Darwinism and Materialism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Intelligent Design implies that the Designer is either incompetent, or evil, or both.

Since the Catholic God is neither, Intelligent Design is not compatible with Catholicism. In fact, it is probably not even compatible with most of Christianity – with the exception of some gnostic sects such as Marcionites.
 
**weller

Intelligent Design implies that the Designer is either incompetent, or evil, or both. **

Why does it imply either or both? :confused:
 
This question was raised in my mind when I was in high school. I read a book on prehistoric man which posited the question of where did the soul come into the picture. One day after school I stopped by my parish and asked my pastor about Evolution versus Creationism. He told me that, as a Catholic, I could believe either way, but if I believed in Evolution ( which the prevailing evidence seem to indicate) I must believe, as a Catholic, that at some point in the evolutionary process of man, God placed a soul in the creature that was evolving into modern man. From that point forward the evolving creature had free will, the ability to distinguish between right from wrong. That was back in 1949.

To this day I’ve had no problem with evolution. Stephen J. Gould, professor of Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University until his recent passing, wrote many wonderful books on the subject.
Code: 
 "IT IS NOT TO THE STRONGEST OF THE SPECIES THAT SURVIVES,
 NOR THE MOST INTELLIGENT THAT SURVIVES, IT IS THE ONE THAT
 IS THE MOST ADAPTABLE TO CHANGE."
                                                                                Charles Darwin
 
tonyrey said:
How could the physical effects of spiritual development explain spiritual development?
Click to expand...
I said “some aspects”, not all.

Does spiritual development sometimes cause happiness. Can science measure some aspects of happiness?

rossum
 
Charlemagne_II said:
**weller

Intelligent Design implies that the Designer is either incompetent, or evil, or both. **

Why does it imply either or both? :confused:
Click to expand...
An intelligent designer who would choose a mechanism that is filled with such immense cruelty, waste, and suffering as evolution, or isn’t powerful enough to create through other means, is either malevolent or not omnipotent.
 
ilikepizza1 said:
An intelligent designer who would choose a mechanism that is filled with such immense cruelty, waste, and suffering as evolution, or isn’t powerful enough to create through other means, is either malevolent or not omnipotent.
Click to expand...
I am happy to disagree with you on this. Your agument is expressed in modern terms but it is at least as old as the book of Job. Job is an elloquent refutal of your argument and I recommend it.

The core issue is whether we can know God’s purpose. Your critique only makes sense if you assume that you do.

If you do not know God’s purpose then you cannot know that the mechanism is cruel and wasteful or causes more suffering than is necessary.

In order to evaluate the design of an object you must know the purpose of the object. In order to criticize a plan you must know the goal of the plan. Further, it is sufficient to refute your argument if we can postulate a purpose that would explain what we see.

I’ll give you a concrete example: until recently it was assumed that most of the DNA was wastful junk. But it now appears that there is little waste in the DNA. The junk turns out to be important. In other natural examples, what may at first appear to be waste often turns out to be reserves or redundency that improves survival.

The problem of evil is certainly one that has attracted great attention throughout history and the classical answer, in the case of humans, is free will. But Daryl Domning has extended that answer even into the natural sphere. To the extent that God is not directing nature, in other words, for overhwelmingly the most part, nature find’s it’s own solutions with no knowledge of ends but instead in pursuit of its own ends. Thus, for example, a lion will kill and eat a gazelle.

Finally, what seems most obvious to me is that God has created a universe that challenges us. We are challenged, firstly, to survive lions and bacteria but we are also challenged to do and be good. If the world were perfect there would be nothing for us to do.

So while the above is merely conjecture, it is at least a plausible explanation for the world we see and, thus, a refutation of the claim that God cannot be benevolent and omnipotent.
 
ilike

**An intelligent designer who would choose a mechanism that is filled with such immense cruelty, waste, and suffering as evolution, or isn’t powerful enough to create through other means, is either malevolent or not omnipotent. **

So what’s your verdict. Is God either malevolent or not omnipotent or just plain incompetent?

By the way, what is a “classical theist”?
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
I am happy to disagree with you on this. Your agument is expressed in modern terms but it is at least as old as the book of Job. Job is an elloquent refutal of your argument and I recommend it.

The core issue is whether we can know God’s purpose. Your critique only makes sense if you assume that you do.

If you do not know God’s purpose then you cannot know that the mechanism is cruel and wasteful or causes more suffering than is necessary.

In order to evaluate the design of an object you must know the purpose of the object. In order to criticize a plan you must know the goal of the plan. Further, it is sufficient to refute your argument if we can postulate a purpose that would explain what we see.

I’ll give you a concrete example: until recently it was assumed that most of the DNA was wastful junk. But it now appears that there is little waste in the DNA. The junk turns out to be important. In other natural examples, what may at first appear to be waste often turns out to be reserves or redundency that improves survival.

The problem of evil is certainly one that has attracted great attention throughout history and the classical answer, in the case of humans, is free will. But Daryl Domning has extended that answer even into the natural sphere. To the extent that God is not directing nature, in other words, for overhwelmingly the most part, nature find’s it’s own solutions with no knowledge of ends but instead in pursuit of its own ends. Thus, for example, a lion will kill and eat a gazelle.

Finally, what seems most obvious to me is that God has created a universe that challenges us. We are challenged, firstly, to survive lions and bacteria but we are also challenged to do and be good. If the world were perfect there would be nothing for us to do.

So while the above is merely conjecture, it is at least a plausible explanation for the world we see and, thus, a refutation of the claim that God cannot be benevolent and omnipotent.
Click to expand...
👍 The key words are “nature finds its own solutions with no knowledge of ends”.

It is absurd to believe God is** directly **responsible for every single event. Even the sceptic David Hume conceded that God would work through the laws of nature not by “direct volitions”.
 
tonyrey said:
The key words are “nature finds its own solutions with no knowledge of ends”. It is absurd to believe God is** directly **responsible for every single event. Even the sceptic David Hume conceded that God would work through the laws of nature not by “direct volitions”.
Click to expand...
But it’s worth reflecting a moment why. We can certainly imagine universes at each extreme. On the one extreme, God could manipulate every quark with his ends in mind. In that case we would be puppets dancing on strings for God’s amusement. At the other extreme we can imagine a theistic universe in which God’s initial creation moves thereafter without his intervention.

I think the second is a better starting point. Of course, as Chrisitans, we believe that God stepped into history to reveal himself to Abraham, Moses, and to most literally as Jesus.

But ID offers something different: the possiblilty that God has revealed himself in a more subtle way. The physical sciences have made great progress without the “God assumption” relying on only materialistic explanation. But if ID is correct then certain observations cannot be explained materalisticly and scientists who cling to materalism will be forever batting their heads against a brick wall. That is a hell of sorts for a scientist.

If God could create a theistic universe but chooses to create one that reveals his hand then it follows that God has deliberately chosen to reveal himself to us in this, and perhaps other, subtle ways.

Whenever I comtemplate this possibility I am reminded of the oblisk on the moon in 2001: A Space Oddesey. It requires a certain level of progress in order to be discovered but once discovered it is an undeniable marker of an alien visit. So to perhaps God has created a universe that encourages us to explore on our own but which also confronts our hubris from time to time in undeniable ways. Who said God didn’t have sense of humor?
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
But it’s worth reflecting a moment why. We can certainly imagine universes at each extreme. On the one extreme, God could manipulate every quark with his ends in mind. In that case we would be puppets dancing on strings for God’s amusement. At the other extreme we can imagine a theistic universe in which God’s initial creation moves thereafter without his intervention.

I think the second is a better starting point. Of course, as Christians, we believe that God stepped into history to reveal himself to Abraham, Moses, and to most literally as Jesus.

But ID offers something different: the possibility that God has revealed himself in a more subtle way. The physical sciences have made great progress without the “God assumption” relying on only materialistic explanation. But if ID is correct then certain observations cannot be explained materalistically and scientists who cling to materialism will be forever batting their heads against a brick wall. That is a hell of sorts for a scientist.

If God could create a theistic universe but chooses to create one that reveals his hand then it follows that God has deliberately chosen to reveal himself to us in this, and perhaps other, subtle ways.

Whenever I contemplate this possibility I am reminded of the obelisk on the moon in 2001: A Space Odessey. It requires a certain level of progress in order to be discovered but once discovered it is an undeniable marker of an alien visit. So to perhaps God has created a universe that encourages us to explore on our own but which also confronts our hubris from time to time in undeniable ways. Who said God didn’t have sense of humor?
Click to expand...
👍 The truth is often found between two extremes. In this case it is between a constant spate of miracles and no miracles whatsoever.
 
ilikepizza1 said:
An intelligent designer who would choose a mechanism that is filled with such immense cruelty, waste, and suffering as evolution, or isn’t powerful enough to create through other means, is either malevolent or not omnipotent.
Click to expand...
Please demonstrate that a superior universe is feasible.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
In order to evaluate the design of an object you must know the purpose of the object. In order to criticize a plan you must know the goal of the plan. Further, it is sufficient to refute your argument if we can postulate a purpose that would explain what we see.
Click to expand...
Well, clearly the primary purpose of the eye is to see. The eye may have also some secondary purposes we’re not aware of, however, a design which fails at its primary purpose is a failed design, as simple as that.

Human eye, the favorite example of creationists is so badly designed, that I don’t know where to start:
  • It takes six muscles to move the eye, while three would suffice. No, these muscles are not redundant. Any engineer knows that more elements = more failure points, which is why designs should be kept simple.
  • Focusing is done by deforming the lens, while the same goal can be achieved by moving the lens with respect to the detector (retina). The result is that in humans, focusing becomes more difficult with age, because the lens becomes more rigid, while muscles become weaker. In contrast, the moving lens design is not only simpler, but does not have the aging problem. A 100-year-old telescope will still focus perfectly.
  • Retina… oh boy, failure upon failure. First of all, connections from the light-sensitive cells are routed on the light-facing side, reducing light collecting area, while it would be more logical to route them on the back side, and use the space saved for more sensory surface (better night vision!). Second, all connections are routed to one point where they cross to the other side and run to the brain – this creates a blind spot. On top of that, the optical nerve not only connect eye to the brain – it also serves as a pipe used to regulate liquid pressure within the eye! In other words, you have these fragile nerve fibers used as pipe which must carry pressure.
There are other problems, but I’ll stop here.

The human eye is clearly a bad design, which fails at its primary purpose. This means that the designer was incompetent.

Creationists counter that by saying that the designer must have had some other considerations which caused compromises in the design. Well, what might these be? The eye serves no other major purpose besides seeing. So we must conclude that humans have been intentionally given badly designed eyes. However, that would mean that the designer wanted to make their life more difficult than necessary – i.e., the designer was evil.

To make matters more interesting, there are creatures which have eyes which are designed correctly – these are the cephalopods. Which would mean that the designer was obviously capable of designing a better eye, but for some reason, equipped humans with failed eye. Again, this suggest intentionally sabotaging the design in order to make user’s life more difficult – i.e. evil.
 
weller2 said:
Well, clearly the primary purpose of the eye is to see. The eye may have also some secondary purposes we’re not aware of, however, a design which fails at its primary purpose is a failed design, as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the purpose of the eye is to see, and that is nothing more than an assumption. Why do we assume that the purpose of the eye is to see? Well, because it does. So you infer purpose from function and then claim that it fails the function from which you inferred the purpose. Yikes!
Human eye, the favorite example of creationists is so badly designed, that I don’t know where to start:
Click to expand...
Here you claim something less, that it is badly designed for the purpose of seeing. You’d think a more modest claim would be easier to justify but instead you simply make a list of purported shortcomings in the design implying that it could be done better. So where is the better eye? Nowhere to be seen (with the eye or otherwise).
Creationists counter that by saying that the designer must have had some other considerations which caused compromises in the design. Well, what might these be? The eye serves no other major purpose besides seeing. So we must conclude that humans have been intentionally given badly designed eyes. However, that would mean that the designer wanted to make their life more difficult than necessary…
Click to expand...
I was not defending creationism but intelligent design. (I realize, of course, that materialists prefer to argue against creationism.)

In fact I suggest precisely that the world is not perfect by design. Yes, that means that the designer meant for things to be difficult. It doesn’t follow that the designer is evil. I pointed to the example of free will which is an inherent frustration on perfection and I also pointed to the idea that the universe, generally, is given freeer reign than the straw man you are arguing against. You seem not to be paying attention and are simply regurgitating anti-creationist arguments.
…-- i.e., the designer was evil.
Click to expand...
That’s not evil, that is glorious. Evil is cursing your creator because you want more than you have been given.
 
weller2 said:
Well, clearly the primary purpose of the eye is to see. The eye may have also some secondary purposes we’re not aware of, however, a design which fails at its primary purpose is a failed design, as simple as that.

Human eye, the favorite example of creationists is so badly designed, that I don’t know where to start:
  • It takes six muscles to move the eye, while three would suffice. No, these muscles are not redundant. Any engineer knows that more elements = more failure points, which is why designs should be kept simple.
  • Focusing is done by deforming the lens, while the same goal can be achieved by moving the lens with respect to the detector (retina). The result is that in humans, focusing becomes more difficult with age, because the lens becomes more rigid, while muscles become weaker. In contrast, the moving lens design is not only simpler, but does not have the aging problem. A 100-year-old telescope will still focus perfectly.
  • Retina… oh boy, failure upon failure. First of all, connections from the light-sensitive cells are routed on the light-facing side, reducing light collecting area, while it would be more logical to route them on the back side, and use the space saved for more sensory surface (better night vision!). Second, all connections are routed to one point where they cross to the other side and run to the brain – this creates a blind spot. On top of that, the optical nerve not only connect eye to the brain – it also serves as a pipe used to regulate liquid pressure within the eye! In other words, you have these fragile nerve fibers used as pipe which must carry pressure.
There are other problems, but I’ll stop here.

The human eye is clearly a bad design, which fails at its primary purpose. This means that the designer was incompetent.

Creationists counter that by saying that the designer must have had some other considerations which caused compromises in the design. Well, what might these be? The eye serves no other major purpose besides seeing. So we must conclude that humans have been intentionally given badly designed eyes. However, that would mean that the designer wanted to make their life more difficult than necessary – i.e., the designer was evil.

To make matters more interesting, there are creatures which have eyes which are designed correctly – these are the cephalopods. Which would mean that the designer was obviously capable of designing a better eye, but for some reason, equipped humans with failed eye. Again, this suggest intentionally sabotaging the design in order to make user’s life more difficult – i.e. evil.
Click to expand...
It is far easier to criticise by suggesting piecemeal improvements rather than create the entire eye gradually through evolution. The acid test is whether you exchange your eyes for those of a cephalopod - knowing that you would probably be colour-blind and certainly the ugliest person on earth! I wonder…
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Assuming that the purpose of the eye is to see, and that is nothing more than an assumption. Why do we assume that the purpose of the eye is to see? Well, because it does. So you infer purpose from function and then claim that it fails the function from which you inferred the purpose. Yikes!

Here you claim something less, that it is badly designed for the purpose of seeing. You’d think a more modest claim would be easier to justify but instead you simply make a list of purported shortcomings in the design implying that it could be done better. So where is the better eye? Nowhere to be seen (with the eye or otherwise).

I was not defending creationism but intelligent design. (I realize, of course, that materialists prefer to argue against creationism.)

In fact I suggest precisely that the world is not perfect by design. Yes, that means that the designer meant for things to be difficult. It doesn’t follow that the designer is evil. I pointed to the example of free will which is an inherent frustration on perfection and I also pointed to the idea that the universe, generally, is given freeer reign than the straw man you are arguing against. You seem not to be paying attention and are simply regurgitating anti-creationist arguments.

That’s not evil, that is glorious. Evil is cursing your creator because you want more than you have been given.
Click to expand...
👍 Filial ingratitude…
 
ilikepizza1 said:
An intelligent designer who would choose a mechanism that is filled with such immense cruelty, waste, and suffering as evolution, or isn’t powerful enough to create through other means, is either malevolent or not omnipotent.
Click to expand...
The rehash of the ancient objection is based on the false assumption that a perfect universe is feasible. Where is the blueprint? :rolleyes:
 
weller2 said:
Well, clearly the primary purpose of the eye is to see. The eye may have also some secondary purposes we’re not aware of, however, a design which fails at its primary purpose is a failed design, as simple as that.

Human eye, the favorite example of creationists is so badly designed, that I don’t know where to start:
  • It takes six muscles to move the eye, while three would suffice. No, these muscles are not redundant. Any engineer knows that more elements = more failure points, which is why designs should be kept simple.
  • Focusing is done by deforming the lens, while the same goal can be achieved by moving the lens with respect to the detector (retina). The result is that in humans, focusing becomes more difficult with age, because the lens becomes more rigid, while muscles become weaker. In contrast, the moving lens design is not only simpler, but does not have the aging problem. A 100-year-old telescope will still focus perfectly.
  • Retina… oh boy, failure upon failure. First of all, connections from the light-sensitive cells are routed on the light-facing side, reducing light collecting area, while it would be more logical to route them on the back side, and use the space saved for more sensory surface (better night vision!). Second, all connections are routed to one point where they cross to the other side and run to the brain – this creates a blind spot. On top of that, the optical nerve not only connect eye to the brain – it also serves as a pipe used to regulate liquid pressure within the eye! In other words, you have these fragile nerve fibers used as pipe which must carry pressure.
There are other problems, but I’ll stop here.

The human eye is clearly a bad design, which fails at its primary purpose. This means that the designer was incompetent.

Creationists counter that by saying that the designer must have had some other considerations which caused compromises in the design. Well, what might these be? The eye serves no other major purpose besides seeing. So we must conclude that humans have been intentionally given badly designed eyes. However, that would mean that the designer wanted to make their life more difficult than necessary – i.e., the designer was evil.

To make matters more interesting, there are creatures which have eyes which are designed correctly – these are the cephalopods. Which would mean that the designer was obviously capable of designing a better eye, but for some reason, equipped humans with failed eye. Again, this suggest intentionally sabotaging the design in order to make user’s life more difficult – i.e. evil.
Click to expand...
You make some unfounded assumptions about the human eye and its designer. The designer is Nature, as far as we can tell… Beyond that, if you believe in a designer of nature, that is your prerogative, and such an assumption is based on faith alone. You also forget that the state of the human eye is not an ever present “status Que.” It is a result of evolution which is an ongoing process. Who knows what changes Nature has in store for the human eye or for man. And you forget the use of memes (man made) as opposed to genes. .
 
Moonbug said:
You make some unfounded assumptions about the human eye and its designer. The designer is Nature, as far as we can tell… Beyond that, if you believe in a designer of nature, that is your prerogative, and such an assumption is based on faith alone. You also forget that the state of the human eye is not an ever present “status Que.” It is a result of evolution which is an ongoing process. Who knows what changes Nature has in store for the human eye or for man. And you forget the use of memes (man made) as opposed to genes. .
Click to expand...
👍 In other words God usually works through the laws of nature and not by direct creation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top