Design

[inocente]

You are so predictable … again wanting to believe we are at each other’s throats!

Failed strategy once again.

It is the Protestants who fail to agree with each other … hence thousands of sects!

When you run out of logic, you always resort to personal comments and sectarianism.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

As science attempting to understand the “how” in the origins of life, observed complexity that cannot be explained as evolved does leads to a conclusion that evolution as an explanation of all life is lacking.

A usual error committed by ID-ers is the confusion of evolution with abiogenesis. Until they understand these basic concepts, none of their pseudo-arguments can be taken seriously.

Furthermore, they do not understand that “complexity” is NOT an intrinsic property, it only measures the level of understanding of the observer. Something that is hopelessly “complex” in the eyes of one person can be simple and obvious for another. But that is also something that flies way over the head of the poor ID-ers.

 

[Vonsalza]

When you run out of logic, you always resort to personal comments and sectarianism.

Perhaps if design fans read up on the three categories of normative ethics and how they relate to Christianity, you guys might start agreeing between yourselves on a few things.

Ever heard that song “Walking Contradiction”?

 

[tonyrey]

As science attempting to understand the “how” in the origins of life, observed complexity that cannot be explained as evolved does leads to a conclusion that evolution as an explanation of all life is lacking.

Complexity is an objective fact:

The biological system is, for good reason, considered the tantamount example of complexity in the present Universe. Yet one of the most prominent shortcomings of biology as a science is the inability to explain the rise of the biological system (the transition from putative non-living systems to living systems); or within science (particularly the domain of physics) to explain the rise of complexity in general. The conceptual failings become evident in sentiments such as “life is just chemistry”. As if to suggest that explaining the presence and behaviors of living systems is just a matter of delineating the complex network of chemical reactions engendering biological phenomena (ignoring the fact that even the simplest life form, a mycoplasma for instance, is immeasurably more complex than any chemical reaction network devised in the laboratory, so much so that the comparison is tenuous at best).One of the primary reasons why this reductionist-based approach will not work is because life is characterized by highly emergent phenomena (a characteristic of complex systems), whereby reductionists approaches are inadequate to capture the highly interactive, and interdependent nature of the system (it can not be reduced to single isolated elements that directly give rise to properties of the larger system).

academy.resonance.is/the-rise-of-complexity/

 

[Vonsalza]

But Vonsalza has a get-out-of-jail card. He seems to think that if you don’t repent you can still avoid punishment.

Vonsalza seems to think that “salvation” can exceptionally occur outside the sacraments, per the catechism.

We can certainly say as Catholics that the probability of any generally unrepentant person going to hell is high, particularly if they’ve committed mortal sin.

What keeps this “high probability” from growing into “certainty” is God’s judgement. He gives the final “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”. Not anyone else.

This is why statements such as “I know Hitler/Pol Pot/Judas Iscariot are in hell right now” are met with dubiousness. You most certainly do not know. In the same vein, you do not know that the persistently bitter, lone holocaust survivor is certain to be damned. You also do not know that the hormonal teen boy who may have masturbated a few hours before dying in a car accident is hell-bound. No Catholic does.

Your objection to Catholicism here is predicated on a deliberate, selective (and thus incomplete) grasp of Catholic soteriology. The cornerstone of your rebuttal is fragmented and fallacious.

 

[inocente]

Ever heard that song “Walking Contradiction”?

Yes. Though I can’t agree it’s the same chaos as the lack of ethical agreement between design fans. Perhaps you forgot the the lyrics of the song, as in “Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited”.

Some design fans have stated that absolutely everything is designed, and designed for the greater good. The terrorist attack in Manchester which left 22 killed and 55 injured, designed by God for the greater good. In rebuttal to your elevator punk, here’s a 23 year old with much better and infinitely more relevant lyrics - youtube.com/watch?v=iMNtiSvQWyg

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes. Though I can’t agree it’s the same chaos as the lack of ethical agreement between design fans. Perhaps you forgot the the lyrics of the song, as in “Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited”.

Report away.

Some design fans have stated that absolutely everything is designed, and designed for the greater good. The terrorist attack in Manchester which left 22 killed and 55 injured, designed by God for the greater good.

The age old debate of cosmos/destiny/sovereignty VS. chaos/random/choice… The incorrect answer is anything other than “both”. The reality is dual.

In rebuttal to your elevator punk, here’s a…

Please don’t bother.

 

[tonyrey]

Complexity is an objective fact:

…One of the primary reasons why this reductionist-based approach will not work is because life is characterized by highly emergent phenomena (a characteristic of complex systems), whereby reductionists approaches are inadequate to capture the highly interactive, and interdependent nature of the system (it can not be reduced to single isolated elements that directly give rise to properties of the larger system).academy.resonance.is/the-rise-of-complexity/

No scientist has ever explained how or why inanimate molecular structures became living organisms with an urge to survive nor their increase in complexity. Survival value is an inadequate explanation because “simple” cells like amoeba are still flourishing whereas more complex forms of life like dinosaurs have become extinct…

 

[Aloysium]

No scientist has ever explained how or why inanimate molecular structures became living organisms with an urge to survive nor their increase in complexity. Survival value is an inadequate explanation because “simple” cells like amoeba are still flourishing whereas more complex forms of life like dinosaurs have become extinct…

It’s not only the complexity, but the unity of that physical entity that is inexplicable. To describe ourselves in terms of molecular, or cellular, or even organ systems and processes does not address the fact that we are each one being who perceives, thinks and acts. When I stub my toe, as much as others may wince and empathize, I alone, in the entire universe am the one who truly feels it. What accounts for that? And, how is it that we can know one another? In a billiard ball universe made up solely of atoms, there could be reactions but no relationships. This here, where monitor, retina, occipital, word processing and attentional cerebral cortices are united as components in the visualization and understanding of these words, is not explainable solely on the basis of material activity. What is clear is the existence of a personal, rational and relational spirit. And this must rest on an existential foundation that is personal, perfect in its relationality as Love, and involved in every aspect of His creation. We are designed to participate in our own creation, that we may come to know and love each other and our Creator.

 

[Bradski]

Your objection to Catholicism here is predicated on a deliberate, selective (and thus incomplete) grasp of Catholic soteriology. The cornerstone of your rebuttal is fragmented and fallacious.

I’m not objecting to Catholicism. I am pointing out the inconsistency between what you say and what the catechism says.

What is does not say is that if you do not repent you will probably go to hell. It does not say that if you do not repent you might get a last minute pardon. It does not say that you will avoid hell if you do repent.

But it emphatically does say that unless you repent, you are bound for hell. It couldn’t be clearer. But you seem not to want to accept that fact. Is that because it defies any sane persons sense of justice?

 

[tonyrey]

The richness and beauty of Christ’s teaching is that suffering is never wasted. Regardless of the comments on this thread the short lives of children who die of hunger and die of disease are not empty and purposeless. They would be if there were no afterlife but Jesus came to demonstrate nothing is in vain except negativity in our outlook and conduct. By human standards He was a lunatic who achieved nothing except increase the amount of injustice and conflict in the world but the reverse is true. He has inspired countless millions of people to follow His example by living and dying for others instead of pursuing wealth and power for themselves.

In our secular society self-sacrifice is sheer folly and death a topic to be avoided. Yet at the core of attacks on Design is a poison that destroys hope for the future. As Wordsworth remarked “Getting and spending we lay waste our powers”. What counts more than anything else is what type of person we become as we get older. If we never pray we are spiritually dead. I had a very good, kind neighbour who laughed and thought I was joking when I said I would pray for his wife who was having an operation. He is dead now and his wife lives alone with her memories. Now I pray she will change her mind and believe it is at least possible that one day they will be reunited.

God created us to have faith in His goodness and love for all His creatures, not to be sceptical about His power and wisdom when confronted with apparently needless tragedies and misfortunes. Jesus has told us our prayers will be answered - not necessarily in this world but always in the next. Shakespeare, who incidentally was a Catholic at a time of persecution when priests were being imprisoned and executed, summed it up perfectly:

“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio”…

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not objecting to Catholicism. I am pointing out the inconsistency between what you say and what the catechism says.

What is does not say is that if you do not repent you will probably go to hell. It does not say that if you do not repent you might get a last minute pardon. It does not say that you will avoid hell if you do repent.

But it emphatically does say that unless you repent, you are bound for hell. It couldn’t be clearer. But you seem not to want to accept that fact. Is that because it defies any sane persons sense of justice?

On the contrary, Brad. If we’re not sorry for all the needless misery and suffering we have caused we make ourselves incapable of living with others in peace and harmony. Even in this life there are individuals who isolate themselves as the result of their lust for power and wealth. It is absurd to think they don’t punish themselves because they alone are ultimately responsible for their choices and decisions. In the long run we all get what we deserve in accordance with the Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian doctrine of Karma. Even Buddhists believe we are reincarnated until we attain nirvana by making ourselves capable of enlightenment. Only atheists reject the fact that there is cosmic justice on the ground that life is ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s not only the complexity, but the unity of that physical entity that is inexplicable. To describe ourselves in terms of molecular, or cellular, or even organ systems and processes does not address the fact that we are each one being who perceives, thinks and acts. When I stub my toe, as much as others may wince and empathize, I alone, in the entire universe am the one who truly feels it. What accounts for that? And, how is it that we can know one another? In a billiard ball universe made up solely of atoms, there could be reactions but no relationships. This here, where monitor, retina, occipital, word processing and attentional cerebral cortices are united as components in the visualization and understanding of these words, is not explainable solely on the basis of material activity. What is clear is the existence of a personal, rational and relational spirit. And this must rest on an existential foundation that is personal, perfect in its relationality as Love, and involved in every aspect of His creation. We are designed to participate in our own creation, that we may come to know and love each other and our Creator.

:clapping: I admire the way you relate physical to spiritual unity! The former wouldn’t exist without the latter… Even though Keats was influenced by his sceptical friend Charles Brown, wasn’t a Christian and died of tuberculosis at age of twenty-five he still believed this world is “a vale of soul-making”…

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m not objecting to Catholicism. I am pointing out the inconsistency between what you say and what the catechism says.

My source material is also found within the catechism, if you recall.

What is does not say is that if you do not repent you will probably go to hell. It does not say that if you do not repent you might get a last minute pardon. It does not say that you will avoid hell if you do repent.

What it also says is while man is bound by the sacraments that actually affect this salvation, God is not.

For the life of me, it’s what I keep hammering despite your continued obstinance.

But it emphatically does say that unless you repent, you are bound for hell. It couldn’t be clearer. But you seem not to want to accept that fact. Is that because it defies any sane persons sense of justice?

QED

 

[inocente]

The age old debate of cosmos/destiny/sovereignty VS. chaos/random/choice… The incorrect answer is anything other than “both”. The reality is dual.

Perhaps if design fans read up on the three categories of normative ethics and how they relate to Christianity, you guys might start agreeing between yourselves on what are incorrect answers.

 

[Vonsalza]

Perhaps if design fans read up on the three categories of normative ethics and how they relate to Christianity, you guys might start agreeing between yourselves on what are incorrect answers.

And perhaps you might realize that there is no obligation for them to agree on anything beyond what is mandated by Christ’s established, authoritative Church.

Your allusion to the categories of normative ethics is uselessly broad. You’re aware that there are competing, conflicting philosophies within the categories… right?

 

[inocente]

And perhaps you might realize that there is no obligation for them to agree on anything beyond what is mandated by Christ’s established, authoritative Church.

Your allusion to the categories of normative ethics is uselessly broad. You’re aware that there are competing, conflicting philosophies within the categories… right?

I think that would be too advanced. I mean one design fan says bad things are designed for children, but it’s for the greater good and they go to heaven so that’s OK. That’s naked consequentialism, the ends justify the means. Another design fan says virtue is heresy, as if. And so on. Sounds like the convoluted ethics needed to support the design cult, hallowed be the Discovery Institute, have lost touch with what Jesus taught about being human. Back to basics.

 

[Vonsalza]

I think that would be too advanced. I mean one design fan says bad things are designed for children, but it’s for the greater good and they go to heaven so that’s OK. That’s naked consequentialism, the ends justify the means. Another design fan says virtue is heresy, as if. And so on. Sounds like the convoluted ethics needed to support the design cult, hallowed be the Discovery Institute, have lost touch with what Jesus taught about being human. Back to basics.

Then it may be prudent to specify what you mean by “design” as it is over-broad once you accept that the Discovery Institute doesn’t have a monopoly on the word.

I, like one Catholic philosopher you’ve cited often, think literally everything is a derivative of God - ergo “designed” in some way. But my view of biological design and the DI’s view are not the same.

I honestly think there are fewer hardcore DI acolytes here than most would think.

 

[Bradski]

My source material is also found within the catechism, if you recall.

So you admit that the catechim contradicts itself.

 

[tonyrey]

Then it may be prudent to specify what you mean by “design” as it is over-broad once you accept that the Discovery Institute doesn’t have a monopoly on the word.

I, like one Catholic philosopher you’ve cited often, think literally everything is a derivative of God - ergo “designed” in some way. But my view of biological design and the DI’s view are not the same.

I honestly think there are fewer hardcore DI acolytes here than most would think.

“Design” is the direct implication of Christ’s reference to the beauty of the lilies:

27Consider how the lilies grow: They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory was adorned like one of these. 28If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith!…

It isn’t an accident lilies are so beautiful but an expression of divine power. It is absurd to think God didn’t know what He was doing when He created the universe. Jesus pointed out that the Father is aware of - and permits - tragic events, no matter how insignificant they may seem:

29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.…

For a person who really trusts in God the “problem of evil” doesn’t exist! It implies we know better than the Creator what the world should be like. We should sympathise with the afflicted but remember Jesus Himself suffered to liberate us from the temptation to reject God’s wisdom and love. He demonstrated at Gethsemane that prayer can give us the strength to overcome grief and despair. Even if we seem to fail we are not alone. His life was apparently futile but it has led to a more civilised society in spite of the current wave of violence and terrorism. There is now universal belief in human rights in stark contrast to the inequality and cruelty in the Roman Empire. The Incarnation and its consequences are an outstanding example of divine intervention in human affairs…