Design

[rossum]

Is homo sapiens nothing more than the product of DNA?

No. On a physical level there are epigenetics and the odd piece of RNA as well. On the non-physical level we disagree because I am Buddhist and you are Christian. You see a soul. Buddhism denies a soul and instead sees the non-physical level of humans as vedana, samjna, sankhara and vijnana. (feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness.)

rossum

 

[rossum]

The issue is the** ultimate **explanation of the universe not the origin of life on this planet.

Be very careful of this question. An ultimate explanation would include an explanation for the origin of God.

Currently what you have is the equivalent of the cosmologists’ multiverse: “The multiverse caused our current universe and we do not have an explanation for the origin of the multiverse.”

That equates almost exactly to: “God caused our current universe and we do not have an explanation for the origin of God.”

Just as cosmologists have no explanation for the origin of the multiverse, so theologians have no explanation for the origin of God. Neither is an ultimate explanation.

rossum

 

[inocente]

There is a third - IDvolution, the philosophy - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Climb aboard…

I think that neatly sums up ID for me. A packaged religion, nice graphics, good brand name, convenient for today’s fast food consumer. An appeal to magic. In this case, that DNA appeared spontaneously (didn’t it evolve from RNA?), that the species appeared spontaneously (T Rex alongside humans?), that deleterious mutations appeared spontaneously (but presumably not beneficial mutations?) due to one action by one member of one species…

Doesn’t sound plausible to me, and I can’t help remembering that while the real science helps cure diseases, helps understand and protect habitats, etc., ID is just empty calories, a meme concerned only for its own survival. And as it’s subject to empirical evidence it lasts only as long as no one can be bothered to refute it. I seem to remember some of Behe’s claims lasted only a few days before being easily and comprehensively debunked. The version of ID linked in the OP is so silly I thought at first it was a send up of ID.

Imho any faith based on ID is built on sandy ground. So thanks for the offer, but nope.

btw idevolution is a brand that “has been turning houses into homes for 8 years”.

 

[tonyrey]

Be very careful of this question. An ultimate explanation would include an explanation for the origin of God.

Currently what you have is the equivalent of the cosmologists’ multiverse: “The multiverse caused our current universe and we do not have an explanation for the origin of the multiverse.”

That equates almost exactly to: “God caused our current universe and we do not have an explanation for the origin of God.”

Just as cosmologists have no explanation for the origin of the multiverse, so theologians have no explanation for the origin of God. Neither is an ultimate explanation.

rossum

A cogent explanation is preferable to no explanation. Theism is superior to atheism because negativity leads nowhere. As Lear remarked, nothing shall come of nothing. The best test of any interpretation of reality is whether it corresponds to the way we live. Every reasonable person regards life as valuable, intelligible and purposeful which implies that it is not an accident but the result of Design.

 

[tonyrey]

No. On a physical level there are epigenetics and the odd piece of RNA as well. On the non-physical level we disagree because I am Buddhist and you are Christian. You see a soul. Buddhism denies a soul and instead sees the non-physical level of humans as vedana, samjna, sankhara and vijnana. (feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness.)

rossum

In other words you regard materialism as false and believe in spiritual reality…

 

[inocente]

Please explain why the choice between Design and non-Design is a false dichotomy.

Heh. That’s not the choice you offered. You only offered your Greek goddesses of Design or Chance. Things either appeared spontaneously out of thin air, as in the OP’s “Irreducible Complexity on Steroids”, or all the material just happened to come together by chance. Both options are appeals to magic. I don’t believe in magic.

Please name the other options?

Other than magic? I think that might be a little thing we like to call natural.

Did this supposed schism also occur accidentally?

No, as I said (several times now), the Discovery Institute is funded largely by evangelicals (fact, look it up), and it has successfully created a schism among Catholics (fact, just remember the fights you guys had over ID before the ban).

*In a philosophical discussion it is reasonable to expect an answer to a straightforward question:

Did God create the universe for no reason or purpose whatsoever?*

That’s got nothing to do with your OP.

I don’t know how many Catholic scientists there are. A lot, hundreds of thousands. Who don’t subscribe to your OP’s “Designed Body: Irreducible Complexity on Steroids”. But who would say God created the universe with purpose. Yet don’t believe in magic. That’s just the Catholics who are scientists. While the Protestant fundamentalists who invented ID may believe “God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything”, the Pope says “But that is not so”.

So if you want to know how someone cannot accept your OP but can say that God created the universe with purpose, you don’t need to take my word for it, there are lots of Catholics you can ask. I have the Pope’s address if you need it.

 

[tonyrey]

I think that neatly sums up ID for me. A packaged religion, nice graphics, good brand name, convenient for today’s fast food consumer. An appeal to magic. In this case, that DNA appeared spontaneously (didn’t it evolve from RNA?), that the species appeared spontaneously (T Rex alongside humans?), that deleterious mutations appeared spontaneously (but presumably not beneficial mutations?) due to one action by one member of one species…

Doesn’t sound plausible to me, and I can’t help remembering that while the real science helps cure diseases, helps understand and protect habitats, etc., ID is just empty calories, a meme concerned only for its own survival. And as it’s subject to empirical evidence it lasts only as long as no one can be bothered to refute it. I seem to remember some of Behe’s claims lasted only a few days before being easily and comprehensively debunked. The version of ID linked in the OP is so silly I thought at first it was a send up of ID.

Imho any faith based on ID is built on sandy ground. So thanks for the offer, but nope.

btw idevolution is a brand that “has been turning houses into homes for 8 years”.

Your implication that science is the best interpretation of reality overlooks the fact that it is based on two metascientific principles: the intelligibility of the universe and the power of reason which imply that we do not exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever.

 

[rossum]

In other words you regard materialism as false and believe in spiritual reality…

Materialism is a good description of the material, witness the success of science.

For the non-material I go the Buddhist route because it works for me. I have more evidence for my own existence than I do for God’s existence, so I rely on my own efforts to attain nirvana rather than rely on a possibly inexistent God to get me to heaven.

Materialism is true, within the boundaries of the material. To call is “false” is an error. Materialism is a lot better at curing cholera than prayer to any number of gods, goddesses etc.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Heh. That’s not the choice you offered. You only offered your Greek goddesses of Design or Chance. Things either appeared spontaneously out of thin air, as in the OP’s “Irreducible Complexity on Steroids”, or all the material just happened to come together by chance. Both options are appeals to magic. I don’t believe in magic.

“Greek goddesses” is an irrational caricature of the philosophical principles of Plato and Aristotle on which science is based.

Other than magic? I think that might be a little thing we like to call natural.

No, as I said (several times now), the Discovery Institute is funded largely by evangelicals (fact, look it up), and it has successfully created a schism among Catholics (fact, just remember the fights you guys had over ID before the ban).

Yet another ad hominem. **The source of an explanation is irrelevant.
**

That’s got nothing to do with your OP. I don’t know how many Catholic scientists there are. A lot, hundreds of thousands. Who don’t subscribe to your OP’s “Designed Body: Irreducible Complexity on Steroids”. But who would say God created the universe with purpose. Yet don’t believe in magic. That’s just the Catholics who are scientists. While the Protestant fundamentalists who invented ID may believe “God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything”, the Pope says “But that is not so”.

So if you want to know how someone cannot accept your OP but can say that God created the universe with purpose, you don’t need to take my word for it, there are lots of Catholics you can ask. I have the Pope’s address if you need it.

Yet another ad populum…

In a philosophical discussion there is no point in attempting to reason with a person who repeatedly fails to answer a simple question without giving any explanation for evading it:

Do we exist for no reason or purpose?

 

[inocente]

I find it interesting that my last reply was somehow moved above the post I was replying to.

My hypothesis is that an ID fan would tend to give up and say it was magic.

While others might think a bit harder and decide perhaps the poster ran out of editing time and so decided to delete the post and then post it anew later.

 

[inocente]

“Greek goddesses” is an irrational caricature of the philosophical principles of Plato and Aristotle on which science is based.

What, Plato and Aristotle thought the only options were ID or blind chance?

*Yet another ad hominem. **The source of an explanation is irrelevant.

---

Yet another ad populum…

It’s very uncharitable of you to keep doing this. You spend next to no time before responding and just spit out abuse.

*In a philosophical discussion there is no point in attempting to reason with a person who repeatedly fails to answer a simple question without giving any explanation for evading it:

Do we exist for no reason or purpose?*

Strange you keep asking it in the negative. No, obviously.

Your constant stream of abuse has worn me down. I won’t be posting to you again.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

God acts in each and every moment, bringing the beginning, the end and everything in between into existence from His eternal Now - within, outside of and overarching all time. Whatever is meant by Design, would include His involvement in each moment, each now, from the existential centre on which they are grounded.

As everyone here, contributing their vision of the world demonstrates, ours is the capacity to imagine. Imagination, experience, consciousness, whatever one may call the reality of our being right here, it is has a structure that can be described in physical, psychological and spiritual terms. The shape of our being in existence is relational, self-other. As participants in creation, we dream universes. We are not things as too often those who misuse science would describe us.

It is very tricky entering into the details of our creation. The way modern science approaches it is reminiscent of the steady state universe. At the beginning of time, things were different. There are reasons why we’ve been provided with the headlines only. Who we are is truly known in transcendence and can only be alluded to through this linear mode of knowing that we here employ. Science oversteps the limits of its capabilities when it attempts to do more than point to the mystery of our existence. If one stops to actually consider what is being asserted by material evolutionists, in the context of the simplicity of every-day life, one will realize its absurdness.

 

[tonyrey]

What, Plato and Aristotle thought the only options were ID or blind chance?

It’s very uncharitable of you to keep doing this. You spend next to no time before responding and just spit out abuse.

Strange you keep asking it in the negative. No, obviously.

Your constant stream of abuse has worn me down. I won’t be posting to you again.

Deo Gratias.

 

[inocente]

If one stops to actually consider what is being asserted by material evolutionists, in the context of the simplicity of every-day life, one will realize its absurdness.

"Many — if not most — Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with “creationists” on one side, and “evolutionists” on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists. The true situation is much more complicated: creationism comes in many forms, and not all of them reject evolution.

It is highly desirable to move people away from this inaccurate dichotomy. A simple classroom exercise, the Creationism/Evolution Continuum, has been used successfully by middle and high school teachers as well as university professors to illustrate the many intermediate positions between the extremes. It can be scaled up or down in detail, depending on the educational level of the students and the time available to the teacher or professor." - ncse.com/library-resource/creationevolution-continuum

 

[tonyrey]

:twocents:

God acts in each and every moment, bringing the beginning, the end and everything in between into existence from His eternal Now - within, outside of and overarching all time. Whatever is meant by Design, would include His involvement in each moment, each now, from the existential centre on which they are grounded.

As everyone here, contributing their vision of the world demonstrates, ours is the capacity to imagine. Imagination, experience, consciousness, whatever one may call the reality of our being right here, it is has a structure that can be described in physical, psychological and spiritual terms. The shape of our being in existence is relational, self-other. As participants in creation, we dream universes. We are not things as too often those who misuse science would describe us.

It is very tricky entering into the details of our creation. The way modern science approaches it is reminiscent of the steady state universe. At the beginning of time, things were different. There are reasons why we’ve been provided with the headlines only. Who we are is truly known in transcendence and can only be alluded to through this linear mode of knowing that we here employ. Science oversteps the limits of its capabilities when it attempts to do more than point to the mystery of our existence. If one stops to actually consider what is being asserted by material evolutionists, in the context of the simplicity of every-day life, one will realize its absurdness.

The physical aspect of reality is thought to explain everything else even though it is an unsubstantiated hypothesis which doesn’t correspond to the way any normal person lives or regards other persons or animals. Even the archsceptic David Hume agreed that purpose is everywhere:

A purpose, an intention, a design strikes every where the most careless, the most stupid thinker

 

[tonyrey]

What, Plato and Aristotle thought the only options were ID or blind chance?

It’s very uncharitable of you to keep doing this. You spend next to no time before responding and just spit out abuse.

Strange you keep asking it in the negative. No, obviously.

Your constant stream of abuse has worn me down. I won’t be posting to you again.

Unsubstantiated allegations…

Since you agree that we exist for a reason and purpose it is obviously because there is a divine plan, i.e. Design…

 

[Aloysium]

Materialism is a good description of the material, witness the success of science.

For the non-material I go the Buddhist route because it works for me. I have more evidence for my own existence than I do for God’s existence, so I rely on my own efforts to attain nirvana rather than rely on a possibly inexistent God to get me to heaven.

Materialism is true, within the boundaries of the material. To call is “false” is an error. Materialism is a lot better at curing cholera than prayer to any number of gods, goddesses etc.

rossum

Wikipedia: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

According to materialism, there is no boundary to the material; all is considered material. Your Buddhism through that lens, is reduced to merely a set of complex molecules doing what they do. There is no Nirvana. Everything that is being said here has no value, although it can cause material changes on the other side of the globe. Materialism cannot be restricted; the non-materials considered to not exist. What you are describing is not materialism as a philosophy. BTW - materialism never cured cholera. Medicine, which is practiced by people holding quite diverse beliefs does that.

As a lay Buddhist, the best you can do is strive to follow the Eightfold Path, accumulate good Karma and hope for a higher life next time around, if there is a next time.

 

[tonyrey]

In other words you regard materialism as false and believe in spiritual reality…
Materialism is a good description of the material, witness the success of science.

Materialism is usually defined as the monist doctrine that matter is **the only reality **and that the mind, the emotions, etc, are merely functions of it.

Materialism is a lot better at curing cholera than prayer to any number of gods, goddesses etc. Materialism is a good description of the material, witness the success of science.

There is plenty of evidence throughout the world and throughout history that prayer is very often successful.

For the non-material I go the Buddhist route because it works for me. I have more evidence for my own existence than I do for God’s existence, so I rely on my own efforts to attain nirvana rather than rely on a possibly inexistent God to get me to heaven.

You need to explain the source of your power of reason and self-control…

 

[tonyrey]

The physical aspect of reality is thought to explain everything else even though it is an unsubstantiated hypothesis which doesn’t correspond to the way any normal person lives or regards other persons or animals. Even the archsceptic David Hume agreed that purpose is everywhere:

“A purpose, an intention, a design strikes every where the most careless, the most stupid thinker.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Even the archsceptic David Hume agreed that purpose is everywhere:

How else do we explain the upward movement of simple organisms toward the arrival of humanity? All those simpler organisms were necessary to pave the way, but how could they be necessary without Someone directing their progress toward the human?