the human experiece as we live and breathe it is a grand illusion. Buddhists are, apparently, the inspiration of the Matrix.

The Matrix was external. Our illusions are internal. Just like a mirage, there is no water in the external world, but our brains and senses misperceive the world and think that there is water when there is none. A lot of Buddhist meditation is designed to rid ourselves of our internal misperceptions.

rossum