Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

However it is not “unscientific” to say that physical qualities functionally arise according to the inherent nature of things.

It is unscientific because science does not explain the inherent nature of things. That is a metaphysical issue about which there is much controversy. To assume things must be as they are - and for no apparent reason - amounts to an unverifiable belief in physical necessity for which there is no evidence whatsoever, scientific or otherwise.

Thus it is not necessary to speak of “direct design” like a watch builder. And so it is not unreasonable to say that there is no direct design or an intelligent rearrangement of natural events; but rather there is a functional rearrangement according to physical laws. Science cannot reject teleology since it cannot measure the cause of physical law; but it does in principle reject the watch maker analogy of design in nature.

Science cannot reject any analogy because it is strictly restricted to things as they are and have been perceived. Any decision about the origin, order and purpose of things, let alone persons, is beyond its scope.

The question of whether these manifest complexities can exist with or without an intelligent first cause is a philosophical question. And I would agree that an intelligent first cause is necessary to explain the goal directed manifestations we see in nature; but I don’t agree with the “watch maker” argument and I stand in firm agreement with Richard Dawkins on that count.

Dawkins is a classic example of a scientist who exceeds his brief by trespassing into metaphysics - which is based on his (also unverifiable) faith in materialism. Many scientists are dismayed by his extravagant and dogmatic (not to mention unscientific) assertions about reality and religion…

 

[Abnormality]

It is unscientific because science does not explain the inherent nature of things.

It describes the inherent activities of things. And it is reasonably acceptable for a scientist to describe a physical effect as a “functional” expression of preceding qualities intrinsic to nature. Such a description has no relevance to whether or not nature is designed.

Dawkins is a classic example of a scientist who exceeds his brief by trespassing into metaphysics - which is based on his (also unverifiable) faith in materialism. Many scientists are dismayed by his extravagant and dogmatic (not to mention unscientific) assertions about reality and religion…

That does not mean that everything he says is false whether scientific or otherwise.

 

[tonyrey]

It is unscientific because science does not explain the inherent nature of things.

It depends on what you mean by “inherent”.

And it is reasonably acceptable for a scientist to describe a physical effect as a “functional” expression of preceding qualities intrinsic to nature.

The issue is whether they are** necessarily** intrinsic.

Such a description has no relevance to whether or not nature is designed.

That depends on the preceding issue, i.e. on whether or not you believe nature in its present form is the only possible form.

Dawkins is a classic example of a scientist who exceeds his brief by trespassing into metaphysics - which is based on his (also unverifiable) faith in materialism. Many scientists are dismayed by his extravagant and dogmatic (not to mention unscientific) assertions about reality and religion…

That does not mean that everything he says is false whether scientific or otherwise.

I haven’t stated that it is!

 

[tonyrey]

There are very good reasons to believe personal existence is the most valuable, powerful and significant form of existence. Al life is valuable but not all life is equally valuable. Any one who deliberately allows a person to die so that an animal may live would be rightly condemned and held guilty of manslaughter. Nor is this simply favouritism for our own species. Even from the animals’ point of view we can and do save the lives of many other animals because we have the power of reason which they lack.

We are also responsible for the needless suffering and death of many animals but that is not an argument against the value of reasoning. It is the result of the neglect or abuse of reasoning. For better or for worse we have more control over what occurs on this planet than any other form of life. That in itself is an undeniable fact which makes us not only responsible but valuable quite apart from its benefits for us. Diseases which prevent us from acting reasonably are rightly regarded as destructive of our most precious asset.

Yet insight and knowledge are not the only reasons why we are the most valuable beings on earth. The most intellectually advanced individuals have the opportunity to inflict far more suffering and death on others. Scientific progress is a two-edged sword which can be creative or destructive. Without love and compassion persons are a threat to all forms of life and to the planet itself - which is the basis of physical life. Emotion is as significant as reason in the assessment of our value.

As well as reason and emotion there is another factor without which we would be no more valuable or significant than any other form of life. It is a factor without which we wouldn’t even be capable of love or insight. If we were incapable of controlling our thoughts or emotions we wouldn’t have any more control over events than anything else. We would be ruled by physical causality in every aspect of our lives. It is our creative power that makes us pre-eminent and justifies the belief that personal existence is the most valuable, powerful and significant form of existence.

There is no reason to suppose we are the only persons that exist. That is why it is absurd to regard Design as anthropomorphic. It makes far more sense to regard the universe as ratiocentric rather than eccentric. Truth and goodness are facts that have to be taken into account in any comprehensive interpretation of reality. Persons are not a phenomenon to be ignored in explaining how and why anything exists. It is fanciful to imagine that everything is made in our image but realistic to believe we are an essential clue to its origin and purpose. Those who opt for impersonal particles don’t have a clue! There is no evidence for, or explanation of, the creative power of impersonal and purposeless particles - whereas persons are intrinsically conscious, creative and purposeful.

 

[tonyrey]

Science has been based on the principle “Divide and conquer” with its reduction of physical objects to their components which has culminated in the theory that everything consists of atomic particles. This technique has been so successful it has tempted many people to extend it to the whole of reality and become positivists, physicalists, naturalists or materialists - all of whom reject persons as real entities. Yet “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. In other words if scientists themselves are analysed scientifically they cease to exist as persons.

This is where atomism fails. It deprives reality of value, purpose and meaning by its reduction of wholes into parts - eminently logical as far as inanimate things are concerned but supremely illogical for rational beings. In a court of law there is no doubt about whether we are indivisible entities responsible for our behaviour. Modern medical medicine also considers the person as a whole rather than a collection of organs in the light of discoveries about the effect of mental states on our physical health. Synthesis has supplemented analysis in many fields of research because holism is an essential antidote to the needless fragmentation of reality.

One valuable contribution of the early Greek philosophers to intellectual progress was their realisation of the problem of the Many and the One. Pluralism was contrasted with monism and found wanting by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle because it fails to explain unity and coherence. Even Heraclitus who is usually associated with the idea of constant flux - “You cannot step into the same river twice” - stated that “All things are one”. Albert Einstein summed up the correct attitude to science in one sentence:

What a deep faith in the rationality of the structure of the world and what a longing to understand even a small glimpse of the reason revealed in the world there must have been in Kepler and Newton to enable them to unravel the mechanism of the heavens in long years of lonely work!

todayinsci.com/E/Einstein_Albert/EinsteinAlbert-Quotations.htm

Science answers the questions “What?”, “How?”, “When?” or “Where?” but it doesn’t tell us “Who?”, “Why?” or “Whither?”. Rationality is not and cannot be impersonal. To reject persons as real entities is equivalent to committing intellectual suicide. If reason is reduced to its components it is distorted into millions of mindless, mechanical and meaningless movements of molecules - and therefore worthless…

 

[Sair]

Science answers the questions “What?”, “How?”, “When?” or “Where?” but it doesn’t tell us “Who?”, “Why?” or “Whither?”.

What makes you suppose that the latter are actually meaningful questions, though?

 

[tonyrey]

Science answers the questions “What?”, “How?”, “When?” or “Where?” but it doesn’t tell us “Who?”, “Why?” or “Whither?”.

If we don’t know who is asking that question, why it is being asked or whither it leads there is no point in answering it because no one is asking it, there is no reason why it is being asked and it leads to precisely nothing…

 

[tonyrey]

Science answers the questions “What?”, “How?”, “When?” or “Where?” but it doesn’t tell us “Who?”, “Why?” or “Whither?”.

		 		 	 	 What makes you suppose that the latter are actually meaningful questions, though? 			 		 	 	 If we don't know who is asking that question, why it is being  asked or whither it leads there is no point in answering it because no  one is asking it, there is no reason why it is being asked and it leads  to precisely nothing...

To be more precise, if we don’t know who is asking that question we don’t know if there is a “who”! It may not be a rational being at all…

 

[tonyrey]

What makes you suppose that the latter are actually meaningful questions, though?

		 		 	 	 If we don't know who is asking that question, why it  is being  asked or whither it leads there is no point in answering it  because no  one is asking it, there is no reason why it is being asked  and it leads  to precisely nothing... 			 		 	 	 To be more precise, if we don't know who is asking that question  we don't know if there is a "who"!  It may not be a rational being at  all...

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

 

[prodigalson2011]

What makes you suppose that the latter are actually meaningful questions, though?

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.

 

[tonyrey]

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!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

 

[Studer]

You guys are crazy. Evolution has been proven. In Europe religious people tend to be better educated than here so it’s not even under discussion anymore.

Do you guys also believe that the earth is flat and that the American continent doesn’t exist?

This kind of anti-science thinking makes us appear as fools in front of non religious people, that won’t help us. Also China is catching up and if we want to have a chance to continue to dominate the planet we got to educate the working&not so bright class.

Anti-science is a really bad thing for the west. That’s what pretty much destroyed the Islamic golden age. Do you want the same for Christianity?

CU

PS If you don’t like science, what are you doing on a computer anyway?

 

[buffalo]

You guys are crazy. Evolution has been proven. In Europe religious people tend to be better educated than here so it’s not even under discussion anymore.

Do you guys also believe that the earth is flat and that the American continent doesn’t exist?

This kind of anti-science thinking makes us appear as fools in front of non religious people, that won’t help us. Also China is catching up and if we want to have a chance to continue to dominate the planet we got to educate the working&not so bright class.

Anti-science is a really bad thing for the west. That’s what pretty much destroyed the Islamic golden age. Do you want the same for Christianity?

CU

PS If you don’t like science, what are you doing on a computer anyway?

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.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You guys are crazy. Evolution has been proven. In Europe religious people tend to be better educated than here so it’s not even under discussion anymore.

Do you guys also believe that the earth is flat and that the American continent doesn’t exist?

This kind of anti-science thinking makes us appear as fools in front of non religious people, that won’t help us. Also China is catching up and if we want to have a chance to continue to dominate the planet we got to educate the working&not so bright class.

Anti-science is a really bad thing for the west. That’s what pretty much destroyed the Islamic golden age. Do you want the same for Christianity?

CU

PS If you don’t like science, what are you doing on a computer anyway?

It is ironic that someone who is attempting to promote clarity and depth of thought uses such profoundly simplistic thinking and lack of substantial evidence to make his points.

What will destroy the “golden age” of science is not anti-science but a lack of thoughtful direction for science and a simplistic faith in science devoid of reasonable thought that needs to underpin true scientific inquiry.

If “intelligent” design is refused as a key guiding force of science how can we expect that intelligent design will be accepted as a guiding force in the universe?

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Some posts are not worth answering…

 

[tonyrey]

It is ironic that someone who is attempting to promote clarity and depth of thought uses such profoundly simplistic thinking and lack of substantial evidence to make his points.

What will destroy the “golden age” of science is not anti-science but a lack of thoughtful direction for science and a simplistic faith in science devoid of reasonable thought that needs to underpin true scientific inquiry.

If “intelligent” design is refused as a key guiding force of science how can we expect that intelligent design will be accepted as a guiding force in the universe?

Science is supposed to be undesigned! Perhaps it is the product of physical causes…

 

[buffalo]

Some posts are not worth answering…

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

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

 

[Bradski]

It is ironic that someone who is attempting to promote clarity and depth of thought uses such profoundly simplistic thinking and lack of substantial evidence to make his points.

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.