Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Tiny thought.

Considering the reality of the spiritual world, suffering in the material world is just the body decomposing on its own.

 

[tonyrey]

Tiny thought.

Considering the reality of the spiritual world, suffering in the material world is just the body decomposing on its own.

That is not a good reason for letting any person or animal suffer unnecessarily, or not alleviating it as Jesus did - and told us to do…

If He cured the sick while He was on earth why wouldn’t He do so now?

The saints have worked miracles precisely because they have had faith. They didn’t let scientific progress serve as an excuse for not asking for our daily bread and the other necessities of life - including the restoration of good health: both mental and physical as well as spiritual…

 

[grannymh]

That is not a good reason for letting any person or animal suffer unnecessarily, or not alleviating it as Jesus did - and told us to do…

If He cured the sick while He was on earth why wouldn’t He do so now?

Not talking about Jesus. I was referring to the natural design of the material anatomy to rot away. I said it this way. “Considering the reality of the spiritual world, suffering in the material world is just the body decomposing on its own.” The reality of a material anatomy does not imply ignoring people’s pain.

God is continually with us in health and sickness, at birth and death. God designed us to be part of the spiritual world, i.e., we are made in God’s image and He designed us to live in the material world which includes death of our material anatomy. Considering the reality of the spiritual world, we should be longing for its eternity of true happiness. Catholicism teaches us to look beyond temporary suffering which is part of the natural world.

 

[atheistgirl]

The Catholic Church *always *follows the example of Jesus; it is her members that are guilty of sin. .

Isn’t the Church just the people?

Sarah x

 

[vz71]

Isn’t the Church just the people?

Sarah x

No. The people are a part, but the church also consists of the traditions (and Traditions) handed us by God.

Were the church just the people, then it would likely have fallen apart long ago.
Few organizations can last for 2000 years with the level of corruption humans bring.

 

[razredge]

1. It would be impossible for anyone to deny that miracles have occurred and that a benevolent Power exists.
2. It would defeat the purpose of creating us with the power to choose what to believe and how to live…
3. It would be far simpler to prevent people losing their limbs in the first place!

1. & 2.Could be said for lots of other spectacular miracles that cause conversions, facilitate canonisations etc.
2. It would also be far simpler for God to prevent all the other diseases and afflictions that he supposedly cures.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Not if you think that this is the best of all possible worlds (or one of the best) and so God couldn’t have created any other world with less suffering (without comprimising on things like free will)

Indeed, we have to rely on other evidence to believe in God.
And I think a person who believes that God is constantly intervening everywhere to prevent suffering despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary is more likely to be ridiculed than one who believes God leaves the world to its own devices.

OK - how about if God does more than the absolute minimum but doesn’t also do the absolute maximum? Maybe both sides are right, in a way. Certainly God loves us! And I remember reading about some martyrs that underwent agonies that, to me, sounded almost too horrible to believe and yet they found strength to undergo them. Where did that strength come from? Why did the Apostles hide, cowering in a room, until the Holy Spirit descended on them and suddenly they were charging out all over the place, preaching, converting, and dying in Jesus’ name? What turned Peter from a lying coward (remember how he denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed?) into a person so strong that he accepted his own martyrdom and was crucified upside down? Something happened. The Apostles did not do this on their own.

Is suffering always bad? Jesus’ suffering and resurrection opened the gates of heaven for everyone. I suffer from chronic pain - lots of it and I will be suffering with it until the day I die. Is that bad? Or is there something good about it? Can’t I offer up my suffering as a sacrifice? I think so. So, in a way, my chronic pain is a gift from God.

BTW, ridiculing someone for his beliefs about God may be a form of martyrdom in itself.

 

[LittleSoldier]

That is not a good reason for letting any person or animal suffer unnecessarily, or not alleviating it as Jesus did - and told us to do…

If He cured the sick while He was on earth why wouldn’t He do so now?

The saints have worked miracles precisely because they have had faith. They didn’t let scientific progress serve as an excuse for not asking for our daily bread and the other necessities of life - including the restoration of good health: both mental and physical as well as spiritual…

Why hasn’t Jesus cured me? I’m waiting…

<crickets a’chirpin’>

<frogs a’croakin’>

I’ve been waiting about 17 years and I still haven’t been cured? Why not?

I can tell you why not. It’s because my suffering is a gift, a blessing. I can offer up my suffering to God. It’s better for me to suffer with this physical and mental pain than for me to not suffer with it. Why? I have no idea. All I know is that I have chronic pain and depression and I’m stuck with it so I’d just better make the best use of it. Maybe in heaven it will have turned into some sort of treasure - a special way of letting me glorify God. Maybe I can offer it up while I’m on earth so that others around me won’t suffer or the environment will improve or abortions will stop or there will be peace on earth - who knows?

I’m not omniscient but I think God has a very good reason for making me suffer. I trust Him because although I may be a gammy lamb, I’m still one of His lambs and He is still watching out for me. In fact, He may be watching out for me a little more carefully because He knows how fragile I am. Maybe I understand His sacrifice just a tiny bit more than someone else because it hurts so much to walk sometimes and I wonder how Jesus dragged that cross while He was in so much pain. Or maybe it’s because people talk to me when they see I have a service dog and it’s an opportunity to tell them about God or to show them that a Christian can be in pain and still be dignified (I admit I need to work on that one). Maybe it’s because of something I’ve never thought of. But I don’t think that my suffering is bad. Suffering is morally neutral. It’s what I do with my suffering that is good or bad. I can wallow in self pity or get on the medical marijuana program and spend all my time zonked out or take a bunch of opiates and grog myself into stupidity or I can do something positive with it.

 

[razredge]

It is the best of all possible worlds precisely because God does intervene, prevent and alleviate suffering! There could be far more suffering than there is because the vast majority of living beings are not diseased, deformed or killed in a disaster.
I agree - precisely because God does intervene!

Of course there could be far more suffering, but I think there is enough suffering to conclude that God is not constantly intervening to reduce suffering - otherwise why all the natural disasters that indiscriminately kill thousands.

And in any case, it could be the best of all possible worlds without God needing to intervene.

1. What is the "other evidence?
2. Do you believe there is no or very little evidence of Design in the universe?
3. If there is what is that evidence?
4. If not why did God leave no evidence?
5. What is “all the evidence pointing to the contrary”?
6. Do you believe science explains every single event that occurs in the world?
7. Do you reject all the evidence for miracles - including all those recognised by the Church?
8. Why did Jesus tell His followers they would work miracles in His name?
9. Does the intercession of the saints in heaven count for nothing?
10. Why would God work miracles so rarely?
11. Would you never pray for a miracle if people you know are gravely ill?

1. Various philosophical arguments such as the cosmological argument, the argument from morality, the argument from consciousness etc. and the historical evidence for Jesus and the resurrection.
2. Yes, the fine tuning of the universe for life.
3. I believe the large amount of suffering present in the world is better explained by the lack of divine intervention than constant divine intervention to minimise suffering.
4. I can’t reject all the evidence since I haven’t seen all the evidence, all I know is that I haven’t come across a miracle that was convincing when investigated in depth. But if you know of any please share.
5. I don’t know, maybe the early apostles really could work miracles or perhaps Jesus was talking about miracles of a different kind - Jesus also said we could move mountains with faith the size of a mustard seed - has anyone moved a mountain?
6. Perhaps God answers prayer through the normal working of the world, perhaps He answers prayer by changing hearts and minds rather than altering physical reality.
7. Because He has faith that His Creation will accomplish what He intends without needing His intervention. Because God is not an incompetent tinkerer who needs to fix His creation whenever it is in danger of falling over
8. I might hope and pray for a miracle in such a situation (I am still human after all), but I wouldn’t expect it to be answered.

 

[grannymh]

question –

What is the name of the textbook used to teach “Design”?

 

[tonyrey]

question –

What is the name of the textbook used to teach “Design”?

Love!

 

[grannymh]

Love!

Nice answer, but you did not provide the ISBN number to question in Post 2189.

Perhaps, someone else promoting ID can provide the name of the textbook used to teach design. There are creationist science text books – which one does ID leaders endorse? Or do ID leaders give a school a list of preferred books? If so, what are these?

Thank you.

 

[cho_pilo]

I am speaking of the language of DNA not the molecule itself.

Start here: The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics and Semantics

Sorry, the cite you posted admits in it’s first paragraph…

For convienience, we may refer to the belief, common among contemporary molecular biologists, that the laws of physics and chemistry are necessary and sufficient to account for life as the PC(physics and chemistry) paradigm.

Other than the fact it is not a belief, it is a conclusion reached by examining the evidence, I agree that this is the view of main stream biologists. Your cite then goes into a desperate attempt to attach information TO THE DNA MOLECULE, calling it semiotics. This is pseudoscientific non-sense. Again the map is not the territory, there is no information or code in the DNA molecule, the information or code is added by those studying DNA for their own benefit or understanding, the DNA has no ability to interpret code, it does not contain information, it needs no interpretation to do what it does strictly according to it’s chemical properties according to the laws of physics. Again, the Hydrogen atom contains no information telling it how to form water, that is no different for the DNA molecule, it is a template that directly, physically assembles molecules that perform the functions of life. The information and code is completely contained in the maps we make(so that WE can interpret and understand what the DNA molecule does), but it is not in the territory itself(the DNA molecule).

Do you think there is information or code contained in the contours of a patch of ground? We can develop information by measuring that patch, turn those measures into a map of that patch, but the patch itself contains no information. So when it rains we may know the exact shape, depth and outline of the puddle that will form on that small patch down to the smallest detail, but the patch of ground knows nothing of all this information, nor does it need to, it will form the puddle to those exact dimensions based simply on the laws of physics. You are still mistaking the map(information, code, etc.)for the territory.

 

[Sair]

Other than the fact it is not a belief, it is a conclusion reached by examining the evidence, I agree that this is the view of main stream biologists. Your cite then goes into a desperate attempt to attach information TO THE DNA MOLECULE, calling it semiotics. This is pseudoscientific non-sense. Again the map is not the territory, there is no information or code in the DNA molecule, the information or code is added by those studying DNA for their own benefit or understanding, the DNA has no ability to interpret code, it does not contain information, it needs no interpretation to do what it does strictly according to it’s chemical properties according to the laws of physics. Again, the Hydrogen atom contains no information telling it how to form water, that is no different for the DNA molecule, it is a template that directly, physically assembles molecules that perform the functions of life. The information and code is completely contained in the maps we make(so that WE can interpret and understand what the DNA molecule does), but it is not in the territory itself(the DNA molecule).

Do you think there is information or code contained in the contours of a patch of ground? We can develop information by measuring that patch, turn those measures into a map of that patch, but the patch itself contains no information. So when it rains we may know the exact shape, depth and outline of the puddle that will form on that small patch down to the smallest detail, but the patch of ground knows nothing of all this information, nor does it need to, it will form the puddle to those exact dimensions based simply on the laws of physics. You are still mistaking the map(information, code, etc.)for the territory.

Wow. That’s actually a brilliant dissection of the problem at the heart of ‘intelligent design’ theory - the belief held by ID theorists appears to be that there is someone who intended to communicate a message, through DNA, to some recipient(s). Yet there is no evidence for this - and there won’t be, until a designer is unequivocally identified.

 

[vz71]

question –

What is the name of the textbook used to teach “Design”?

Nice answer, but you did not provide the ISBN number to question in Post 2189.

Perhaps, someone else promoting ID can provide the name of the textbook used to teach design. There are creationist science text books – which one does ID leaders endorse? Or do ID leaders give a school a list of preferred books? If so, what are these?

Thank you.

Is the contention here that something cannot be if it is not in a textbook?

 

[Al_Moritz]

perhaps He answers prayer by changing hearts and minds rather than altering physical reality.

That is what I think happens far more often – God moves souls. I believe that while God rarely intervenes in the natural order, He often intervenes in the supernatural order, which includes our soul.

Fitting into that picture is the fact that the most frequent miracle, the Holy Eucharist, is a miracle that takes place in the supernatural order; it is not a physical miracle, or rather, it is a miracle that does not constitute an obvious intervention in the physical world, like a miracle healing (or the Miracle of the Sun).

 

[Al_Moritz]

Sorry, the cite you posted admits in it’s first paragraph…

Other than the fact it is not a belief, it is a conclusion reached by examining the evidence, I agree that this is the view of main stream biologists. Your cite then goes into a desperate attempt to attach information TO THE DNA MOLECULE, calling it semiotics. This is pseudoscientific non-sense. Again the map is not the territory, there is no information or code in the DNA molecule, the information or code is added by those studying DNA for their own benefit or understanding, the DNA has no ability to interpret code, it does not contain information, it needs no interpretation to do what it does strictly according to it’s chemical properties according to the laws of physics. Again, the Hydrogen atom contains no information telling it how to form water, that is no different for the DNA molecule, it is a template that directly, physically assembles molecules that perform the functions of life. The information and code is completely contained in the maps we make(so that WE can interpret and understand what the DNA molecule does), but it is not in the territory itself(the DNA molecule).

Do you think there is information or code contained in the contours of a patch of ground? We can develop information by measuring that patch, turn those measures into a map of that patch, but the patch itself contains no information. So when it rains we may know the exact shape, depth and outline of the puddle that will form on that small patch down to the smallest detail, but the patch of ground knows nothing of all this information, nor does it need to, it will form the puddle to those exact dimensions based simply on the laws of physics. You are still mistaking the map(information, code, etc.)for the territory.

That is actually nonsense. DNA IS information and it IS code. However, the coder is not a designer, but simply cumulative natural selection. Living organisms are driven not just by the laws of physics, but by information accumulated over billions of years of history – information gathered by cumulative natural selection.

Increase of information can take place by, for example, gene duplication (a common, routine phenomenon), and mutation of one copy of the gene, making two genes. No designer required for that, once the laws of nature are in place – if these are designed is another question (I would reply in the affirmative).

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, it is standard scientific terminology (not terminology from a philosophical interpretation of science) to speak of DNA code or genetic code (just google these terms), and to speak of ‘three-letter-codons’ for diverse amino acids (and the stop codon which terminates a sequence).

Thus, claiming that DNA is not a code is plain silly – and unscientific.

 

[inocente]

Nice answer, but you did not provide the ISBN number to question in Post 2189.

Perhaps, someone else promoting ID can provide the name of the textbook used to teach design. There are creationist science text books – which one does ID leaders endorse? Or do ID leaders give a school a list of preferred books? If so, what are these?

Thank you.

I think the book bought by the school board in the Dover trial was called Of Pandas and People. It emerged that it started out as a creationist book until a quick global edit was done (change God to agent, etc.) to make it look scientific.

Ken Miller exposes the sorry business in the following talk, and from memory also demolishes a lot of the claims made on this thread. But he’s a Catholic and a biology professor, who made the effort to learn his subject in depth, so obviously doesn’t know nearly as much as one of those ID websites with their nice graphics.

youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

 

[tonyrey]

Nice answer, but you did not provide the ISBN number to question in Post 2189.

Perhaps, someone else promoting ID can provide the name of the textbook used to teach design. There are creationist science text books – which one does ID leaders endorse? Or do ID leaders give a school a list of preferred books? If so, what are these?

Thank you.

God doesn’t need a textbook nor do those who - even the archsceptic
David Hume - see evidence of Design throughout Creation…