Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
Pain is also a defence mechanism which protects the body.
Click to expand...
The fact that pain also occurs when it is pointless is yet another proof that the laws of nature do not and cannot possibly cater for every contingency. How could they be expected to know that a disease is incurable or that the defence mechanism is serving no useful purpose?

Hume was right in describing nature as blind but wrong in assuming there is no “discernment or parental care”. That is further evidence that the notion of “a first intelligent Author” is a hopeless defence against scepticism. A remote deity is not worth having when we are confronted with pain and suffering. That is why the teaching of Jesus is the most realistic and practical solution to the Problem of Evil.
 
Al_Moritz said:
" that fine-tuning arguments shift the problem, are too vague to be scientific"

While fine-tuning is a scientific finding, the design argument from fine-tuning is not a scientific argument, but a philosophical one. See the heading of my article.

“rely on gaps in knowledge (you do refer to god-of-the-gaps, but not in that context)”

I have answered that objection – in that context. Read again.

“or that the design argument has been badly battered by what has been learned in the last two hundred years,”

Evolution is irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument, and the evolutionary argument from Cosmological Natural Selection does not work, see my article. So yes, I do answer also this argument in my article, by implication.

“or that diminishing returns imply a basic flaw.”

Irrelevant to the design argument, since even if fine-tuning turned out to be just the way it “has to be”, this would not solve the problem, see my article.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. There are various posters with an emotional investment in a pet theory, and they will brook no criticism, for their pet theory is the fairest in the land, their theory is perfect and so all criticism must be falsehood, an abomination, an offense against all that is good and pure, etc.

There is a test to see if you’ve crossed over to that dark side – what are the three weakest points in your fine-tuning argument? I don’t mean the objections you addressed in your article (1.2), I mean three places where the logic is weakest, or which can be falsified by evidence.

All arguments have these weak points. You don’t need to post yours, but if you can’t immediately identify them in the fine-tuning argument then it must be the fairest in the land, it is perfect and so all criticism must be falsehood, an abomination, an offense against all that is good and pure, etc. 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
“When diverse things are coordinated the scheme depends on their directed unification, as the order of battle of a whole army hangs on the plan of the commander-in-chief. The arrangement of diverse things cannot be dictated their own private and divergent natures; of themselves they are diverse and exhibit no tendency to make a pattern. It follows that the order of many among themselves either a matter of chance or it must be resolved into one first planner who has a purpose in mind. What comes about always or in the great majority of cases is not the result of accident. Therefore the whole of this world has but one planner or governor.”
Click to expand...
This argument cannot be fully understood unless it is interpreted in the light of Aristotle’s concept of “final causes”. St Thomas gave another version of the teleological argument:

“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”

The very existence of purposeful activity exposes the absurdity of the theory that **everything **can be explained mechanistically. Fortuitous events do not produce **consistently successful **results. A fortunate accident is a flash in the pan! The number of fortunate accidents required to create the harmony and beauty of the biosphere is so immense it is not worth considering.

No reasonable person would rely on Chance to solve a problem. Nor is it reasonable to worship the blind Goddess as the ultimate Cause of development. Her arrows fly all over the place but they are aimless like flashes of lightning. The only possible result of the reduction of reality to purposeless nonsense is - purposeless nonsense!
 
inocente said:
Hmmm. There are various posters with an emotional investment in a pet theory, and they will brook no criticism, for their pet theory is the fairest in the land, their theory is perfect and so all criticism must be falsehood, an abomination, an offense against all that is good and pure, etc.

There is a test to see if you’ve crossed over to that dark side – what are the three weakest points in your fine-tuning argument? I don’t mean the objections you addressed in your article (1.2), I mean three places where the logic is weakest, or which can be falsified by evidence.

All arguments have these weak points. You don’t need to post yours, but if you can’t immediately identify them in the fine-tuning argument then it must be the fairest in the land, it is perfect and so all criticism must be falsehood, an abomination, an offense against all that is good and pure, etc. 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t see much of an argument here.
 
PumpkinSeed said:
That has already been asked, so I went right to it. I want to see these studies.
Click to expand...
I see that I need to clarify post 2395 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9011522&postcount=2395

Knowing how to approach the evidence as in evidence for both design and chance is valuable.

I am not referring to ID studies in particular. One does need to look at the evidence in molecular biology research. However, as I recall, there are ID papers which do use some of the following when opposing random chance.

My point is that ordinary folk can also question contemporary research without publishing their own opposition paper. What follows can be used by either side of the question of design.

What I mentioned in post 2395, was published research. In other words, one looks at the already published and accepted research papers in molecular biology and related disciplines. Now what molecular studies which support your theory are you referring to? Or are you simply referring to the warehouses of supporting evidence? Or are you referring to the prime time sound bites used on CAF?

What I am driving at is that when one is debating the authenticity of any theory, it is not always necessary to start with a “new” research project from scratch. Of course, “new” research projects from scratch would be very nice; however, as my Irish Mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin cat.”

I continue to say that I respect the work of scientists.

What happens in the real world of science is that when a research paper is presented for publication, it is reviewed and evaluated by peers. After it is published, other scientists continue to examine the research. Often they will cite a particularly
good paper in their own future research papers. Or they will follow up with similar research using a better method or additional materials.

Ordinary folk can approach the fanciful concepts of warehouses of evidence or mountains of evidence with basic questions. Before asking these “basic questions”, in my humble opinion, one can assume that the written published conclusion based on the selective evidence and chosen method is usually on target.

Two basic questions are 1. Does the evidence warrant the interpretations? and 2. Can the interpretations be inferred by the evidence?

Note: the written published conclusions are by the author or authors. Interpretations can be given by anyone.

So, who is interpreting the warehouses and mountains of evidence?
What are the interpretations of already published molecular biology research?

Does the evidence in the published research lead to creative interpretations beyond the original author’s conclusions. Note: I have read some research in which the author did express personal interpretations of his own evidence which did go beyond the available hands-on data. In this case, the available evidence did not warrant the additional, universal interpretations.

Coupled with evidence are the methods. How many assumptions were the base of the chosen method? Practically speaking, some assumptions can be valid when they are within reasonable limits. However, when some assumptions go backwards thousands of years using retrospective calculations, it can be a tad difficult to account for all the variables.

Instead of looking for a strawman scientist, those who are interested in archaic history should examine contemporary research by asking the professional questions regarding evidence, methods, and materials. 1. Does the presented evidence warrant the interpretations? and 2. Can the interpretations be inferred by the presented evidence?
 
CORRECTION TO POST 2405.

In order to stay on topic, I am not proposing to study molecular biology research per se.

I include molecular biology as an example of a specific area of science as opposed to the general reference to warehouses of evidence and mountains of evidence which are often used as intimidation.

As the OP says – it is evidence that we are discussing. Thus it is important to know, in general, what evidence consists of, how it is found, and how it is processed.
What are the questions that need to be asked in order to determine the difference between reasonable conclusions and speculative interpretation? Is it always necessary to have specific lab work?
 
Al_Moritz said:
I don’t see much of an argument here.
Click to expand...
No point, I just get referred back to your article.

I’ve been asked to read lots of posters’ amazingly flawless theories, ranging from ID, dinosaurs with the Flintstones, and geocentricism through to the consciousness of dark energy and the quantum theory of transubstantiation. The one common theme is they all take their bat home at the merest hint that their theory might not be the fairest in the land. 🤷
 
tonyrey said:
This argument cannot be fully understood unless it is interpreted in the light of Aristotle’s concept of “final causes”. St Thomas gave another version of the teleological argument:

“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”
Click to expand...
He lost me, would you explain why he thinks a rock rolling down hill acts “so as to obtain the best result”? :confused:
 
tonyrey said:
He doesn’t.
Click to expand...
From your quote, Thomas says:
tonyrey said:
“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”
Click to expand...
Help me out here. A rock is a natural body, so when it rolls down a hill, how is it obtaining “the best result”? :confused:
 
inocente said:
He lost me, would you explain why he thinks a rock rolling down hill acts “so as to obtain the best result”? :confused:
Click to expand...
I think one has to read the whole thing in the whole context. So I will take a wild guess about the rock.

The rock is in the same category as the arrow. The arrow flies because an outside force, the archer is directing it. The rock rolls down the hill because of the outside force of gravity and strong winds which can set it in motion. The arrow’s shape has been designed by the archer so that it can fly toward the target (best result) and not boomerang. The rock has been formed by nature to be heavy enough so that it does not defy gravity (best result) and float up to the sky.

Both the arrow and the rock do not have the inherent intelligence to flip a coin so as to choose which way they will fly or roll and then do so. Neither one has been designed with opposable thumbs. They have been designed to act appropriately in their surroundings.

However, I disagree that St. Thomas is advocating Intelligent Design as it is known today. This is because when one reads St. Thomas in the context of his writings, one immediately recognizes that he does stop with “intelligence”. According to Catholicism, there is a lot more to God than being an excellent designer. Jesus Christ for example.
 
inocente said:
From your quote, Thomas says:

Help me out here. A rock is a natural body, so when it rolls down a hill, how is it obtaining “the best result”?
Click to expand...
I take it that he meant living organisms. Even if he didn’t the orderliness and consistency of physical objects enable living organisms and rational beings to exist and develop. He anticipated the fine tuning argument and rejected the Chance hypothesis that everything is ultimately absurd, irrational, purposeless, valueless and meaningless. In short, things don’t exist for no reason whatsoever…

“To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour.” - William Blake
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top