Design

[robsully]

IDvolution, the philosophy, considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

ID, the science:

Questions about Intelligent Design

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer’s article “Not By Chance” from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS’s “Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).
2. Is intelligent design science?
Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

What Is the Science Behind Intelligent Design?

Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design

Lastly, there is many articles, papers and links here: IDvolution

Thanks for the detailed links it will take some time to read through them, but the ones that I have skimmed, (not of your referencing) argue the design premise as such " because evolutionists have not solved how some structures have become therefore it must have be designed" this unfortunately is not a sound argument. Although I am hoping your information will be more fruitful.

 

[robsully]

Here’s a gigantic baby step for you. Try not to trip. Astronomer Fred Hoyle holds your hand.

Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate … . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect … higher intelligences … even to the limit of God … such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), pp. 141, 144, 130

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. Hoyle on evolution, Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837 (November 12, 1981), p. 105

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Yep you are right that is implied, no proof is offered but it is implied. " The reasons are psychological rather than scientific" great quote as science seems to be absent in his assertion’s.

Yes because the notion of creation is so great that the only solution has to be design…is far from a sound argument but closer to an argument from ignorance.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yep you are right that is implied, no proof is offered but it is implied. " The reasons are psychological rather than scientific" great quote as science seems to be absent in his assertion’s.

Yes because the notion of creation is so great that the only solution has to be design…is far from a sound argument but closer to an argument from ignorance.

It’s rather interesting, is it not, that you should think of yourself as enlightened and Fred Hoyle as ignorant?

So I’m wondering what arguments you have that would prove Hoyle is ignorant, since you are clearly alleging that while refusing to allege just about everything else we are talking about.

 

[tonyrey]

Any explanation is better than none! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing. If one cannot disprove Design one needs to offer an alternative. Otherwise there is no point in being on a Philosophy forum…
Sorry I fell victim to “playing the game and not knowing the rules”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

robsully;14582483:

The onus is on you to produce the precise details of Buddhist creation story with which you think I disagree. Your opinion needs to be clarified and substantiated. Vague assertions are worthless.

I also have asked for this, to no avail.

 

[buffalo]

Thanks for the detailed links it will take some time to read through them, but the ones that I have skimmed, (not of your referencing) argue the design premise as such " because evolutionists have not solved how some structures have become therefore it must have be designed" this unfortunately is not a sound argument. Although I am hoping your information will be more fruitful.

They cannot come up with the detailed evolutionary pathways for complex structures. And now, even the long ages they advocate are not long enough.

It is getting worse for these poor evo’s since the complexity we are discovering is growing by leaps and bounds. The modern synthesis is crumbling as we speak and they all know it. There are some holdouts.

The trouble is they did such a good job embedding it into the pop culture it will stick for a while.

Gone is junk DNA, Natural Selection is now understood to be a conservative process not a creative one, genetic entropy, tree of life has fallen, HGT, epigenetics, complexity of the cell, knowledge that DNA actively fights against mutations, convergent evolution, protein folding, the complex and multidimensional language of DNA, facilitated variation, chimp human differences at 80%, rapid adaptation, ATP synthase motor, the fossil record, etc…

Pope Benedict’s Easter Homily - Creative Reason

 

[Bradski]

We understand God to be almighty. Know the difference.

Extra work? Explain.

He couldn’t set things up to occur naturally. That is, using natural processes. It was beyond Him.

 

[buffalo]

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=9c9f52f3f0661ec070b2f5f6d8b65fa3&oe=594D56A7

 

[buffalo]

He couldn’t set things up to occur naturally. That is, using natural processes. It was beyond Him.

It is not beyond Him. We are figuring out what He actually did.

We have Revelation as one piece of information.

We also have science confirming Revelation.

Recurring natural processes might convince one that if the same thing happens over and over the fix was in. We don’t expect that with blind unguided chance.

 

[Bradski]

It is not beyond Him. We are figuring out what He actually did.

What on earth do you mean? It is the very point you are making that some things have not developed naturally. It’s the very raison d’etre of people like Behe who are constantly shouting: ‘Look! It’d been designed. It cannot have happened naturally’.

What he (and you) are saying is that God couldn’t work it so that everything developed as a result of natural processes. So some things, like the eye for example, needed Him to step in and by-pass nature and correct the design.

Your argument is,and you seem not to appreciate it, that it WAS beyond God to do everything using natural processes. Find anything that you feel is an example of ‘design’ and what you are showing us is an example of God stepping in to correct what He couldn’t organise properly in the first place.

And your inept attempt to use the fall as the reason why He had to step in and correct things fails completely because naturally occurring items such as eyes were in existence before the fall.

 

[buffalo]

What on earth do you mean? It is the very point you are making that some things have not developed naturally. It’s the very raison d’etre of people like Behe who are constantly shouting: ‘Look! It’d been designed. It cannot have happened naturally’.

What he (and you) are saying is that God couldn’t work it so that everything developed as a result of natural processes. So some things, like the eye for example, needed Him to step in and by-pass nature and correct the design.

Your argument is,and you seem not to appreciate it, that it WAS beyond God to do everything using natural processes. Find anything that you feel is an example of ‘design’ and what you are showing us is an example of God stepping in to correct what He couldn’t organise properly in the first place.

And your inept attempt to use the fall as the reason why He had to step in and correct things fails completely because naturally occurring items such as eyes were in existence before the fall.

The eye did not occur naturally.

Once again, the poor design argument fails. Bad design is still design. To posit bad design one must know the purpose and specs the designer used. You don’t.

You - “What he (and you) are saying is that God couldn’t work it so that everything developed as a result of natural processes.” That, we would call being designed.

Divine Providence is God keeping everything in existence.

I ask: Did God know what Adam would look like?

 

[inocente]

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)

Written about Hoyle’s belief that flu, polio and mad cow disease arrived from outer space, and we evolved from life floating through the universe.

Evolved. It’s in the title.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

Hoyle died still rejecting the big bang referred to in that excerpt from the script of Sagan’s TV show.

One can’t help noticing that the credibility of intelligent design relies on 40 year old books and VHS tapes, by scientists who disagreed with each other on whether the universe even had a beginning.

Jesus’ teaching about building on sandy ground would seem, as Lisa Simpson said, apt.

 

[inocente]

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=9c9f52f3f0661ec070b2f5f6d8b65fa3&oe=594D56A7

Not quite sure why you posted a Facebook joke on reverence for Polish sausage, but of course the different spiral patterns seen in nature arise from various causes, all due to blind natural processes.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Divine Providence is God keeping everything in existence.

I ask: Did God know what Adam would look like?

Your question is misstated if we consider the preceding statement which speaks of God’s eternal nature.

Correcting the tense, I might ask:
“Does God know what Adam looks like?”
more to the point:
“Is it God’s intent that we look as we do?”
trying to get past our assumptions:
“Does God see us as I (we?) do?”
I am left with the hope:
May I see us as does God.

A quote from Thomas Merton comes to mind:

“In Louisville, at the corner of Fourth and Walnut, in the center of the shopping district, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all those people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers. It was like waking from a dream of separateness, of spurious self-isolation in a special world, the world of renunciation and supposed holiness… This sense of liberation from an illusory difference was such a relief and such a joy to me that I almost laughed out loud… I have the immense joy of being man, a member of a race in which God Himself became incarnate. As if the sorrows and stupidities of the human condition could overwhelm me, now I realize what we all are. And if only everybody could realize this! But it cannot be explained. There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun.”

 

[buffalo]

Not quite sure why you posted a Facebook joke on reverence for Polish sausage, but of course the different spiral patterns seen in nature arise from various causes, all due to blind natural processes.

A little humor that is all.

 

[buffalo]

Your question is misstated if we consider the preceding statement which speaks of God’s eternal nature.

Correcting the tense, I might ask:
“Does God know what Adam looks like?”
more to the point:
“Is it God’s intent that we look as we do?”
trying to get past our assumptions:
“Does God see us as I (we?) do?”
I am left with the hope:
May I see us as does God.

A quote from Thomas Merton comes to mind:

“In Louisville, at the corner of Fourth and Walnut, in the center of the shopping district, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all those people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers. It was like waking from a dream of separateness, of spurious self-isolation in a special world, the world of renunciation and supposed holiness… This sense of liberation from an illusory difference was such a relief and such a joy to me that I almost laughed out loud… I have the immense joy of being man, a member of a race in which God Himself became incarnate. As if the sorrows and stupidities of the human condition could overwhelm me, now I realize what we all are. And if only everybody could realize this! But it cannot be explained. There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun.”

You beat me to the next question. Did Adam look as God planned?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . But if you could share with me where I might see “his glory written across the sky” it would be helpful in beginning to know.

There are different meanings to the statement.

The ancient one relates to how God communicates with us.
We look for signs that something significant is happening or will happen. Mathematically we have an understanding of the relationships that exist between variables. As we do now with our satellites, for as many millennia as we’ve been around, we’ve looked at the sky with its near perfect cycles to discern where we are and what will be in store for us as sailors, farmers, survivors.
Before we defiled the stars with astrology, as we have now corrupted science, with the 2.0 version that is materialism, looking for signs in the heavens was one way we could hear God speaking to us, as in the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi.

But, you may not believe in God, and I understand that this would likely to feed your prejudices about the spiritual. However, you may wish to consider that in and by themselves the interaction of material processes reveal no more about who and why we are, and where we are going, than the placement of planets and stars in the sky. In other words, while it’s good to know how things like our physical body work, the empirical approach, which reveals such things, provides only a very small scope on reality.

Continuing along those same lines, still contemplating the sky, preferably on some hot Grecian isle, you can see what countless persons have known, the vault that covers the earth, higher than any mountain.
This is hard to do not only because we don’t think of it, but perhaps because we feel it is a sort of lie. There’s a new “truth”.
Automatically, at least for me, I gaze out at Hubble images, graphs and pictorial depictions of the emergence of the universe from a singularity, with all sorts of side tracks to Quantum and Astro physics.

do try:
htwins.net/scale/
or
youtube.com/watch?v=uaGEjrADGPA

This all is, and it is HUGE!!!

Some think that all of this works along the lines of physical processes which we understand as the laws and constants of physics. That would make it predetermined in every respect. Everything behaves as it does. Even chance events occur like the rolling of the dice, along the lines of probability on some substrate or underlying entity undergoing some sort of operation. And, it would have always been there when everything was a singularity. With this view of the universe, the idea of a designer is absurd.
That’s not how it is. God is in every moment bringing it into existence, from the first to the last out of nothing.
The existence of time is a journey of creation to know its maker, out of love, back to love, through its becoming love.

I’m not sure I’ve answered your question, meandering through all these ideas. Maybe some other time.

 

[o_mlly]

What on earth do you mean? It is the very point you are making that some things have not developed naturally. It’s the very raison d’etre of people like Behe who are constantly shouting: ‘Look! It’d been designed. It cannot have happened naturally’.

What he (and you) are saying is that God couldn’t work it so that everything developed as a result of natural processes. So some things, like the eye for example, needed Him to step in and by-pass nature and correct the design.

Your argument is,and you seem not to appreciate it, that it WAS beyond God to do everything using natural processes. Find anything that you feel is an example of ‘design’ and what you are showing us is an example of God stepping in to correct what He couldn’t organise properly in the first place.

And your inept attempt to use the fall as the reason why He had to step in and correct things fails completely because naturally occurring items such as eyes were in existence before the fall.

Wow. An atheist arguing from a premise that God exists.

However, there is a difference between the definitions of “unnatural” and “supernatural.” And the terms “evolution” and “natural” are not interchangeable. Here’s another attempt to put words into the mouth of the poster. We’ll let the poster correct any errors.
*
What on earth do you mean? It is the very point you are making that some things have not developed -]naturally/-] throug-]/-]h evolution. It’s the very raison d’etre of people like Behe who are constantly shouting: ‘Look! It’d been designed. It cannot have -]happened naturally’/-] evolved.

What he (and you) are saying is that God -]couldn’t /-] didn’t work it so that everything developed as a result of -]natural processes/-] evolution. So some things, like the eye for example, needed Him to step in and by-pass -]nature/-] evolution and -]correct /-] create the design.

Your argument is,and you seem not to appreciate it, that it WAS -]beyond/-] God -]to do /-] who created -]every/-]somethings using -]natural processes/-] evolution. Find anything that you feel is an example of ‘design’ and what you are showing us is an example of God -]stepping in to correct what He couldn’t organise properly in the first place./-] creating outside of evolution.*

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hoyle died still rejecting the big bang referred to in that excerpt from the script of Sagan’s TV show.

Hoyle also died an atheist, as I recollect. It must have irked him no end that the Big Bang was not only verified, but that it had been first promoted by a Catholic priest.

 

[inocente]

Hoyle also died an atheist, as I recollect. It must have irked him no end that the Big Bang was not only verified, but that it had been first promoted by a Catholic priest.

I think Hoyle and Lemaître shared a disdain for drive thru religion.

Hoyle says creationism is pseudo religion as well as pseudo science: “The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur’an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men.”

Lemaître is scathing about those who quote scripture as if it were science: “The idea that because they [bible writers] were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.”

He argues against attempts, such as in intelligent design, to make God a subject of science: “Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis.”

Lemaître goes so far as to say: “For the believer, it [his big bang theory] removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speakking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation.”