Biological Design Argument?

[PRmerger]

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

Indeed.

This is the default position of the Catholic Church.

 

[1AugustSon7]

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

Any reader of this thread knows full-well who dragged religion’s antiquity into this debate: you did; and you did so exactly on the basis and authority of your religion’s stories, which you afterwards dismissed as spurious, which I find rather curious. So, if what you state above is what you actually believe, then how come you felt justified in claiming your religion is somehow older than Christianity in the first place?

And thank heaven you are not an historian, rossum; for if by people’s simply believing a thing as a religious or sacred text makes you believe that said text thus automatically becomes as equally historically relevant and reliable as any other religious text, regardless of its antiquity, then Scientologists would certainly be happy to hear you say it; and I suppose we are all thus quite possibly the children, or product, or invention, of Martians or Alpha Centaurians (or whatever), even though no one had ever heard of such things until the 20th century and we can easily date the production of Scientologist literature, which occured amidst especially Western society’s increasing awareness and interest in modern science, space travel and science fiction. In other words, there are perfectly good reasons for suspecting one religious work is possibly more ancient and reliable a witness than another, your effectively relegating to the trashbin under the auspices of religious relativism the historicity of all sacred texts notwithstanding. The story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf certainly makes “a valid point”; however, if some new ostensibly religious text were to include that story in its writings with some minor twists, and moreover claim it as its own having first actually happened historically in the year 1996, I would have every reason to deny any historical reliability to that document, seeing as I knew the story well before 1996, and my mother heard it when even she was a child, and so on: and I would know with a certainty that it was older than 1996 regardless if this spruious so-called religious text were in fact the first printed instance of the story appearing in human history: i.e., if it were from an artifact point of view the first verifiable physically veriable appearance of the story in human history; notwithstanding, I know it to be older regardless and this by tracing the story through my family’s history and knowledge, even if it were communicated only verbally.

 

[inocente]

Or you could just actually read what I wrote and the paragraph’s conclusion that: “So far I have seen an unfailing relationship between Westerners converting to Buddhism and becoming vicious as a consequence” not ‘people who travel across (Western) Europe hate all things Western’ or some such silliness. Notice also that in the concluding sentence I made plain the connection between a Westerner converting to Buddhism and said nothing about any geographical connection. I am not sure how you gathered your inference nor even why you restricted my saying this man’s travels across Europe were limited to specifically “Western” Europe: I simply said he travelled around Europe.

Silly me not knowing that “who, after taking one of those post-high school tours of Europe for a few years” really meant “who, after leaving high-school converted to Buddhism”.

But I know now.

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.

I’ve seen some exotic readings of Paul recently. Design doesn’t require eternal power (an intelligent designer could have died long ago) nor does it require divine nature / Godhead, it would just need an ability to make blueprints for ferrets and smallpox, something blind forces can manage all on their own.

It’s a bit like thinking “so God created mankind in his own image” means God has a belly button, don’t you think it misses all the majesty?

Roe v. Wade.

To laugh out of court means to dismiss something presented in earnest as ridiculous.

 

[inocente]

It is obvious that all biological systems ( as well as non-biological systems ) function so as to bring about specific ends or goals. That means they operate according to the specific laws " written " into their natures. These laws are their design parameters. So, clearly there must be a designer, unless we conclude that these exist by happenstance, which is an unreasonable conclusion. Therefore there must be a designer, and since all biological systems and all non-biological systems operate harmoniously together, one depending on the other for the benefit of all, that designer is a living, intelligent, superior being, and this we call God.

While little known, Alfred Russel Wallace proved there are dozens of designers.

He explored the archipelago of Indonesia, made of thousands of islands, and found variations in species from one to another. Each island had its own designer.

Then he discovered what’s now known as the Wallace Line, which traces a deep straight. On the west of the line the animals in all the islands are largely Asiatic, while on the east less than 50 kilometers away they are mainly Australasian.

So not only were there dozens of designers, they were in two groups who never spoke to each other.

Pondering on this, Wallace independently discovered natural selection.

 

[rossum]

which you afterwards dismissed as spurious

I obviously did not express myself clearly enough, my apologies.

The stories are parables. They teach a valuable lesson. The lesson is not spurious. It is the literal interpretation of those parables that is spurious. To repeat, the literal interpretation is spurious, not the lesson imparted by the parable.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

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”.

Understanding has to do with one’s relationship with the living Christ and the Holy Spirit’s inspiration when approaching scripture and other holy teachings; it has nothing to do with skepticism or being hornswoggled.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

While little known, Alfred Russel Wallace proved there are dozens of designers.

He explored the archipelago of Indonesia, made of thousands of islands, and found variations in species from one to another. Each island had its own designer.

Then he discovered what’s now known as the Wallace Line, which traces a deep straight. On the west of the line the animals in all the islands are largely Asiatic, while on the east less than 50 kilometers away they are mainly Australasian.

So not only were there dozens of designers, they were in two groups who never spoke to each other.

Pondering on this, Wallace independently discovered natural selection.

You seem to be suggesting that intelligent design is not incompatible with natural selection, which, as I understand it, is the view held by many Catholics.

 

[Aloysium]

You seem to be suggesting that intelligent design is not incompatible with natural selection, which, as I understand it, is the view held by many Catholics.

The issue with natural selection is randomness. There are huge changes in the development of the earth which some people believe to be the result of chance happenings and others, the hand of God, present everywhere and at every time.
The existence of mind/soul in animals is one example of a different level of creation; rocks/sand/mud do not have a mind. The minds of animals operate in much the same manner; there is very little difference between the intelligence of various animals when you compare them to human beings. There is such a large growth in intelligence that we have compared to animals, a growth that is really not necessary for survival, that it is at best highly improbable, and I believe impossible, to occur by chance.
Catholics along with other Christians understand that we have a spiritual soul which comes from God. We are a different order of creation than animals. This is not the result of random, natural selection, but rather from a direct creative act of God.

 

[nmgauss]

Random Events Leading to Patterns

An example of random events resulting in patterns is the movement of balls across a pool table after being scattered by the first breaking of the balls. Some of those balls may reach pockets thus resulting in a selection of successful balls. So, a pattern occurs as a result of random movements.

Another example is the selection of marbles of the same size on a board with projecting sides in which there is a hole slightly larger than the marbles. If these marbles are sloshed around the board long enough, eventually they will drop through the hole.

Or, lets say there is a slot of a certain width in the marble board in which the slot traps marbles for elimination. The marbles sloshing around the board are of various sizes, but only those smaller than the slot will be selected for elimination.

All these cases illustrate how patterns can occur through random events. The same sort of selection of survival traits is how natural selection is deemed to work.

There is no requirement that the balls be designed to be selected for the desired results. Only the pre-existing selection criteria are present.

The arrangement of land and water and solar insolation are pre-existing conditions. All it takes for life to be successful is to discover by chance how to adapt to these conditions. The successful forms survive, and the others perish.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

The issue with natural selection is randomness. There are huge changes in the development of the earth which some people believe to be the result of chance happenings and others, the hand of God, present everywhere and at every time.
The existence of mind/soul in animals is one example of a different level of creation; rocks/sand/mud do not have a mind. The minds of animals operate in much the same manner; there is very little difference between the intelligence of various animals when you compare them to human beings. There is such a large growth in intelligence that we have compared to animals, a growth that is really not necessary for survival, that it is at best highly improbable, and I believe impossible, to occur by chance.
Catholics along with other Christians understand that we have a spiritual soul which comes from God. We are a different order of creation than animals. This is not the result of random, natural selection, but rather from a direct creative act of God.

But how can “natural selection” be random if it tends to favor survival/reproduction?
Perhaps natural selection is the means by which God carries out His purposes.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

Random Events Leading to Patterns

An example of random events resulting in patterns is the movement of balls across a pool table after being scattered by the first breaking of the balls. Some of those balls may reach pockets thus resulting in a selection of successful balls. So, a pattern occurs as a result of random movements.

Another example is the selection of marbles of the same size on a board with projecting sides in which there is a hole slightly larger than the marbles. If these marbles are sloshed around the board long enough, eventually they will drop through the hole.

Or, lets say there is a slot of a certain width in the marble board in which the slot traps marbles for elimination. The marbles sloshing around the board are of various sizes, but only those smaller than the slot will be selected for elimination.

All these cases illustrate how patterns can occur through random events. The same sort of selection of survival traits is how natural selection is deemed to work.

There is no requirement that the balls be designed to be selected for the desired results. Only the pre-existing selection criteria are present.

The arrangement of land and water and solar insolation are pre-existing conditions. All it takes for life to be successful is to discover by chance how to adapt to these conditions. The successful forms survive, and the others perish.

Birds do not randomly eat peppered moths – they eat the ones they can see (whether white or black).

 

[Aloysium]

But how can “natural selection” be random if it tends to favor survival/reproduction?
Perhaps natural selection is the means by which God carries out His purposes.

The basic theory is that there are always random genetic changes occurring. The resulting life form is better or less able to have offspring as a result. Thus over time, we see changes in the species; those that fit in best with there environment carry on. The attributes that man has are so far beyond anything else seen in nature, that we know something different was created by God when He made us, body and spiritual soul in one being. This does not spontaneously occur as part of a natural selection process.

 

[rossum]

The basic theory is that there are always random genetic changes occurring. The resulting life form is better or less able to have offspring as a result. Thus over time, we see changes in the species; those that fit in best with there environment carry on.

Correct. Random mutations introduce variations into the population. Natural selection non-randomly selects the variants that are more successful. Always the selection takes place in the local environment; thick white fur is an advantage in the Arctic, not always so elsewhere.

There are a few other complexities, like neutral drift, founder effect and sexual selection, but the basic idea of RM&NS is enough to get you started.

rossum

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

The basic theory is that there are always random genetic changes occurring. The resulting life form is better or less able to have offspring as a result. Thus over time, we see changes in the species; those that fit in best with there environment carry on. The attributes that man has are so far beyond anything else seen in nature, that we know something different was created by God when He made us, body and spiritual soul in one being. This does not spontaneously occur as part of a natural selection process.

Yes, I am aware of the basics. Mutations are random, but those mutations (or genetic variants) that result in survival/reproduction are more likely to become common.

As a Catholic, do you reject evolutionary biology?

 

[tonyrey]

Your concept of life is inconsistent with the Buddhist belief that physical events and spiritual events are closely interrelated

Regardless of Buddhist belief physical events and spiritual events are closely interrelated. Biology cannot be totally disassociated from psychology because there is constant interaction between them.

Can the effects of hypnosis be analysed by mathematical calculation?

How is this relevant? I was not calculating the effects of hypnosis, I was calculating the effects of differential rates of reproduction. We can mathematically analyse the effects of differential rates of reproduction and get useful results from our calculations. Just because we cannot calculate X does not mean that we cannot make a useful calculation of Y.

Such calculations are only a minor aspect of development of life and have nothing to do with its fundamental nature or significance. Physical survival is not the sole purpose of life.

The Bible does not tell me the name of Noah’s wife. Does that mean that nothing else in the Bible is valid because it cannot answer that one question?

The question of life is far more fundamental than a name.

Did human designers arrange DNA and RNA in the first place? If not do you ascribe such a feat to blind processes? If so produce verifiable evidence.
We have evidence of natural processes altering DNA, both of mutations occurring and natural selection. For mutations, see the Luria–Delbrück experiment. For an example of natural selection, see Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

Neither mutations nor natural selection are an adequate account of the origin and development of the mind.

Where is your evidence of the presence of a designer with the required abilities present at the relevant time and place?

Your question presupposes that the mind is located in time and space. Do you believe all your thoughts, intentions and decisions originate in your brain? If so they are the result of physical causes for which you cannot be responsible.

The great success of science is restricted to sense data which are far less valuable and far less significant than spiritual reality.

Then I suggest you take up a life of prayer and contemplation, rejecting all use of the science which makes your computer possible. The existence of a $100 bill does not make a $5 bill useless. You are on very weak ground with this argument.

The comparison of spiritual reality with cash does not befit a Buddhist.

The crude notion of “manipulating RNA or DNA” is an anthropomorphic distortion of teleological explanation.

Then why did you ask me above about the arranging of RNA and DNA? I assume that you will now withdraw all your probability arguments about how unlikely particular arrangements of DNA or RNA are. All of those arguments you have now declared a “distortion” of the teleological explanation.

Arrangements of DNA/ RNA are not ad hoc events like human interventions but features of the initial Design of living organisms.

I am still seeing a lot of unsupported assertion and a distinct lack of evidence from you.

I am seeing a total lack of evidence from you regarding the origin and relationship of biological and spiritual events which you imply are in watertight compartments in spite of the Buddhist belief in reincarnation. The gulf between Eastern idealism and Western materialism cannot be bridged.

 

[nmgauss]

But how can “natural selection” be random if it tends to favor survival/reproduction?
Perhaps natural selection is the means by which God carries out His purposes.

Survival means that the successful ones lived long enough to reproduce, and their successful offspring managed to survive to reproduce, and on and on. Otherwise they would have disappeared from the earth. The survivors that were lucky to get the right genes through random processes, have offspring that are here today. The others are gone. It’s the luck of the draw in the face of unpredictable environmental parameters.

Earth does not looked designed to me. The land masses broke apart after the first asteroid collision, and they split along unpredictable breaches of Pangaea. Meanwhile living creatures had to adapt pronto. Those the could adapt fast enough left their offspring. Those that could not are gone.

Tell me where the design is in this scenario.

 

[Aloysium]

Yes, I am aware of the basics. Mutations are random, but those mutations (or genetic variants) that result in survival/reproduction are more likely to become common.

As a Catholic, do you reject evolutionary biology?

I am not sure how you define evolutionary biology. However you do, I would say that it is by far, not the complete picture of what makes man who he is, nor of how he came to be.

I am listening to Schubert’s 8th on my headphones. I will tell you without any reservation that the talent and appreciation of beauty that is required to produce this work is not the result of random events, nor is it necessary for survival on this earth. We clearly fit into a world in which goodness, truth and beauty are the essential elements - it is not the world of beasts.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

1000 posts = closed.

Thanks for participating.