Design

[tonyrey]

No explanation is ever forthcoming of how an accident-free universe could be created. Anyone who believes earthly perfection is feasible needs to justify that hypothesis by producing a feasible blueprint yet - even though its proponents have had more than two thousand years in which to do so - no one has ever succeeded in presenting even a brief sketch of the ideal world and it remains an infantile fantasy. By their fruits you shall know them…

Evil is often used as an objection to Design but then evil needs to be explained. Why does evil exist?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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…

It does seem peculiar that one might oppose one conclusion but not affirm another alternative which is the only alternative likely or even possible.

Fence sitting is agnostic, but not an attractive or comfortable way to be forever sitting.

 

[robsully]

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”.

I was not aware that Philosophy consisted of making claims, regardless of outlandish they maybe, as long as the said claims could not be disproven.

Any claim is regarded as fact, again regardless of how ridiculous it maybe, for the burden proof does not lie with those that make the claim but on those that ask for proof?

How can you tell that any other belief in design is wrong, if the burden of proof is on you to prove it wrong. That is to say using the argument “I am right therefore you are wrong” does not cut muster.

So let’s start with the Buddhist creation story, My guess is that you disbelieve this account. So disprove it.

Get ready… Go

 

[inocente]

Show me a scientific paper with the results of a double blind test of the accuracy proposed by chance as the explanation for the appearance of design in the universe.

Not sure why you keep saying double-blind, which usually refers to a clinical trial where neither subjects nor researchers know which subjects are receiving treatment. Perhaps you mean a paper about opinions.

Could you please cite a few specific references to Chance vs Design (capitalized or not) in scripture, theology, philosophy or science? Or is it your own invention?

Science isn’t chance, it finds patterns and order, laws of nature, intelligibility, and every non-falsified theory in the whole of science disproves design. There just are no observations of spontaneous generation, outside of tales of flies suddenly appearing on dead meat without any ancestors. An observation of design would be indistinguishable from magic, and magic has never once been observed in nature.

Where a casual observer might see design, natural processes are always found instead. A simple example is all stars are spheres, never due to design, always due to gravity.

 

[robsully]

It does seem peculiar that one might oppose one conclusion but not affirm another alternative which is the only alternative likely or even possible.

Fence sitting is agnostic, but not an attractive or comfortable way to be forever sitting.

Perhaps you are confusing agnostic with pragmatism.

Go back through the thread have I ever opposed your conclusion to design?
Check the thread, no claims, no made up words, no unsupported assertions, can you claim the same??

 

[inocente]

Why it would take a long time to come up with a scientific paper that would meet Rossum’s standards requires an understanding of how design detection methods fit within the biases of modern scientific thought. I haven’t personally delved into the matter sufficiently to discuss the approach of the Discovery Institute, and it would take an inordinate amount of time to do so adequately. It is important to note that while posters are talking about design, it is not necessarily the DI version.

You appear to be saying that rossum took the time to do it adequately and you didn’t.

Science never finds design simply because natural processes are always found instead. We only have to look at history. 400 years ago people thought everything was designed. The stars, planets, the Earth, all life, everything. Now we know it’s always natural processes. The only way to imagine there is design is either not know that or to argue all that knowledge is wrong.

 

[robsully]

Evil is often used as an objection to Design but then evil needs to be explained. Why does evil exist?

A curious/doubtful/skeptic/thoughtful mind objects/questions your design premise and you think there maybe evil afoot???

That has to be the most persuasive argument for your premise yet.

Bravo

 

[buffalo]

Not sure why you keep saying double-blind, which usually refers to a clinical trial where neither subjects nor researchers know which subjects are receiving treatment. Perhaps you mean a paper about opinions.

Could you please cite a few specific references to Chance vs Design (capitalized or not) in scripture, theology, philosophy or science? Or is it your own invention?

Science isn’t chance, it finds patterns and order, laws of nature, intelligibility, and every non-falsified theory in the whole of science disproves design. There just are no observations of spontaneous generation, outside of tales of flies suddenly appearing on dead meat without any ancestors. An observation of design would be indistinguishable from magic, and magic has never once been observed in nature.

Where a casual observer might see design, natural processes are always found instead. A simple example is all stars are spheres, never due to design, always due to gravity.

Patterns are not always designed, but designs always contain patterns.

The DNA code comes from a mind.

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps you are confusing agnostic with pragmatism.

Go back through the thread have I ever opposed your conclusion to design?
Check the thread, no claims, no made up words, no unsupported assertions, can you claim the same??

What are you discussing then?

 

[buffalo]

You appear to be saying that rossum took the time to do it adequately and you didn’t.

Science never finds design simply because natural processes are always found instead. We only have to look at history. 400 years ago people thought everything was designed. The stars, planets, the Earth, all life, everything. Now we know it’s always natural processes. The only way to imagine there is design is either not know that or to argue all that knowledge is wrong.

Yes, design goes way back to the ancients.

I submit these natural processes were designed.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So let’s start with the Buddhist creation story, My guess is that you disbelieve this account. So disprove it.

Get ready… Go

You supply the Buddhist creation story and we’ll disprove it.

No vague references please. Direct quotes only, such as the one below from Genesis…

“And God said, ‘Let there be light.’” Genesis 1, 1000 B.C.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have not made that claim. I have nothing to prove.

But you have claimed there is a designer, now the burden of proof is on you.

It is a logical inference that if you deny Design, you affirm Chance.

Now while Design is clearly implied in the Big Bang, Chance is so improbable as to deserve ridicule.

 

[buffalo]

You supply the Buddhist creation story and we’ll disprove it.

No vague references please. Direct quotes only, such as the one below from Genesis…

“And God said, ‘Let there be light.’” Genesis 1, 1000 B.C.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

The thought of God (Logos) as it manifested itself in space and time.

There was lots of commotion with the space time barrier when He left space and time at the crucifixion, also.

 

[buffalo]

It is a logical inference that if you deny Design, you affirm Chance.

Now while Design is clearly implied in the Big Bang, Chance is so improbable as to deserve ridicule.

Standing behind the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) is kinda silly nowadays. I believe even the most adamant non-believer has this gnawing pit is his stomach. However, they “cannot let the Divine foot in the door”.

 

[robsully]

What are you discussing then?

To make an informed decision, one must be informed.

When requesting support of the design premise the responses are usually.

1. If you don’t believe it then prove it wrong.
2. If you don’t believe it then offer something else.

Neither are compelling arguments in support of the design premise. The same methodology can be used for any other creation premise.

Why is your design premise more credible than the Buddhist, Native American, ect. ect.?

 

[robsully]

It is a logical inference that if you deny Design, you affirm Chance.

Now while Design is clearly implied in the Big Bang, Chance is so improbable as to deserve ridicule.

Vey nice dodge, since I have not denied design, nor affirmed big bang or asserted any premise or belief.

My request is simple, offer support for your design premise.

Let’s start with baby steps. Where can I find that design is implied in the big bang?

 

[Aloysium]

I will reply in reverse order of asking.

Why. If I am to worship a God(s) I feel I should be giving my life to something real. How can I tell the Christian God is any different than Ra, Buddha, Zeus Thor ect.ect. .

If empiricism cannot come up with a designer is it for the reasons you offer? Or is it because He doesn’t exist? How can one tell the difference?

For those that want to make claims that there is a Designer, requesting proof of such claims should not be unwarranted.

And lastly “cryptic” to some maybe intellectually honest to others.

The first will be last.

If you don’t know, you don’t know.
That recognition is the first step to knowledge.
That said it would be dishonest to know and pretend one doesn’t by not sharing.

The “proof”, the demonstration of His glory is written across the sky and in our hearts.

One knows the truth, reality within the relationship one has with who or what is other.
The greater the love, the giving, the greater is the knowing.

Empiricism cannot be used for everything; it cannot prove its own worth.
A philosophy of science is necessary.

The first thing in giving yourself over to the truth is to recognize that Buddha is not in the same category as Zeus.
The former is a person who sought and found enlightenment.
The latter is a mythological personification of natural forces.
Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Word.

 

[buffalo]

To make an informed decision, one must be informed.

When requesting support of the design premise the responses are usually.

1. If you don’t believe it then prove it wrong.
2. If you don’t believe it then offer something else.

Neither are compelling arguments in support of the design premise. The same methodology can be used for any other creation premise.

Why is your design premise more credible than the Buddhist, Native American, ect. ect.?

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
**

 

[robsully]

The first will be last.

If you don’t know, you don’t know.
That recognition is the first step to knowledge.
That said it would be dishonest to know and pretend one doesn’t by not sharing.

The “proof”, the demonstration of His glory is written across the sky and in our hearts.

One knows the truth, reality within the relationship one has with who or what is other.
The greater the love, the giving, the greater is the knowing.

Empiricism cannot be used for everything; it cannot prove its own worth.
A philosophy of science is necessary.

The first thing in giving yourself over to the truth is to recognize that Buddha is not in the same category as Zeus.
The former is a person who sought and found enlightenment.
The latter is a mythological personification of natural forces.
Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Word.

Thank you for your reply

I do not know, therefore I refuse to make any claims. Because I do not know.

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.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Let’s start with baby steps. Where can I find that design is implied in the big bang?

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.