Conclusive evidence for Design!

[prodigalson2011]

So as long as evolution potentially leaves some room for divine action (or, more accurately, perhaps, leaves something - anything at all - for God to actually do) then it’s perfectly acceptable to theistic believers.

We can happily ignore the fact that there is not - and has never been - any direct evidence for the actual hand of God playing a part in anything that has been observed to occur, or inferred to have occurred in the past, in the natural world. As long as God’s activity is not openly negated, theists can breathe a sigh of relief and continue to believe in a distant creator god with a long-term plan, an absentee father, or whatever concept best fits the present state of scientific elucidation…

We can happily ignore your observation about the lack of evidence for the “actual hand of God” because, actually, God does not have a hand. What He has is a mind; a mind capable of creating a cohesive order. In the words of St. Augustine, speaking on the topic of science, “It is our business here to inquire how God has constituted the natures of His creatures, not how far it may have pleased Him to work on them by way of miracle.” In other words, science’s business is unravelling the laws which God has established; not finding anomalies within them. Miracles, or acts of divine invasion, are called miracles for precisely this reason: they are rare.

The order of the universe itself is what we consider evidence of His work. Science cannot give or take away from the obvious fact of the universal order, it can only unveil new layers of said order. Most importantly, science can never explain why the universe functions as it does, it can only show us how. The whys of the laws of nature are left up to us to discern on our own. An accidental, mindless collection of physical forces? Or the product of a transcendent mind? Given the immense improbability of a universe as cohesive as ours, I place my money on the latter.

 

[prodigalson2011]

So as long as evolution potentially leaves some room for divine action (or, more accurately, perhaps, leaves something - anything at all - for God to actually do) then it’s perfectly acceptable to theistic believers.

P.S. A theistic understanding does not require “divine action” or “something for God to do” in the sense that he must actively be interfering in the development of life as it’s happening. Perhaps a useful analogy would be a game of billiards: an expert shooter wants to sink 6 balls, but he intends to do this with 1 shot. Rather, he looks at the table, does the math, lines up the shot, strikes the cue and watches as his plan unfolds and each of the 6 balls, in their turn, roll into their respective pockets. Likewise, God decides to create a universe. Being omniscient and omnipotent, he knows what laws will be necessary to produce and sustain this creation and puts them into play–no further “tinkering” required. The failure of this analogy is that the billiards player does indeed become passive after the shot is taken. God does not though, as he is actively keeping the entire process going. Being the source of the natural order, it is His will that holds it together. But that’s a theological discussion for another thread. The important thing to recognize here is that such direct intervention as you are positing is a straw man.

 

[Sair]

We can happily ignore your observation about the lack of evidence for the “actual hand of God” because, actually, God does not have a hand. What He has is a mind; a mind capable of creating a cohesive order. In the words of St. Augustine, speaking on the topic of science, “It is our business here to inquire how God has constituted the natures of His creatures, not how far it may have pleased Him to work on them by way of miracle.” In other words, science’s business is unravelling the laws which God has established; not finding anomalies within them. Miracles, or acts of divine invasion, are called miracles for precisely this reason: they are rare.

But that is the whole point - there is no evidence that the universe as we know it bears the mark of an intelligent designer, and ample evidence that it arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned. The thing is, if it can be established - which it can - that conditions such as those giving rise to the universe as we know it can arise naturally, there is no necessity for the assumption of intelligent design. Why assume an extra complex entity when it isn’t necessary? God is surplus to requirements.

The order of the universe itself is what we consider evidence of His work.

Why?

Science cannot give or take away from the obvious fact of the universal order, it can only unveil new layers of said order. Most importantly, science can never explain why the universe functions as it does, it can only show us how. The whys of the laws of nature are left up to us to discern on our own. An accidental, mindless collection of physical forces? Or the product of a transcendent mind? Given the immense improbability of a universe as cohesive as ours, I place my money on the latter.

This ignores every possible and substantial undermining of the notion that the only explanation for universal order is the front-loading of an intelligently-designed plan. You can’t say that science will never explain why the universe functions as it does - you can only say that it hasn’t completely explained it yet. As the always eloquent and charming comedian Dara O’Briain pointed out, if science thought it knew everything, it would stop.

Probability calculations cited by creationists are inherently flawed, firstly because they overturn the proper functioning of science by assuming the conclusion they are trying to prove; secondly because they fail to take into account the fact that we don’t know whether the universal constants are mutually dependent, and thus affect the probability calculations related to each.

And even if the universal constants in their present - and friendly - state are vanishingly improbable by creationist accounts, and leaving aside all possible variables, their improbability still has to be contrasted with the probability of the existence of a vast intelligent entity that has always existed, yet leaves no trace of its interaction with the rest of the universe. What is the probability that such an entity could remain undemonstrated throughout the history of the universe? High, perhaps, if you have a majority of people conditioned to believe, unquestioningly, that such an entity exists.

Finally, as I’ve said before, the idea of universal order is highly anthropomorphic - we perceive order because we evolved within the universe as it is. If we’d evolved in an entirely different universe, with different constants, and were just dumped here, then - assuming we could survive in the first place - the universe we presently inhabit might well seem nonsensical. In fact, if one takes seriously the theistic doctrine that we actually belong in a realm beyond the universe as we know it - the Christian concept of heaven, for example - then perhaps the world we inhabit should not make any sense to us…

 

[Sair]

Well, the discussion of evolution is a circular argument. Most of the Catholics on here have condemned the hypothesis or educated GUESS! I have given a lot of resources, but you still argue that evolution is possible with no credible proof, no references, and no studies. To me it is a dead subject. You can choose to believe whatever you wish, I just have a problem with lies in science, I love science. But this isn’t science against religion, this is religion against religion. As Dr. George Wald(a now deceased evolutionist atheist professor) said, “When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion – that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” - Scientific American, August, 1954. There are only 2 and there is no 3rd option, If you would like to start a thread on how old the earth is you can do that. Your question is a good one however, it doesn’t fit the discussion. That’s like someone coming in here and asking why do bad things happen to good people. Start the other thread and I will respond. Thank You!

Just to mention, the ‘spontaneous generation’ disproved by Pasteur was the idea that microbes and sundry other organisms (such as maggots) arose, unseeded, from dead flesh, just as a matter of course. That was something that was believed as far back as Biblical times. Abiogenesis, by contrast - the arising of life from non-living particles - is a matter still under investigation. It most certainly has not been disproved…

 

[tonyrey]

This thread is so lively (and lovely!) it will be followed by a sequel:

Definitive evidence for Design…

 

[tonyrey]

Abiogenesis, by contrast - the arising of life from non-living particles - is a matter still under investigation. It most certainly has not been disproved…

It most certainly has not been disproved that Genesis is a valid symbolic account of Creation. Is that a matter under investigation?

 

[Peter_Plato]

We can happily ignore the fact that there is not - and has never been - any direct evidence for the actual hand of God playing a part in anything that has been observed to occur, or inferred to have occurred in the past, in the natural world. As long as God’s activity is not openly negated, theists can breathe a sigh of relief and continue to believe in a distant creator god with a long-term plan, an absentee father, or whatever concept best fits the present state of scientific elucidation…

This is ironic, given that you are also “happily ignoring” the Big Bang event itself, the fine tuning of the universe, the origin of life and events in human history such as the continued existence of Israel, the life of Christ, the growth of the Church and the lives of many individual saints as possible evidential support for the “hand of God.” Your own “sigh of relief” is breathed as a result of a contrived restriction (on your part) for what counts as evidence to that which is not contrary to your assumed philosophical materialism.

Of course there is no room for God if, by presumption, the only evidence that is allowed is chemical or physical in nature. The problem is that physical nature does not and cannot explain itself, nor can it explain the qualitative “layers” of truth, goodness and beauty that must be appealed to in order to derive any real meaning from physical nature.

 

[tonyrey]

But that is the whole point - there is no evidence that the universe as we know it bears the mark of an intelligent designer, and ample evidence that it arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned.

What is the evidence that the universe arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned?

The thing is, if it can be established - which it can - that conditions such as those giving rise to the universe as we know it can arise naturally, there is no necessity for the assumption of intelligent design.

“if” is the key word. Why?

Why assume an extra complex entity when it isn’t necessary? God is surplus to requirements.

That question and assertion are based on an “if”! Why?

This ignores every possible and substantial undermining of the notion that the only explanation for universal order is the front-loading of an intelligently-designed plan.

“possible” is another key word.

You can’t say that science will never explain why the universe functions as it does - you can only say that it hasn’t completely explained it yet.

You can’t say that science will ever explain **why **the universe functions as it does.

Probability calculations cited by creationists are inherently flawed, firstly because they overturn the proper functioning of science by assuming the conclusion they are trying to prove…

That argument could be applied to any research that sets out to validate a theory!

…secondly because they fail to take into account the fact that we don’t know whether the universal constants are mutually dependent, and thus affect the probability calculations related to each.

Ignorance is not a sound basis for an objection to an explanation in the absence of a superior explanation.

And even if the universal constants in their present - and friendly - state are vanishingly improbable by creationist accounts, and leaving aside all possible variables, their improbability still has to be contrasted with the probability of the existence of a vast intelligent entity that has always existed, yet leaves no trace of its interaction with the rest of the universe.

“leaves no trace” is another unproved assumption.

What is the probability that such an entity could remain undemonstrated throughout the history of the universe? High, perhaps, if you have a majority of people conditioned to believe, unquestioningly, that such an entity exists.

What people believe is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

Finally, as I’ve said before, the idea of universal order is highly anthropomorphic - we perceive order because we evolved within the universe as it is. If we’d evolved in an entirely different universe, with different constants, and were just dumped here, then - assuming we could survive in the first place - the universe we presently inhabit might well seem nonsensical.

Since science is based on the principle that there is universal order science too must be anthropomorphic!

In fact, if one takes seriously the theistic doctrine that we actually belong in a realm beyond the universe as we know it - the Christian concept of heaven, for example - then perhaps the world we inhabit should not make any sense to us…

If one takes seriously the atheistic doctrine that we don’t belong anywhere and exist entirely by Chance the world we inhabit does not make any sense whatsoever, i.e. everything is quite absurd.

Reason is not an aberration - nor are persons** illusions**…

 

[tonyrey]

This is ironic, given that you are also “happily ignoring” the Big Bang event itself, the fine tuning of the universe, the origin of life and events in human history such as the continued existence of Israel, the life of Christ, the growth of the Church and the lives of many individual saints as possible evidential support for the “hand of God.” Your own “sigh of relief” is breathed as a result of a contrived restriction (on your part) for what counts as evidence to that which is not contrary to your assumed philosophical materialism.

Of course there is no room for God if, by presumption, the only evidence that is allowed is chemical or physical in nature. The problem is that physical nature does not and cannot explain itself, nor can it explain the qualitative “layers” of truth, goodness and beauty that must be appealed to in order to derive any real meaning from physical nature.

The “sigh of relief” really gives the game away! It is clearly a projection of the writer’s own feelings…

 

[tonyrey]

P.S. A theistic understanding does not require “divine action” or “something for God to do” in the sense that he must actively be interfering in the development of life as it’s happening. Perhaps a useful analogy would be a game of billiards: an expert shooter wants to sink 6 balls, but he intends to do this with 1 shot. Rather, he looks at the table, does the math, lines up the shot, strikes the cue and watches as his plan unfolds and each of the 6 balls, in their turn, roll into their respective pockets. Likewise, God decides to create a universe. Being omniscient and omnipotent, he knows what laws will be necessary to produce and sustain this creation and puts them into play–no further “tinkering” required. The failure of this analogy is that the billiards player does indeed become passive after the shot is taken. God does not though, as he is actively keeping the entire process going. Being the source of the natural order, it is His will that holds it together. But that’s a theological discussion for another thread. The important thing to recognize here is that such direct intervention as you are positing is a straw man.

The “God of the gaps” objection is based on the “Science of the Fundamental Gap” assumption!

 

[prodigalson2011]

But that is the whole point - there is no evidence that the universe as we know it bears the mark of an intelligent designer, and ample evidence that it arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned.

There is no empirical evidence of either of these propositions. There is ample evidence of the physical process of its genesis and development. There is absolutely NO experimental evidence of this process’ independence. Neither is there any experimental evidence of its design. You are clinging to the fallacy of scientism.

The thing is, if it can be established - which it can - that conditions such as those giving rise to the universe as we know it can arise naturally, there is no necessity for the assumption of intelligent design. Why assume an extra complex entity when it isn’t necessary? God is surplus to requirements.

It cannot be established that those conditions can arise naturally. It can only be established that they did indeed arise. No matter how deep science may dig, whatever
it finds will not be self-explanatory. Science can only find things WITHIN the universe, and it can only tell us HOW they operate, and it can only tell us WHY they operate as they do based on other things WITHIN the universe. So, when and if science reaches the bottom of physical reality–whatever force, law, etc. may reside there–science can offer no explanation of why such a thing exists and operates as it does. If it did, it would not be the ultimate governing principle of reality. So you are left with two options only: a) an infinite regress of forces or principles, which is an absurdity or b) a fundamental principle which cannot be scientifically explained.

And again, God is NOT a complex entity.

Why?

Because, as I mentioned previously, science can ultimately only explain HOW the universe works. Any illusion of it explaining WHY it works as it does is an erroneous projection from relations between contingent phenomena WITHIN the universe to the universe as a whole. Science cannot provide a reason that nature should function as harmoniously as it does, it can only discover the means by which it does so. Science must eventually, if it is indeed so capable, run into a wall, whereupon the most primal force of nature is found, and when it does it will have no other physical phenomena by which to explain its existence. The “whys” of universal expansion, star formation, planetary motion, and every other observable phenomena within the universe are explicable only in terms of other things therein, creating the illusion that science is explaining “why” the universe is the way it is. This is simply fallacious. It is explaining “how” other forces and events within the universe produce those results.

So ultimately, the question of whether the universe is an accidental and self-sufficient reality or the product of intelligence is a matter of philosophical deduction. We now know, beyond the shadow a doubt, that our universe possessess an immense array of incredibly fine tuned features which allow us to exist. Where there is such immense and inexplicable order, it is natural to suppose the work of an intelligence.

This ignores every possible and substantial undermining of the notion that the only explanation for universal order is the front-loading of an intelligently-designed plan. You can’t say that science will never explain why the universe functions as it does - you can only say that it hasn’t completely explained it yet. As the always eloquent and charming comedian Dara O’Briain pointed out, if science thought it knew everything, it would stop.

Of all the possible explanations, I think it can be logically demonstrated that this is the most reasonable. And, as I have addressed at length in the previous sections of this post, I CAN say that science will never explain WHY the universe functions as it does, only HOW. It’s a subtle but very important difference.

Probability calculations cited by creationists are inherently flawed, firstly because they overturn the proper functioning of science by assuming the conclusion they are trying to prove; secondly because they fail to take into account the fact that we don’t know whether the universal constants are mutually dependent, and thus affect the probability calculations related to each.

Irrelevant. Mutually dependent or not, they are incredibly fortuitous and science cannot feasibly provide a reason why they should have been otherwise. All science can do is observe and unravel that which is, it cannot say why it is so.

 

[prodigalson2011]

And even if the universal constants in their present - and friendly - state are vanishingly improbable by creationist accounts, and leaving aside all possible variables, their improbability still has to be contrasted with the probability of the existence of a vast intelligent entity that has always existed, yet leaves no trace of its interaction with the rest of the universe. What is the probability that such an entity could remain undemonstrated throughout the history of the universe? High, perhaps, if you have a majority of people conditioned to believe, unquestioningly, that such an entity exists.

Your framing of the improbability of the universal constants as being something peculiar to “creationists” is either disingenuous or completely misinformed. It’s a widely accepted scientific fact.

And besides that, who says God has left no trace of his interaction with the world? The Shroud of Turin is a subject of more scientific interest than ever today (if you aren’t aware, as most people aren’t, the study of the Shroud has undergone a “resurrection” of its own after several breakthroughs that proved a) the section that was carbon dated was a restoration [microscopic inspection revealed both alien fabric and thread patterns in this area] b) the shroud contains pollen from several plants native to Jerusalem c) the blood stains on the shroud perfectly match those of the Veil of Manoppello [the existence of the latter of which has been historically documented since at least the 6th century, nearly a millenia before the Shroud was previously believed to have been produced and d) the image on the Shroud contains 3 dimensional, holographic information and over a century of attempts have failed to recreate these effects.) In addition to that, we have a plethora of miracles, such as those at Lourdes and Fatima, as well as the Eucharistic miracles, which have been attested to by thousands upon thousands and studied by scientists who can offer no explanation. Ultimately, though, as is made abundantly clear in Judeo-Christian revelation, God wants people to seek Him with their HEARTS as well as their minds. If you’re trying to turn God into a simple laboratory experiment, chances are you aren’t going to find Him. As Pascal said (paraphrasing): “God gives us just enough light that those who want to find Him, will, and those who don’t, won’t.”

Finally, as I’ve said before, the idea of universal order is highly anthropomorphic - we perceive order because we evolved within the universe as it is. If we’d evolved in an entirely different universe, with different constants, and were just dumped here, then - assuming we could survive in the first place - the universe we presently inhabit might well seem nonsensical.

This is a fallacious argument. We perceive order because there IS order. Order is not a relative idea. Order can only be harder or easier to detect/understand based on how imminently it is imposed on the structure being observed. The more harmonious and rigorously structured that order is, the easier it is to perceive. Thus, it is easier to perceive order in a Mozart symphony than it is in a loosely arranged free jazz piece, which is governed only by a few vague guidelines. So while both exhibit some level of order, where more order is imposed, it is more easily detectable by intelligent observation; and, in the case of our universe, order is incredibly apparent.

Ultimately, there is no universe where 2 + 2 = 5. Some principles transcend physical accidents. And, as the work of physics has amply demonstrated, in universes with different constants, we would not have evolved because the cohesion of matter and thus, material beings, is contingent upon those very constants that govern our universe. After reading this, I can’t help thinking you haven’t really read very much about the fine tuning of the universe.

In fact, if one takes seriously the theistic doctrine that we actually belong in a realm beyond the universe as we know it - the Christian concept of heaven, for example - then perhaps the world we inhabit should not make any sense to us…

And what a good point you raise indirectly here. Your actual point, though, is quite fallacious. The order of the universe makes sense to us because we are rational beings capable of detecting and understanding order. To say that because we contain an essence that transcends nature we should not understand it is the same as saying that because I understand trigonometry, I should not understand basic arithmetic.

But, indirectly, you shine light on the fact that we most always DO feel that something is wrong with this world, morally and spiritually speaking.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no empirical evidence of either of these propositions. There is ample evidence of the physical process of its genesis and development. There is absolutely NO experimental evidence of this process’ independence. Neither is there any experimental evidence of its design. You are clinging to the fallacy of scientism.

It cannot be established that those conditions can arise naturally. It can only be established that they did indeed arise. No matter how deep science may dig, whatever it finds will not be self-explanatory. Science can only find things WITHIN the universe, and it can only tell us HOW they operate, and it can only tell us WHY they operate as they do based on other things WITHIN the universe. So, when and if science reaches the bottom of physical reality–whatever force, law, etc. may reside there–science can offer no explanation of why such a thing exists and operates as it does. If it did, it would not be the ultimate governing principle of reality. So you are left with two options only: a) an infinite regress of forces or principles, which is an absurdity or b) a fundamental principle which cannot be scientifically explained.

And again, God is NOT a complex entity.

Because, as I mentioned previously, science can ultimately only explain HOW the universe works. Any illusion of it explaining WHY it works as it does is an erroneous projection from relations between contingent phenomena WITHIN the universe to the universe as a whole. Science cannot provide a reason that nature should function as harmoniously as it does, it can only discover the means by which it does so. Science must eventually, if it is indeed so capable, run into a wall, whereupon the most primal force of nature is found, and when it does it will have no other physical phenomena by which to explain its existence. The “whys” of universal expansion, star formation, planetary motion, and every other observable phenomena within the universe are explicable only in terms of other things therein, creating the illusion that science is explaining “why” the universe is the way it is. This is simply fallacious. It is explaining “how” other forces and events within the universe produce those results.

So ultimately, the question of whether the universe is an accidental and self-sufficient reality or the product of intelligence is a matter of philosophical deduction. We now know, beyond the shadow a doubt, that our universe possesses an immense array of incredibly fine tuned features which allow us to exist. Where there is such immense and inexplicable order, it is natural to suppose the work of an intelligence.

Of all the possible explanations, I think it can be logically demonstrated that this is the most reasonable. And, as I have addressed at length in the previous sections of this post, I CAN say that science will never explain WHY the universe functions as it does, only HOW. It’s a subtle but very important difference.

Irrelevant. Mutually dependent or not, they are incredibly fortuitous and science cannot feasibly provide a reason why they should have been otherwise. All science can do is observe and unravel that which is, it cannot say why it is so.

A devastating post! Materialists reduce “Why?” to “How?” and thereby render not only the universe purposeless but also themselves - and, of course, their reasoning. “What good may come of this I know not…”

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Over 1000 posts. Thanks for participating. Feel free to begin a new thread.