Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grannymh said:
What I do not understand about ā€œEvidence for Desginā€ is why I.D. totally ignores the only irreducible object in the entire universe ā€“ man. Why does that happen?
Click to expand...
Because biological ID only addresses material structures, and the soul, as a crucial component of the metaphysics of human nature, is not one of them.

But I agree, the argument for the rational soul is not just much more powerful, but also much more important than biological ID.
 
buffalo said:
Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2011

1.50th Peer-Reviewed Pro-ID Scientific Paper Published.
2.The Design of the Butterfly Continues to Inspire and Amaze.
3.Woodpecker Drumming Inspires Shock-Absorbing System.
4.Stylus Aims to Bridge Gap Between Real World and Artificial Evolutionary Simulation.
5.Explosive Radiation of Flowering Plants Confirmed.
6.Golden Orb-Weaver Fossil Spider Provides New Evidence for Stasis.
7.Complexity in the Universe Appears Earlier Than Thought.
8.An Identity Crises for Human Ancestors.
9.DNA Repair Mechanisms Reveal a Contradiction in Evolutionary Theory.
10.The Limits to Self-Organization Identified.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for that excellent source. šŸ‘

Itā€™s good to see a legal criticism of the ruling in the Dover Case.
 
grannymh said:
What I do not understand about ā€œEvidence for Desginā€ is why I.D. totally ignores the only irreducible object in the entire universe ā€“ man. Why does that happen?
Click to expand...
It doesnā€™t as far as Iā€™m concerned - and Iā€™m sure Iā€™m not alone:
  1. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.
Click to expand...
Neuroscientists are constantly asserting that inroads are being made into the dualistic interpretation of human nature - which they often claim is uneconomical and superfluous.
 
Al_Moritz said:
I have been a supporter of ID in the past, so I know a thing or two about it. As a supporter, I even clearly won a debate with an anti-IDer some 6 or 7 years ago, because of my superior knowledge of biochemistry (I am a biochemical scientist) that my opponent could not match.

But then I studied the issues further, got better informed, and changed my mind.
Click to expand...
It isnā€™t going to go away and you could change your mind back.

As I study further and science studies further design is front and center. Notice the shift from a non admittance of design to how ā€œnature could have done it.ā€ This is a clear admission, the implications obvious, but the staunch objectors will try to come up with natural explanations. It is getting tougher everyday.
 
buffalo said:
It isnā€™t going to go away and you could change your mind back.

As I study further and science studies further design is front and center. Notice the shift from a non admittance of design to how ā€œnature could have done it.ā€ This is a clear admission, the implications obvious, but the staunch objectors will try to come up with natural explanations. It is getting tougher everyday.
Click to expand...
The rejection of biological design implies that physical causes are a **complete **explanation of the existence of homo sapiens - with the superimposition of a soul regarded as a superstitious accretion which infringes the law of conservation of energyā€¦
 
tonyrey said:
The rejection of biological design implies that physical causes are a **complete **explanation of the existence of homo sapiens - with the superimposition of a soul regarded as a superstitious accretion which infringes the law of conservation of energyā€¦
Click to expand...
You join the ranks of other posters here of confusing metaphysics with biology. The metaphysics of the human soul have nothing to do with rejection or acceptance of biological design ā€“ nothing whatsoever. I reject biological design *) , but I affirm the metaphysical design of the immaterial human soul.
*) yet I affirm the design of the laws of nature from which biological structures arise by evolution. In other words, I accept biological design only insofar it is part of cosmic design, but not insofar it invokes God putting together biological structures in a sculpting manner (ā€˜directā€™ biological design). To put it differently, I believe in God as a cosmic Designer, but not as a designing artisan with respect to material structures.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Oh the confusion of metaphysics with science. Science does not make the metaphysical claim that natural causes are ā€œpurposelessā€. In fact, in my rather long scientific career I have not read a single scientific article that mentions the term ā€œpurposelessā€. Yes, there are scientists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) that write popular science books in which they make metaphysical claims to the effect that natural causes are purposeless. However, you would be hard-pressed to find such a claim in the actual literature of strict science, i.e. scientific journals that publish original scientific findings.

And the scientific term ā€œrandomā€ is not synonymous with the metaphysical term ā€œpurposelessā€ either. Random simply means according to a probability distribution, uncorrelated or unpredictable.
Click to expand...
Here is a direct statement of the American National Academy of Sciences on the issue:

ā€œWhether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science.ā€

nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=58
 
I canā€™t stand inteligent design theory. I think its a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Behe can eat my shorts:p.

A real design arguement doesnā€™t need to refute natural evolution.:cool:
 
Al_Moritz said:
*) yet I affirm the design of the laws of nature from which biological structures arise by evolution. In other words, I accept biological design only insofar it is part of cosmic design, but not insofar it invokes God putting together biological structures in a sculpting manner (ā€˜directā€™ biological design). To put it differently, I believe in God as a cosmic Designer, but not as a designing artisan with respect to material structures.
Click to expand...
Yep:thumbsup:

You just won yourself a fan.
 
Al_Moritz said:
You join the ranks of other posters here of confusing metaphysics with biology. The metaphysics of the human soul have nothing to do with rejection or acceptance of biological design ā€“ nothing whatsoever. I reject biological design *) , but I affirm the metaphysical design of the immaterial human soul.
*) yet I affirm the design of the laws of nature from which biological structures arise by evolution. In other words, I accept biological design only insofar it is part of cosmic design, but not insofar it invokes God putting together biological structures in a sculpting manner (ā€˜directā€™ biological design). To put it differently, I believe in God as a cosmic Designer, but not as a designing artisan with respect to material structures.
Click to expand...
  1. Donā€™t you believe God creates the necessary material, foresees the outcome, controls significant events and guides development rather than leaving everything at the mercy of blind forces?
  2. What reason is there for a strict policy of non-intervention if God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures?
  3. Doesnā€™t God do everything He can to minimise unnecessary conflict, pain and death?
  4. Is it an admission of failure to acknowledge that the laws of nature cannot cater for every contingency in such a vast and immensely complex universe?
 
Al_Moritz said:
Here is a direct statement of the American National Academy of Sciences on the issue:

ā€œWhether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science.ā€

nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=58
Click to expand...
Creation Science is **not **Intelligent Design. šŸ¤·

Whether human existence can **in principle **be explained by science is a question for science. That is the methodological principle according to which biologists pursue their research. They do not allow for a non-scientific explanation of human activity in their laboratories. That would be an admission of failure seized upon by their colleagues!
 
Al_Moritz said:
You join the ranks of other posters here of confusing metaphysics with biology. The metaphysics of the human soul have nothing to do with rejection or acceptance of biological design ā€“ nothing whatsoever. I reject biological design *) , but I affirm the metaphysical design of the immaterial human soul.
*) yet I affirm the design of the laws of nature from which biological structures arise by evolution. In other words, I accept biological design only insofar it is part of cosmic design, but not insofar it invokes God putting together biological structures in a sculpting manner (ā€˜directā€™ biological design). To put it differently, I believe in God as a cosmic Designer, but not as a designing artisan with respect to material structures.
Click to expand...
One description I have seen is that God is such a good designer, that He designed the universe in such a way that it would self-assemble. No, not like Ikea. In Godā€™s self assembly, the pieces get themselves out of the box, find their own Allen key and fit themselves together. Now that is real self assembly.

Remember that in Genesis, God does not directly create living organisms, they are created indirectly: ā€œlet the waters bring forthā€, ā€œlet the earth bring forthā€. Genesis is describing an indirect process.

rossum
 
Al_Moritz said:
Because biological ID only addresses material structures, and the soul, as a crucial component of the metaphysics of human nature, is not one of them.

But I agree, the argument for the rational soul is not just much more powerful, but also much more important than biological ID.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this charitable clarification. I had a rather uncharitable reason.:o
 
tonyrey said:
  1. Donā€™t you believe God creates the necessary material, foresees the outcome, controls significant events and guides development rather than leaving everything at the mercy of blind forces?
  2. What reason is there for a strict policy of non-intervention if God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures?
  3. Doesnā€™t God do everything He can to minimise unnecessary conflict, pain and death?
  4. Is it an admission of failure to acknowledge that the laws of nature cannot cater for every contingency in such a vast and immensely complex universe?
Click to expand...
Several posts ago I had already thought we had reached a few unprecedented agreements that I never would have expected from you.

And now you revert to your tired old positions. As usual, no progress achieved . . . (sigh).

At least MindOverMatter agrees with me, but that is no surprise: he knows and values classical Metaphysics, and so has a much easier time with the issues. šŸ‘
 
rossum said:
One description I have seen is that God is such a good designer, that He designed the universe in such a way that it would self-assemble. No, not like Ikea. In Godā€™s self assembly, the pieces get themselves out of the box, find their own Allen key and fit themselves together. Now that is real self assembly.

Remember that in Genesis, God does not directly create living organisms, they are created indirectly: ā€œlet the waters bring forthā€, ā€œlet the earth bring forthā€. Genesis is describing an indirect process.

rossum
Click to expand...
I have a problem with the idea that God could not design. I think creation is the higher order, design being a subset.

You would like IDvolution. šŸ™‚

Well then you would have to concede God created Adam and Eve directly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top