Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

That would be testable predictions, Tony. Not your personal opinions.

They are constantly being tested by everyone including you, Brad!

Do you really live as if the laws of nature will cease to hold good and cease to provide a reliable basis for living organisms and rational existence, as a robot whose activity is caused entirely by physical events and as if purposeless processes are more valuable, trustworthy and significant than the power of reason?

The “yadda…” is a sign of a lack of cogent reasoning…

 

[Portofino]

They are constantly being tested by everyone including you, Brad!

Do you really live as if the laws of nature will cease to hold good and cease to provide a reliable basis for living organisms and rational existence, as a robot whose activity is caused entirely by physical events and as if purposeless processes are more valuable, trustworthy and significant than the power of reason?

The “yadda…” is a sign of a lack of cogent reasoning…

There’s a lot that bundled into this statement. I will try to unpack as much of it as I discern!

“Do you really live as if the laws of nature will cease to hold good and cease to provide a reliable basis for living organisms…”

I don’t think a materialist denies that there is regularity and predictability in nature (even if, like David Hume, there is the sense that there is no logical necessity in the sun rising tomorrow, as indeed there isn’t).

Your position, however, is that there cannot be regularity and predictability in nature, without intelligent design. This is the unproven assumption, I believe. You are saying, “because there is order, there must be consciously intelligent design, in the same way that there is consciously intelligent design behind the mechanism of a watch.”

In my estimation, it’s a compelling argument in the name of human common sense. But common sense has been wrong. The human body, for example, has a much greater “intelligence”, in certain respects, than the conscious human mind. The immune system is a perfect example of this. But I really can’t say whether my body is “intelligent” in the way we think of intelligence – namely, as involving an immune system that has conscious awareness – nor can I say whether that immune system, while not itself having conscious awareness, was nonetheless consciously designed. Just because the body seems “smart” (e.g., when it is too hot, the body sweats to cool off) does not mean that the body has conscious intelligence, or that the body was designed by a source of conscious intelligence (in the way that an automobile was designed, only better). Indeed, we may be anthropomorphizing the universe, when we say this – projecting human intelligence onto all of creation.

“as a robot whose activity is caused entirely by physical events and as if purposeless processes are more valuable, trustworthy and significant than the power of reason”

I don’t experience myself to be a robot whose activity is caused entirely by physical events – but, then again, my experience has been known to be wrong.

There seems to be an implied threat in much of your reasoning, one that is ultimately pragmatic and utilitarian – namely, “in a purposeless universe, nothing has purpose!” If the conclusion there is that there is nothing left but to despair, then you are giving a pragmatic argument for believing in purpose, and saying that a life that does not believe in objective meaning, purpose, or value, would be unlivable. This says nothing about whether objective purpose exists.

If you are saying, “without (conscious) purpose, there could be no regularity and order in the universe!” then you would be stating an unproven assumption. You are saying that “reason cannot have originated in unreason” or “intelligence could not have originated from non-intelligence” or “consciousness cannot have originated from non-consciousness.” And I would agree that, as regards common sense, this is compelling – but only as regards common sense. My personal common sense (which is rather naive) cannot conceive of how an airplane flies; how a computer creates “virtual” space, capable of holding libraries of information; or, for that matter, how the earth is moving through space at approximately 1,000 miles per hour, when I haven’t felt it budge an inch.

If, finally, you are saying, “we cannot have an experience of objective purpose, in a universe that is purposeless” you would, again, be making an appeal to common sense, as opposed to providing definitive proof. That would like trying to say, “we cannot have the experience of non-motion, in a universe that is perpetually in motion.”

 

[tonyrey]

There’s a lot that bundled into this statement. I will try to unpack as much of it as I discern!

Thank you for your refreshingly courteous and reasonable response.

I don’t think a materialist denies that there is regularity and predictability in nature (even if, like David Hume, there is the sense that there is no logical necessity in the sun rising tomorrow, as indeed there isn’t).

The absence of logical necessity entails the need for a rational explanation of the
regularity and predictability in nature

Your position, however, is that there cannot be regularity and predictability in nature, without intelligent design. This is the unproven assumption, I believe. You are saying, “because there is order, there must be consciously intelligent design, in the same way that there is consciously intelligent design behind the mechanism of a watch.”

My position is not that order alone is evidence for Design but order which is the basis of purposeful activity and a rational existence.
I

n my estimation, it’s a compelling argument in the name of human common sense. But common sense has been wrong. The human body, for example, has a much greater “intelligence”, in certain respects, than the conscious human mind. The immune system is a perfect example of this. But I really can’t say whether my body is “intelligent” in the way we think of intelligence – namely, as involving an immune system that has conscious awareness – nor can I say whether that immune system, while not itself having conscious awareness, was nonetheless consciously designed. Just because the body seems “smart” (e.g., when it is too hot, the body sweats to cool off) does not mean that the body has conscious intelligence, or that the body was designed by a source of conscious intelligence (in the way that an automobile was designed, only better). Indeed, we may be anthropomorphizing the universe, when we say this – projecting human intelligence onto all of creation.

To attribute the complexity and efficacy of the immune system to a succession of purposeless events is, in my opinion, a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

I fail to understand how the automobile is superior to a rational being.

Pascal made the point that our power of reason makes us superior to the entire universe. The success of science justifies a conclusion which is not anthropomorphic but ratiocentric!

“as a robot whose activity is caused entirely by physical events and as if purposeless processes are more valuable, trustworthy and significant than the power of reason.”

I don’t experience myself to be a robot whose activity is caused entirely by physical events – but, then again, my experience has been known to be wrong.

It is not a question of “experience” but the destruction of the foundation of rational thought by its reduction - once again - to purposeless processes.

There seems to be an implied threat in much of your reasoning, one that is ultimately pragmatic and utilitarian – namely, “in a purposeless universe, nothing has purpose!” If the conclusion there is that there is nothing left but to despair, then you are giving a pragmatic argument for believing in purpose, and saying that a life that does not believe in objective meaning, purpose, or value, would be unlivable. This says nothing about whether objective purpose exists.

You regard it as a threat but it is a logical consequence of rejecting Design - regardless of my opinion! To dismiss objective meaning undermines the validity of reasoning itself. Meaning that is entirely subjective is worthless because it is very unlikely to correspond to reality.

If you are saying, “without (conscious) purpose, there could be no regularity and order in the universe!” then you would be stating an unproven assumption.

The onus is on you to explain how order and regularity have originated given that you believe they are not logically (or existentially) necessary.

You are saying that “reason cannot have originated in unreason” or “intelligence could not have originated from non-intelligence” or “consciousness cannot have originated from non-consciousness.” And I would agree that, as regards common sense, this is compelling – but only as regards common sense. My personal common sense (which is rather naive) cannot conceive of how an airplane flies; how a computer creates “virtual” space, capable of holding libraries of information; or, for that matter, how the earth is moving through space at approximately 1,000 miles per hour, when I haven’t felt it budge an inch.

Not only common sense but the total lack of any evidence that rational activity can be explained in terms of biochemical reactions or electrical impulses - which lack insight and consciousness. To deny the primacy of reason is to commit intellectual suicide!

If, finally, you are saying, “we cannot have an experience of objective purpose, in a universe that is purposeless” you would, again, be making an appeal to common sense, as opposed to providing definitive proof. That would like trying to say, "we cannot have the experience of non-motion

, in a universe that is perpetually in motion."

There is a vast difference between physical motion and the intellectual activity on which all your statements and conclusions are based…

 

[Bradski]

How many predictions that have failed would in your opinion nullify a hypotheses?

I think that if all predictions fail, then the hypothesis is wrong and you may as well wipe the slate and start again. If a few fail and a few are succesful, then you would need to fine tune the hypothesis.

 

[buffalo]

I think that if all predictions fail, then the hypothesis is wrong and you may as well wipe the slate and start again. If a few fail and a few are succesful, then you would need to fine tune the hypothesis.

Here are a few to start with:

The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features;

The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution;

The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent;

The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code;

The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

 

[Bradski]

Here are a few to start with:
The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features;
The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution;
The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent;
The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code;
The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

I’m assuming that as we were comparing ID (which doesn’t make predictions) with evolution (which does), then these are your examples of predictions that evolution has made which are wrong.

The first is not applicable as it’s in regard to abiogenesis. That’s a different topic.

The second in regrd to fossils. Evolution predicts that transitional fossils will be found. Here’s a link that will give you a couple of dozen to start with. Let me know if you need more: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

The third, that evolution predicted that molecular evidence would prove evidence for common descent, has been shown in many studies. One quote:

Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the “twin nested hierarchy”. talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Thirty eight places! Count them!

The fourth is not applicable either. It’s practically the same question as the first, worded differently.

The fifth…are you talking about Haeckel here? Maybe you can explain what you understand by ‘embryonic divergence’ and how that affects the validity of evolution in a little more detail.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m assuming that as we were comparing ID (which doesn’t make predictions) with evolution (which does), then these are your examples of predictions that evolution has made which are wrong.

The first is not applicable as it’s in regard to abiogenesis. That’s a different topic.

The second in regrd to fossils. Evolution predicts that transitional fossils will be found. Here’s a link that will give you a couple of dozen to start with. Let me know if you need more: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

The third, that evolution predicted that molecular evidence would prove evidence for common descent, has been shown in many studies. One quote:

Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the “twin nested hierarchy”. talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Thirty eight places! Count them!

The fourth is not applicable either. It’s practically the same question as the first, worded differently.

The fifth…are you talking about Haeckel here? Maybe you can explain what you understand by ‘embryonic divergence’ and how that affects the validity of evolution in a little more detail.

The details of evolution are banned on this forum but there is nothing to stop you discussing the matter privately…

 

[Bradski]

This is a little frustrating and I think someone mentioned it earlier. It’s not hard to poke a few holes in ID. For example, as we are currently discussing, it doesn’t predict anything. But saying something like: It doesn’t predict anything as opposed to…The Theory Which We Cannot Discuss (TTWWCD), is against forum rules.

But there is no alternative to ID except TTWWCD, so to argue against ID you are obviously proposing the alternative. But we cannot use any examples to further the case without breaking forum rules.

That said, I am a guest here and the rules are there for a purpose so I will do my best to obey them and thanks for the reminder.

 

[pig]

This is a little frustrating and I think someone mentioned it earlier. It’s not hard to poke a few holes in ID. For example, as we are currently discussing, it doesn’t predict anything. But saying something like: It doesn’t predict anything as opposed to…The Theory Which We Cannot Discuss (TTWWCD), is against forum rules.

But there is no alternative to ID except TTWWCD, so to argue against ID you are obviously proposing the alternative. But we cannot use any examples to further the case without breaking forum rules.

That said, I am a guest here and the rules are there for a purpose so I will do my best to obey them and thanks for the reminder.

howdya mean? it doesn’t predict anything. Does it predict design.

 

[Bradski]

howdya mean? it doesn’t predict anything. Does it predict design.

If you asking if TTWWCD predicts anything, then yes it does. One example would be anatomical parahomology where it predicts that the same structures found in species evolved one from the other would perform different functions. Lots of examples there.

 

[ReapReason]

Here are a few to start with:

The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features;

The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution;

The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent;

The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code;

The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

Assuming for the sake of argument that evolution has not yet yielded a satisfactory explanation on these points, why should we therefore choose artisan-design (not the same thing as teleology) as the only logically possible explanation? You seem to have a flawed understanding of what it means for an event to be natural. Why can’t chemicals interact and as a result spontaneously actualise the necessary qualities needed for a complex system to develop? Why does every step have to be explained by chance in-order to be a natural explanation?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you asking if TTWWCD predicts anything, then yes it does. One example would be anatomical parahomology where it predicts that the same structures found in species evolved one from the other would perform different functions. Lots of examples there.

As with many predictions that arise from your “theory,” this is entirely consistent with and perhaps better explained by intelligent design, as well: wheels, rotors and gears are examples of parahomology in human design.

Now explaining how paradigms of change could be transferred to entirely unrelated sequences is somewhat tricky from a “non-design” perspective.

Example:
Seed to plant
Egg to animal
Big Bang to universe

Explaining how the coincidental but similar “unpacking” paradigm in these cases could be applied to radically different realities makes sense from a design point of view (template), but not so much as the result of strictly random processes.

 

[StrawberryJam]

As with many predictions that arise from your “theory,” this is entirely consistent with and perhaps better explained by intelligent design, as well: wheels, rotors and gears are examples of parahomology in human design.

Now explaining how paradigms of change could be transferred to entirely unrelated sequences is somewhat tricky from a “non-design” perspective.

Example:
Seed to plant
Egg to animal
Big Bang to universe

Explaining how the coincidental but similar “unpacking” paradigm in these cases could be applied to radically different realities makes sense from a design point of view (template), but not so much as the result of strictly random processes.

Using the word theory in scare quotes is not going to work.
Most of us know what that word really means.
For example, gravity is a theory.
I would be ever so happy to show you how this theory works in real life.
Would you like to test this theory out with me? All you need to do is be on top of the highest building we can find (I live in Chicago, not gonna have the highest, but we can find a tall one for you)
and all you have to do is volunteer to deny the theory of gravity while we are both at the hightest point of a building. Pick your building.
Pray really hard first.
Cause someone will fall down and finally learn what a theory is.
Clue: It won’t be me

 

[buffalo]

I’m assuming that as we were comparing ID (which doesn’t make predictions) with evolution (which does), then these are your examples of predictions that evolution has made which are wrong.

The first is not applicable as it’s in regard to abiogenesis. That’s a different topic.

The second in regrd to fossils. Evolution predicts that transitional fossils will be found. Here’s a link that will give you a couple of dozen to start with. Let me know if you need more: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

The third, that evolution predicted that molecular evidence would prove evidence for common descent, has been shown in many studies. One quote:

Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the “twin nested hierarchy”. talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Thirty eight places! Count them!

The fourth is not applicable either. It’s practically the same question as the first, worded differently.

The fifth…are you talking about Haeckel here? Maybe you can explain what you understand by ‘embryonic divergence’ and how that affects the validity of evolution in a little more detail.

Seen all this before.

Yup - the old abiogenesis sidestep.

I have already dealt with the so-called transitionals over and over.

The tree of life has fallen. It is now a bush. HGT has scrambled it even further. (Interestingly enough when odds are calculated to 38 places evo’s do not even acknowledge it)

The platypus is an interesting character.

Another issue - convergent evolution. Features “evolving” over and over again in different scenarios.

And I will toss this is for good luck.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=4483

I believe that as time goes on the genetic research will more clearly show relationships and will focus back to a certain number of front loaded prototypes that have the built in capabilties to adapt.

 

[buffalo]

Assuming for the sake of argument that evolution has not yet yielded a satisfactory explanation on these points, why should we therefore choose artisan-design (not the same thing as teleology) as the only logically possible explanation? You seem to have a flawed understanding of what it means for an event to be natural. Why can’t chemicals interact and as a result spontaneously actualise the necessary qualities needed for a complex system to develop? Why does every step have to be explained by chance in-order to be a natural explanation?

Two things we now know - DNA actively fights against mutations through several iterations. Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one.

As we speak the modern synthesis is going away being replaced by self organization.

It is incumbent on you to show the evolutionary pathways or self organizational process for the ATP synthase motor.

 

[Bradski]

As with many predictions that arise from your “theory,” this is entirely consistent with and perhaps better explained by intelligent design, as well: wheels, rotors and gears are examples of parahomology in human design.

No they’re not. They are “examples” of how a particular “component” is used in the same way in different “structures” (using quotes when they’re not required really looks odd, doesn’t it).

Parahomology refers to the similarity of a component which has evolved to be used* in a different way in different structures.*

A gear is a gear is a gear. It doesn’t do anything else other than act like a gear (unless you want to hit someone on the head with it, then it’s like a rock or you could use it as a paper weight etc). But a component that was, for example, originally an arm has now evolved into a wing. And you can see the gradual transformation from one to the other in the fossil record. This is what TTWWCD predicts.

It also predicts redundancy which means that the original claw on the end of the original arm which would be pretty handy for tearing flesh is now a pretty useless nub of bone on the end of a wing. Some salamanders have vestigial legs, as do whales. Humans have a vestigial tail, the cocckyx. If these had had been designed, then they wouldn’t have any useless features.

Unless maybe God threw in a few now and then to make it look like it had evolved so He could test us. Or you have another explanation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Using the word theory in scare quotes is not going to work.
Most of us know what that word really means.
For example, gravity is a theory.
I would be ever so happy to show you how this theory works in real life.
Would you like to test this theory out with me? All you need to do is be on top of the highest building we can find (I live in Chicago, not gonna have the highest, but we can find a tall one for you)
and all you have to do is volunteer to deny the theory of gravity while we are both at the hightest point of a building. Pick your building.
Pray really hard first.
Cause someone will fall down and finally learn what a theory is.
Clue: It won’t be me

You sound like a fun person to be around. :crutches:

Gravity is a phenomenon or, perhaps, even a “fact” of nature. Gravity is not a theory.

Newtonian theory and theories of general relativity are theories that try to explain the phenomenon of gravity.
Evolution, in terms of change through time, could be considered a fact or phenomemon of nature, but all the other attendant hypothesized aspects of that fact that some consider to be a consistent “theory” to explain the fact of change over time are quite debatable.

Equating this “theory” in question to gravity is quite telling in terms of your expertise on the subject.

Perhaps you should take some time to understand what you think you “know” so well before you go climbing tall buildings.

 

[Bradski]

Yup - the old abiogenesis sidestep.

Do you think that abiogenesis is part of evolution theory? If you can explain how, I’ll be interested to read it.

I have already dealt with the so-called transitionals over and over.

Then it shouldn’t be too much bother quoting some of your past work.

Another issue - convergent evolution. Features “evolving” over and over again in different scenarios.

Why are you suggesting topics that derail your argument?

It is incumbent on you to show the evolutionary pathways or self organizational process for the ATP synthase motor.

Google The Mullerian Two-Step. That explains it well enough. And… could you explain what you understand by ‘embryonic divergence’ and how that affects the validity of evolution in a little more detail.

 

[buffalo]

Or you have another explanation.

A better explanation is that life is front loaded. There are 500 or so conserved genes that can build just about any feature. These 500 “immortal” genes are present in all life forms.

**IDvolution **- God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Science resources here. (scroll down)

 

[StrawberryJam]

You sound like a fun person to be around. :crutches:

Gravity is a phenomenon or, perhaps, even a “fact” of nature. Gravity is not a theory.

Newtonian theory and theories of general relativity are theories that try to explain the phenomenon of gravity.
Evolution, in terms of change through time, could be considered a fact or phenomemon of nature, but all the other attendant hypothesized aspects of that fact that some consider to be a consistent “theory” to explain the fact of change over time are quite debatable.

Equating this “theory” in question to gravity is quite telling in terms of your expertise on the subject.

Perhaps you should take some time to understand what you think you “know” so well before you go climbing tall buildings.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is a fact
Natural explainations beat all others each and every time.