Creationism and life in general

[tonyrey]

Even limited self-determination doesn’t fit into the scientific scheme of things… 1% is sufficient for a modicum of responsibility. Sure it does.

 

[StAnastasia]

science does not recognise the existence of the self, let alone self-determination!

I don’t know any scientists who don’t recognize themselves!

 

[edwest2]

"Q: Does intelligent design have a scientific basis?

A: No. In December 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled, in Kitzmiller versus the Dover School District, that intelligent design (ID) is based on religion and not science. “The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism,” he concluded. Moreover, many scientists have noted that the concept necessarily presupposes that there is an “intelligent designer” outside of nature who, from the beginning or from time to time, inserts design into the world around us. But whether there is an intelligent designer is a matter of religious faith. It is not a scientifically testable question."

aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/pdf/QA_Evolution.pdf

Respectfully, I would rather that a scientist pronounced on this matter as opposed to a judge. As for Intelligent Design, it has its merits. I believe the apparent design in nature is actual design.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Respectfully, I would rather that a scientist pronounced on this matter as opposed to a judge. As for Intelligent Design, it has its merits. I believe the apparent design in nature is actual design. Peace,Ed

Ed, Judge Jones (a conservative appointed by a Republican) weighed carefully the testimony of many scientists. And tends of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists have pronounced on the matter: ID is not science, pure and simple. Of course there is design in nature – I see it all the time in plants and animals. Design is an intrinsic part of life, as it is of in snowflakes. If you or anyone else wishes to pray about that and thank God for it, that is fine – Father George Coyne prays in his astronomical observatory. But you can’t mandate prayer and praise in the classroom and the laboratory.

 

[tonyrey]

]"Q: Does intelligent design have a scientific basis?

A: No. In December 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled, in Kitzmiller versus the Dover School District, that intelligent design (ID) is based on religion and not science. “The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism,” he concluded. Moreover, many scientists have noted that the concept necessarily presupposes that there is an “intelligent designer” outside of nature who, from the beginning or from time to time, inserts design into the world around us. But whether there is an intelligent designer is a matter of religious faith. It is not a scientifically testable question."

Is Judge Jones the ultimate authority on the matter? Has he any qualifications in the philosophy of religion - or the philosophy of science for that matter? He seems to have confused ID with Young Creationism…

Moreover he is mistaken that ID is not scientifically testable. ID obviously becomes redundant if it can be demonstrated that **everything **is scientifically explicable. The physicists’ ambition to formulate and establish a Theory of Everything would do the job very nicely indeed! I’m sure you would be delighted with that solution - apart from its implications for your professed belief in God…

BTW Scientists can hardly deny the reality of intelligence because science presupposes the use of intelligence. They are faced with the formidable problem of explaining how intelligence has been produced by particles which lack intelligence. A cogent explanation would put paid to ID for once and for all! But then insight would disappear altogether. Reasoning would turn out be a purely impersonal, mechanical process with no element of intuition, understanding or creativity. Scientists would have succeeded in eliminating themselves from their scheme of things.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know any scientists who don’t recognize themselves!

They don’t recognize themselves scientifically!

 

[edwest2]

Ed, Judge Jones (a conservative appointed by a Republican) weighed carefully the testimony of many scientists. And tends of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists have pronounced on the matter: ID is not science, pure and simple. Of course there is design in nature – I see it all the time in plants and animals. Design is an intrinsic part of life, as it is of in snowflakes. If you or anyone else wishes to pray about that and thank God for it, that is fine – Father George Coyne prays in his astronomical observatory. But you can’t mandate prayer and praise in the classroom and the laboratory.

Snowflakes are not alive. I am not suggesting prayer or praise in the laboratory.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

“Intelligent Design” has had nearly a quarter century to show that it has any meaningful content, and to date it has not shown that. I’m sure we can wait another century. When it offers results that can be tested and are fruitful of further hypotheses, no doubt it will come to be accepted. We’re waiting, and can wait some more.

Intelligent Design has existed for more than two thousand years and dates back to Anaxagoras and Plato who rejected the hypothesis that the universe is the fortuitous outcome of “blind and aimless bodily motions”. One of its results is the rise of modern science, four reasons for which are described in Christ and Science.

“It is precisely the inability of many scientists to trace the grandeur of the Creator in His works that Jaki opposes with great skill.”

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

It is rather odd to reject the validity of ID when scientists have often copied natural mechanisms they would not otherwise have discovered. It amounts to faith in the power of blind Chance to create immensely complex machines which have proved to be beyond the ingenuity of scientists who have transformed the world with their inventions…

Even Pope Benedict referred to creation as an “intelligent project.” God can and has intervened in history. Jesus Christ being one example.

Quite true.

Yet you deny there is evidence for Design!

 

[StAnastasia]

is scientifically explicable. The physicists’ ambition to formulate and establish a Theory of Everything would do the job very nicely indeed!

I’m sure you would be delighted with that solution - apart from its implications for your professed belief in God…

BTW Scientists can hardly deny the reality of intelligence because science presupposes the use of intelligence. They are faced with the formidable problem of explaining how intelligence has been produced by particles which lack intelligence. A cogent explanation would put paid to ID for once and for all! But then insight

would disappear altogether. Reasoning would turn out be a purely impersonal, mechanical process with no element of intuition, understanding or creativity. Scientists would have succeeded in eliminating themselves from their scheme of things.

 

[StAnastasia]

Snowflakes are not alive.

Do they not show evidence of design?

I am not suggesting prayer or praise in the laboratory.

I like the idea of prayer and praise in the laboratory – I would do so if I were a scientist. I do while climbing, and working, and teaching. and writing.

 

[StAnastasia]

“It is precisely the inability of many scientists to trace the grandeur of the Creator in His works that Jaki opposes with great skill.”

Stanley Jaki is not the best person to invoke here, as he rejects “intelligent design” as misguided,

 

[inocente]

Moreover he is mistaken that ID is not scientifically testable. ID obviously becomes redundant if it can be demonstrated that **everything **is scientifically explicable.

Contradiction, does not compute. If ID is scientifically testable then it’s scientifically explicable, at which point it disappears in a puff of obvious irrelevance.

BTW Scientists can hardly deny the reality of intelligence because science presupposes the use of intelligence. They are faced with the formidable problem of explaining how intelligence has been produced by particles which lack intelligence. A cogent explanation would put paid to ID for once and for all! But then insight would disappear altogether. Reasoning would turn out be a purely impersonal, mechanical process with no element of intuition, understanding or creativity. Scientists would have succeeded in eliminating themselves from their scheme of things.

We’ve been here before bro, and the emergent complexity tee-shirt would still look good on you.

Consciousness will be explained, it’s not that formidable a problem, give it thirty years or so. Or we could all give up and remain in blissful ignorance as you seem to suggest.

It is rather odd to reject the validity of ID when scientists have often copied natural mechanisms they would not otherwise have discovered. It amounts to faith in the power of blind Chance to create immensely complex machines which have proved to be beyond the ingenuity of scientists who have transformed the world with their inventions…

The problem here, imho, is you’re ignoring self-organization. The universe doesn’t run on blind chance, there are distributions of outcomes - the probability of pink unicorns popping out of thin air, or even of a broken glass spontaneously repairing itself, are extremely low compared to the progressive development of an eye.

 

[razredge]

ID is not science, since it presupposes the existence of an intelligent designer - and it leads to the question, why did God create life to develop with the appearance of evolution at all? Why not just instantly create everything like in the Genesis account?

Indeed, in some ways ID is worse as an explanation that straight six-day creation.

If God is going to intervene in the evolutionary process why doesn’t He ignore the process altogether, does He have bounds on his power?

ID portrays God as quite stupid actually, creating a evolutionary process that is so ineffectual that he has to constantly prop it up by intervening to create flagellums and eyes.

Suggesting God is an incompetent creator as ID does, amounts to blasphemy.

 

[tonyrey]

ID is not science, since it presupposes the existence of an intelligent designer…

ID does not presuppose the existence of anything except the reality of purpose which is evident in rational activity.

… and it leads to the question, why did God create life to develop with the appearance of evolution at all? Why not just instantly create everything like in the Genesis account?

Because the process of development is valuable in itself.

Indeed, in some ways ID is worse as an explanation that straight six-day creation.

If God is going to intervene in the evolutionary process why doesn’t He ignore the process altogether, does He have bounds on his power?

Why should God ignore the process He created?!

ID portrays God as quite stupid actually, creating a evolutionary process that is so ineffectual that he has to constantly prop it up by intervening to create flagellums and eyes.

It is absurd to imagine that creating flagella and eyes or anything else is not achieved by directing blind processes towards a specific goal - **as if driverless vehicles can find their way to specific destinations! **If you leave inanimate processes to their own devices they won’t get anywhere unless you have great faith in the power of Chance to work the greatest miracle of complexity in the universe - the small lump inside the human skull that is called the brain.

Suggesting God is an incompetent creator as ID does, amounts to blasphemy.

It is only critics of ID who suggest God is an incompetent creator! It is absurd to believe God had no intention of creating the universe or any specific purpose in establishing the laws of nature…

To deny ID amounts to reducing intelligence to an accidental byproduct of fortuitous combinations of inanimate molecules - implying that God is a redundant myth…

 

[rossum]

Is Judge Jones the ultimate authority on the matter? Has he any qualifications in the philosophy of religion - or the philosophy of science for that matter? He seems to have confused ID with Young Creationism…

In this case the US Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, since the matter is one of the legal interpretation of the US constitution.

Judge Jones was asked by both sides to make a legal judgement as to whether or not ID was science. This is obviously relevant to what may legally be taught in science classes in US public schools. The evidence provided was enough to convince the judge that ID was just warmed over creationism with God and the Bible taken out.

The most striking evidence came from the early drafts of the “Pandas” textbook, especially the changes made after the Edwards v Aguillard case. Google for “cdesign proponentsists”. There is also the definitions of creationism from an early version and of ID from a later edition:

Here is the definition of Creation from an early draft:“Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”

Here is the definition of Intellegent Design from a later draft:“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
The judge had good reasons for his decision.

Moreover he is mistaken that ID is not scientifically testable.

As currently constituted, it isn’t. Some of its assertions about evolution, (evolution cannot …), are testable and have failed those tests. ID has not so far put forward any testable thesis. “Some being did something somehow somewhen,” is not precise enough to be testable. At the very lesat ID has to state when the designer acted. Without a timescale it is impossible to know where to look. Do we look here and now or do we look in the fossil record?

ID obviously becomes redundant if it can be demonstrated that **everything **is scientifically explicable.

That is not a scientific test. A theory can be falsified without having to propose an alternative theory. The test has to come from within ID itself. For example, is there something which could not be designed? Go and look for such a thing.

They are faced with the formidable problem of explaining how intelligence has been produced by particles which lack intelligence.

Oxygen is a gas; it lacks wetness. Hydrogen is a gas. It lacks wetness. Together oxygen and hydrogen make water, which has wetness. Where did the wetness come from? Do some research on ‘emergent properties’.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Judge Jones was asked by both sides to make a legal judgement as to whether or not ID was science. This is obviously relevant to what may legally be taught in science classes in US public schools. The evidence provided was enough to convince the judge that ID was just warmed over creationism with God and the Bible taken out.

From what I have read on CAF, in my humble opinion, it seems to me that ID is more anti-early-Darwinism. ID appears to ignore the Catholic position regarding the Biblical account of human nature and the relationship between a personal God and human beings. I do understand some of the reasons why people adapt the ideas of ID to Catholicism; however, I believe that solid Catholic Doctrine can stand on its own.

 

[StAnastasia]

The most striking evidence came from the early drafts of the “Pandas” textbook, especially the changes made after the Edwards v Aguillard case. Google for “cdesign proponentsists”. There is also the definitions of creationism from an early version and of ID from a later edition:
rossum

“You might be interested to read about a very rare transitional fossil between creationism and “intelligent design” that was recently discovered by Barbara Forrest during her exploration of some exhibits filed in Kitzmiller v. Dover, namely drafts of the original “intelligent design” book Of Pandas and People.”

pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

 

[edwest2]

ID does not presuppose the existence of anything except the reality of purpose which is evident in rational activity.

Because the process of development is valuable in itself.

Why should God ignore the process He created?!
It is absurd to imagine that creating flagella and eyes or anything else is not achieved by directing blind processes towards a specific goal - **as if driverless vehicles can find their way to specific destinations! **If you leave inanimate processes to their own devices they won’t get anywhere unless you have great faith in the power of Chance to work the greatest miracle of complexity in the universe - the small lump inside the human skull that is called the brain.

It is only critics of ID who suggest God is an incompetent creator! It is absurd to believe God had no intention of creating the universe or any specific purpose in establishing the laws of nature…

To deny ID amounts to reducing intelligence to an accidental byproduct of fortuitous combinations of inanimate molecules - implying that God is a redundant myth…

Very well said. The threat of ID is that the public might accept it.

Your driverless vehicle analogy is excellent. This vehicle can turn right or left and by chance, avoid a large obstacle or, in other cases, simply crash into one.

Pope Benedict has referred to creation as an “intelligent project.” St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that God works infallibly. See Communion and Stewardship.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Very well said. The threat of ID is that the public might accept it.

Your driverless vehicle analogy is excellent. This vehicle can turn right or left and by chance, avoid a large obstacle or, in other cases, simply crash into one.

Pope Benedict has referred to creation as an “intelligent project.” St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that God works infallibly. See Communion and Stewardship.

Peace,
Ed

Is God an intelligent project? It is important to understand the difference between the Creator and the created.

 

[StAnastasia]

ID portrays God as quite stupid actually, creating a evolutionary process that is so ineffectual that he has to constantly prop it up by intervening to create flagellums and eyes.

razredge, I would add to your list the many instances of dysteleology, such as horrible genetic diseases like Fibrodisplaysia occificans progressiva, which slowly turn a child’s muscles into a second skeleton, imprisoning her before she dies. A Catholic theology of evolution accounts for this in terms of God having given creation its own autonomy to unfold progressively, complete with volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, tooth decay, and genetic diseases.

Intelligent Design has no choice but to see Fibrodisplaysia occificans progressiva as having been designed by an intelligent designer, perhaps to punish the parents of the child afflicted by it, or to purify the “soul” of the suffering child.

Suggesting God is an incompetent creator as ID does, amounts to blasphemy.