Conclusive evidence for Design!

[prodigalson2011]

I think the substance of Studers post is something like: ‘Good grief, are you guys still going on about this?’

I think that it’s only the scientific backwater of Turkey that has a greater percentage of people who actually think we all got here all at once. I don’t think that many Americans realise how profoundly wierd it sseems to the rest of the planet that a country like the US is still debating this.

And hey, can you get your act together and start using the metric system while you’re at it. That you are still using feet and inches is just very odd indeed.

I don’t think anybody here has been arguing that we “all got here all at once.” In fact, I daresay nobody who has participated in this thread would propound such a view. Studers’ post displays a profound lack of attentiveness to the course of this thread.

I suspect he saw the word “Design” and immediately thought “YEC!”

 

[prodigalson2011]

And hey, can you get your act together and start using the metric system while you’re at it. That you are still using feet and inches is just very odd indeed.

Hey–it’s complicated!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think the substance of Studers post is something like: ‘Good grief, are you guys still going on about this?’

I think that it’s only the scientific backwater of Turkey that has a greater percentage of people who actually think we all got here all at once. I don’t think that many Americans realise how profoundly wierd it sseems to the rest of the planet that a country like the US is still debating this.

And hey, can you get your act together and start using the metric system while you’re at it. That you are still using feet and inches is just very odd indeed.

I’ve been using the metric system for years. Apparently Studers isn’t the only one who lets preconceptions determine his thought process.

 

[tonyrey]

I know - but education is helpful to help with ignorance…

Unless it is wilful! But you are right. Who am I to judge?

 

[tonyrey]

Science itself would be impossible if there was not order in the universe. This order is so manifest and all embracing that there isn’t a single system in the universe, from the motion of planetary systems and the energy systems involved like gravity, radiation, magnetic forces, etc. to the earthly systems of weather, the echo-systems, to the structure of all beings, living and non-living that isn’t dominated and defined by it. And the absolutley facinating thing is that this order demands directedness, goals to be reached, ends to be accomplished. But this directedness, this ordered, directedness to ends implies by necessity an ultimate End, and an Ultimate Purpose for that End, one to which all orher ends are ordered and that cannot be a contingent end.

Not only this but all these orders, systems, and beings are related to one another in a deeply coordinated incessant activity, one depending upon and acting upon all others to achieve some goal. If Evolution means anything at all, it must mean that… To suggest that this is all arose as a natural result of eaons of unwinding from chaos to order through no intelligent directing cause is absolutely insane. The idea of God, the creator, cause, sustainer, directing energy of it all may be repugnant to some, yet He is the One Necessary Cause, the Absolutley Other that must be posited to give Intelligibility to every thing that exists and every thing that happens. He is the Why, the How, the Intelligible and Sufficient Reason for it all. Ignore Him if you wish, but don’t say He doesn’t exist, that is a type of Blasphamy which will not be ignored.

wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr–Barron-comments-on-Scientism-and-God-s-Existen.aspx Scientism and God’s Existence

:clapping: A powerful post!

 

[Sair]

tonyrey;10018480:

To be even more precise, if we don’t know who is asking the question we don’t know whether a “who” exists, whether there is a reason for the question or whether it makes any difference if we answer the question. That is the inexorable result of confining “oneself” (what

ever that term may mean) to scientific explanations. Impersonal objects don’t have a habit of asking or answering questions…

You seem to be assuming that ‘personhood’ is somehow beyond scientific elucidation. What justification do you have for this assumption?

 

[Sair]

This is straight out of the Dawkins playbook, and it’s really a very silly question. They are supremely meaningful as they are the questions of utmost consequence to the asker, even if the answers are “No one,” “No reason,” and “No where.” The answers upon which one settles determine whether there is even any such thing AS a meaningful question. If they are, indeed, concluded to be in the negative, then the whole notion of “meaning” goes out the window and all you’re left with is practicality and pragmatism. Concepts such as “meaning” (in the metaphysical sense) cease to have any… well, meaning!

So in a sense, these are the ONLY meaningful questions, inasmuch as the meaning of everything else hinges upon them.

It’s quite true that Dawkins holds the opinion that “why” questions, such as “why are we here?” and so forth, are not meaningful in the sense in which many people ask them - that is, they are really asking, “Who made us? What are our creator’s intentions for us? What ultimate purpose do we have, or ultimate goals to achieve?” In a sense, these kinds of questions are simply a reflection of human hubris - and it’s a very real and likely possibility that they could all be answered in the negative. At the end of the day, the answers are not a matter of human choice.

What’s more, all those who have claimed to possess true answers to these questions cannot all be right.

And what, precisely, is “meaning in the metaphysical sense” anyway? Presumably it is a meaning that goes beyond the purposes and associations we create for ourselves, and beyond the explanations for our existence that involve natural processes. This kind of meaning might also not exist except as a concept in human imagination. In that sense, it is no more ‘real’, and certainly of no more value, in a metaphysical sense, than meanings with a more concrete basis in real-world dealings. If anything, since it is comparatively lacking in empirical grounding, it may well be of less value than entirely mundane meanings and purposes.

So yes, the fact of the matter is that I agree with Dawkins (and that after serious consideration, not in the way that Catholics are expected to agree with the Pope, for example) in that the kinds of “why” questions religions claim to answer are not meaningful - at least, not in the sense of actually telling us anything about the purpose of existence, if existence even has the kind of purpose those asking the questions would like to believe. The fact that people ask them anyway - and often assume that their holy books provide them with answers - does tell us something, but it’s something about the psychological make-up of the people involved, not about ultimate truth, if there even is such a thing.

 

[prodigalson2011]

It’s quite true that Dawkins holds the opinion that “why” questions, such as “why are we here?” and so forth, are not meaningful in the sense in which many people ask them - that is, they are really asking, “Who made us? What are our creator’s intentions for us? What ultimate purpose do we have, or ultimate goals to achieve?” In a sense, these kinds of questions are simply a reflection of human hubris - and it’s a very real and likely possibility that they could all be answered in the negative. At the end of the day, the answers are not a matter of human choice.

Again, these questions are meaningful because they determine whether or not there is even such a thing as meaning. It is not hubris to wonder whether there is an intelligent cause behind the inexplicably intelligible world in which we find ourselves, nor is it arrogant to wonder whether, if so, we have a special role to play within it as we are the only things therein, to our best knowledge, capable of even considering that possibility.

What’s more, all those who have claimed to possess true answers to these questions cannot all be right.

And nobody has suggested they are. That’s why there’s a process called “discernment.” Questioning, plying, testing. To quote St. Paul, “test everything.” Consider: several people make conflicting claims to the possession of the true answer to the question “What is 10 x 10?”. One claims the answer is 90, another 80, another 101, another 100, etc. It does not follow that they are all wrong. That’s simply bad logic. Of course this is terribly simplistic in comparison to the question of God, but the principle remains: the presence conflicting solutions to a problem are not evidence of a nonexistent problem. The question being infinitely more complex and bringing such factors as human emotion and spiritual brokenness into play, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to see everyone arrive at the correct conclusion. Many people will choose the path that best suits them emotionally/psychologically or is compatible with their preferred lifestyle, others will be conditioned to reject certain theological perspectives in the same way many fundamentalists are conditioned to reject certain scientific ideas. But, as I’m sure you would agree, just because some people think the Earth is 6,000 years old and not 4 billion doesn’t mean that the Earth has no age.

And what, precisely, is “meaning in the metaphysical sense” anyway? Presumably it is a meaning that goes beyond the purposes and associations we create for ourselves, and beyond the explanations for our existence that involve natural processes. This kind of meaning might also not exist except as a concept in human imagination. In that sense, it is no more ‘real’, and certainly of no more value, in a metaphysical sense, than meanings with a more concrete basis in real-world dealings. If anything, since it is comparatively lacking in empirical grounding, it may well be of less value than entirely mundane meanings and purposes.

Exactly what it says: “meta”=beyond. Physical=“material.” It is meaning beyond simple chemical reactions and physical processes. Things like moral truths, final causes, objective purpose, etc. That it would only be a product of the human imagination if the answers to those first questions were negative was exactly my point. The question of whether there’s a God, why we’re here, etc. will determine whether or not there IS any metaphysical meaning to our world. And your “empirical, real world meanings in purposes” (to translate: meaningless physical processes) are absolutely devoid of meaning or purpose in the absence of a higher metaphysical truth. They are accidental, inconsequential flukes of nature. That is the entire point. That is also why the “moral outrage” of someone like Dawkins is so tragically hilarious. He denies the existence of a metaphysical truth, but his behavior completely betrays that belief. It’s completely illogical. One or the other has to go: his materialism or his moral outrage.

So yes, the fact of the matter is that I agree with Dawkins (and that after serious consideration, not in the way that Catholics are expected to agree with the Pope, for example) in that the kinds of “why” questions religions claim to answer are not meaningful - at least, not in the sense of actually telling us anything about the purpose of existence, if existence even has the kind of purpose those asking the questions would like to believe. The fact that people ask them anyway - and often assume that their holy books provide them with answers - does tell us something, but it’s something about the psychological make-up of the people involved, not about ultimate truth, if there even is such a thing.

To go back to that quote of St. Paul’s, Christians are called to “test everything.” I did not become a Catholic because the pope told me to. I did it after serious consideration of the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Church, as well as the statistical verification of many of her moral and social teachings, as well as many other things. Such sweeping generalizations and personal attacks are intellectually immature and betray a certain amount of–dareIsayit–hubris: you presume to understand the psychology of billions of people you’ve never met. Your straw men and ad hominems are not even worth addressing. No one has been resorting to the Bible as evidence in this thread, so that remark is completely out of line and, furthermore, suggests a lack of a solid argument.

 

[tonyrey]

To be even more precise, if we don’t know who is asking the question we don’t know whether a “who” exists, whether there is a reason for the question or whether it makes any difference if we answer the question. That is the inexorable result of confining “oneself” (what

I am not assuming that ‘personhood’ is somehow beyond scientific elucidation because there is nothing whatsoever in science that corresponds to a person. The fact that you use inverted commas reveals a total rejection of the concept. For scientists qua scientists there is only a biological organism named “homo sapiens” with no distinguishing features. A higher degree of intelligence is not considered by you, for example, to have any philosophical or metaphysical significance. We are supposed to be essentially animals and the term “persons” is used simply as a legal fiction. We are thought to be programmed by our environment and incapable of reaching our own conclusions or decisions except in a very superficial sense. All our activity is therefore beyond our control so that we are no more than cogs in a machine, a hypothesis on which research in AI and neuroscience is based because no allowance is made for self-control, responsibility, creativity or originality.

 

[Studer]

So much wrong with this post…

Evolution has not been proven empirically, that is observable, testable and repeatable.

Read The Myth of the Flat Earth

Catholics have been and are still behind real science, because we know the universe is intelligable and worthy of study.

Thinking people should demand good science, not storytelling.

I love science and my computer.

I know that catholics are generally speaking positive about science. In europe for example
I’ve never seen a priest who believed that the romans where riding on T-Rex and stuff. In the USA you hear that all the time.

About Evolution:
Evolution is by a huge margin the best Explanation we have how life came about.

How would you explain the Genetic commonalities we have with chimpanzees (96%)? 80% with cows?

Common traits in Embryos?

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics?

The fossil record?

The universal genetic code?

Also why are most species extinct by now? Why create them in the first place? Bad designer? (not possible God is GREAT)

Do you believe that all the animals where once put on a giant boat? Does this include the dinosaures ? How would you put a whale into a boat?

Also why so many Variation in our ADN if we come from 2 People 6’000 years ago?

 

[Studer]

I think the substance of Studers post is something like: ‘Good grief, are you guys still going on about this?’

I think that it’s only the scientific backwater of Turkey that has a greater percentage of people who actually think we all got here all at once. I don’t think that many Americans realise how profoundly wierd it sseems to the rest of the planet that a country like the US is still debating this.

And hey, can you get your act together and start using the metric system while you’re at it. That you are still using feet and inches is just very odd indeed.

TOTALLY!

I went to School outside of the USA and I am living in Europe by now. I didn’t know that there is this kind of thinking going on in the USA. It’s Looks unbelievable/insane to most europeans. I am cool with it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

About Evolution:
Evolution is by a huge margin the best Explanation we have how life came about.

More snake oil!

Evolution provides absolutely no explanation of how life came about. Evolution presumes the existence of replication and life itself. The mechanisms of evolution can only come into play after living organisms exist, and therefore cannot explain their existence.

We could take apart many of your other points, but this goes to show that your acceptance and promotion of evolution is comparable to a “snake oil” peddler who claims their “product” is the wonderful elixir that will fix “all that ails you!”

Like the snake oil peddler, one way of “refuting” your detractors is to claim they are backwards, uncouth and not as “with it” as you are. I am fine with being called backwards because, as they say, “the proof is in the pudding” and evolution proponents make many unsubstantiated claims about their cure all, but when push comes to shove the claims turn out to be less than satisfying to anyone with an open mind about the issues. I don’t accept the “everyone else is buying it” sales technique as a motivation to accept your snake oil because it isn’t a good reason to do so.

 

[buffalo]

I think the substance of Studers post is something like: ‘Good grief, are you guys still going on about this?’

I think that it’s only the scientific backwater of Turkey that has a greater percentage of people who actually think we all got here all at once. I don’t think that many Americans realise how profoundly wierd it sseems to the rest of the planet that a country like the US is still debating this.

And hey, can you get your act together and start using the metric system while you’re at it. That you are still using feet and inches is just very odd indeed.

So? Is the an argument from popularity?

 

[buffalo]

I know that catholics are generally speaking positive about science. In europe for example
I’ve never seen a priest who believed that the romans where riding on T-Rex and stuff. In the USA you hear that all the time.

About Evolution:
Evolution is by a huge margin the best Explanation we have how life came about.

How would you explain the Genetic commonalities we have with chimpanzees (96%)? 80% with cows?

Common traits in Embryos?

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics?

The fossil record?

The universal genetic code?

Also why are most species extinct by now? Why create them in the first place? Bad designer? (not possible God is GREAT)

Do you believe that all the animals where once put on a giant boat? Does this include the dinosaures ? How would you put a whale into a boat?

Also why so many Variation in our ADN if we come from 2 People 6’000 years ago?

About Evolution:
Evolution is by a huge margin the best Explanation we have how life came about. That is changing.

How would you explain the Genetic commonalities we have with chimpanzees (96%)? 80% with cows? It is now known that the similarity is less than 80%. In addition we do not share regulatory mechanisms.

Common traits in Embryos? Perfect - shows common design. Life has 500 or so immortal genes that have contained in them the ability when switched on to produce the limbs/organs etc. they need.

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics? It is now understood that bacteria have a “memory” of sorts. They have latent capabilities that they draw upon and communicate to resist threats.

The fossil record? The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis with variation within.

The universal genetic code? Another great one for design. Codes come from a mind and this information was there in the beginning.

Also why are most species extinct by now? Why create them in the first place? Bad designer? (not possible God is GREAT) To argue bad design one must know the designers intent. You don’t so you cannot make any pronouncements on it. Why extinct? One mans sin. After that the universe and humans too have been devolving. You have more deleterious mutations than your parents so on and so forth.

Do you believe that all the animals where once put on a giant boat? Does this include the dinosaures ? How would you put a whale into a boat?

Why would you need to put a whale in a boat? You are aware of the dino soft tissue finds? As well as carbon dating the bones putting them at 28000 years ago.

Also why so many Variation in our ADN if we come from 2 People 6’000 years ago?

The ability to adapt is built into our DNA. Are you speaking of race and human features? Not sure of your question.

 

[zro_x]

My question is, why are we arguing about evolution, a scientific concept, on a Catholic religious Forum?

If all the little wrinkles in evolution that creationists bring up are sorted out, and evoultion becomes effectively proven, (as well as any scientific theory can be) it won’t mean anything at all for the Catholic Church. We aren’t Biblical literalists.

If evolution is eventually proven false, In no way does it prove god exists. The argument “Science can not explain something, therefore, god did it” is falicious. thousands of years ago science couldn’t explain why crops grew better during some periods and not in others, what caused the moon’s phases,what caused disease, etc., etc.

The Truth value of evolution has absolutely no bearing on the Catholic church, positive or negative.

Sorry if this has been said before; didn’t feel like reading through 36 pages of posts.

 

[buffalo]

My question is, why are we arguing about evolution, a scientific concept, on a Catholic religious Forum?

If all the little wrinkles in evolution that creationists bring up are sorted out, and evoultion becomes effectively proven, (as well as any scientific theory can be) it won’t mean anything at all for the Catholic Church. We aren’t Biblical literalists.

If evolution is eventually proven false, In no way does it prove god exists. The argument “Science can not explain something, therefore, god did it” is falicious. thousands of years ago science couldn’t explain why crops grew better during some periods and not in others, what caused the moon’s phases,what caused disease, etc., etc.

The Truth value of evolution has absolutely no bearing on the Catholic church, positive or negative.

Sorry if this has been said before; didn’t feel like reading through 36 pages of posts.

Wherever science intersects with faith it is an issue.

The argument “Science cannot yet explain it but we know we will” is a faith statement. It is the god (BUC) of the gaps argument.

We “cannot let the Divine foot in the door” is an a priori bias and does not serve science well.

I beg to differ. Faith and reason cannot be opposed.

Look here: Where is the weakness?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

 

[Studer]

OK buffalo,

I respect your answer, you obviously took a couple of minutes to write your answer.

I nevertheless think you are highly delusional. I mean suppose you could prove evolution is wrong, why not go to Harvard and become the next biology nobel price winner? I am not kidding, if you can prove that 90% of what biologist study (because evolution has a huge influence on other sciences as well) is wrong, you could become the greatest scientific mind alive today.

Bigger than Darwin!

But you won’t because you are making stuff up.

CU

PS Did the dinosaurs go extinct because poeple ate too many dino-burgers?

 

[Robert_Caritas]

It is several years since I first came across “personal explanation” in an article by Professor Richard Swinburne, a eminent English philosopher, a Christian and author of excellent books about the cogency of theism. I thought it was unusual but significant because it stressed the supreme role of reason in explaining anything. In fact all explanations are personal in the sense that only persons give explanations. Without us there wouldn’t be any explanations at all - which puts science in its proper perspective: it is a product of personal, rational activity not an independent authority as it is often implied to be.

Swinburne was using “personal explanation” not as a rival to science but as a more fundamental way of understanding reality. It is the only way of explaining what is valuable and important. When persons are omitted from the scene everything becomes meaningless. Animals live purposefully but they don’t understand why how they succeed or fail. They learn by trial and error (and sometimes by trial and terror!) that some tactics work and others don’t. Their lack of intellectual insight is demonstrated by (and due to) their lack of syntax - although their closeness to nature often makes them stronger, hardier and healthier than their human relatives.

Animals cannot give reasons for what they do because they don’t have reasons! They live according to instinct, impulses and impressions based on experience, not by abstract rules, values and principles. They depend on the wisdom of the body - which is not to be despised - rather than the wisdom of the mind. Yet to think we are no more than animals is to risk becoming stunted in our personal development. As John Stuart Mill remarked, it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied. There is far more in life than physical pleasure and prowess…

These facts put Design into its true context. It is not an unrealistic attempt to establish perfection without any drawbacks and disadvantages. The folly of the body is an excellent example of how physical development leads to physical limitations. Personal development also entails defects but they serve as further opportunities for personal development which would otherwise be impossible. Design is not a cold, intellectual plan but a supreme expression of love that creates joy and beauty on an unparallelled scale.

I haven’t followed the debate going on, but this is a very good post. The first three paragraphs are especially so.

 

[Robert_Caritas]

I think the substance of Studers post is something like: ‘Good grief, are you guys still going on about this?’

I think that it’s only the scientific backwater of Turkey that has a greater percentage of people who actually think we all got here all at once. I don’t think that many Americans realise how profoundly wierd it sseems to the rest of the planet that a country like the US is still debating this.

And hey, can you get your act together and start using the metric system while you’re at it. That you are still using feet and inches is just very odd indeed.

The Catholic approach to evolution is very different from the mainstream Protestant approach. To an atheist this might seem like we’re almost the same, but we’re really not. Keep that in mind.

Many protestants (evangelicals, etc) try to deny evolution. Catholics don’t, we have embraced huge portions of it. Our last pope even publicly stated: “this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.”

But we strongly deny the parts that attempt to “explain God away”. For two reasons: (1) they are generally the weakest parts of the theory (2) they also usually have a poor knowledge of theology, and therefore aren’t actually explaining God away, but something akin to a bearded man in a cloud, or the flying spaghetti monster. I often read arguments against the existence of God, and when I get to the conclusion I am often left thinking, “where was the argument? They haven’t even addressed a plausible conception of God!”

That God created the world in part through an evolutionary process makes a great amount of sense to me. Though I would have to strongly disagree with people who say that the process was not guided.

 

[zro_x]

Wherever science intersects with faith it is an issue.

The argument “Science cannot yet explain it but we know we will” is a faith statement. It is the god (BUC) of the gaps argument.

God of the Gaps refers to theists declaring that since science can’t explain a particular natural phenomenon, god must be directly responsible. As science has been able to explain more and more natural phenomena throughout history, the “gaps” in the natural reasons behind natural phenomena have shrunk. Scientists can not “know they will” eventually explain all the natural reasons behind something. You are correct in saying that there may be some things that science can’t explain, but we can never know for certain if we have reached the limits of scientific inquiry. In that respect, if evolution is proven false, We can’t conclude that god was dierctly responsible. Likewise, as you say, naturalistic scientists can’t definitively conclude that they will find natural answers for phenomena.

I’m just trying to point out that if evolution is proven false, it doesn’t prove god exists. There could be naturalistic explanations that no one has thought of. Or maybe not. We just wouldn’t know.

We “cannot let the Divine foot in the door” is an a priori bias and does not serve science well.

It actually serves science extremely well. imagine if scientists were told that the leaves changing color in the fall were caused by magical leaf faries, and were satisfied with that explanation. They would never look further to discover the real causes for leaf color change. Similarly, there may be a natural explanation for the origin and variety of life on this planet. If scientists believed that god created everything in six days as it says in the bible, they would never discover those natural explanations.

I beg to differ. Faith and reason cannot be opposed.

yes they can, in which case, we would have to throw out faith. however, I haven’t come across any sound reasoning that has contradicted my belief in god.

Evolution in particular bears no threat to what we believe as catholics. As I say, we aren’t biblical literalists. even if evolution were undeniably proven, faith and reason would not be contradictory.

Look here: Where is the weakness?

ummm… not sure what you’re getting at here…