B
buffalo
Guest
The DNA code, not the molecule.
- Status
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I think you are talking about objective meaning in reality (teleological meaning). Objective meaning is not created by contingent processes; this is true. However, lets imagine DNA as “letters” symbolising distinct meanings. The possibility that there is meaning in DNA molecules does not change the fact that how the letters or molecules come together is a distinctly natural process which involves chance, natural selection, and random mutation; that’s a genuine and legitimate scientific inference. The inference that DNA code actually contains objective meaning is a philosophical inference based upon the principle of sufficient causality which, while such maybe a correct inference metaphysically speaking, has no relevance when one is attempting to identify the processes that bring the letters or DNA molecules together. Science wants to identify the physical processes involved in the conglomeration of molecules; whereas teleology seeks to identify the meaning behind the process.
The discovery of objective meaning is not a physical science. You cannot measure meaning with the scientific method; and thus it lays outside the epistemological circle of physics.
This is the difference between a mature teleology that attempts to work with science, and ID science which attempts to oppose scientific methodology.
G
grannymh
Guest
I understand what you are saying with limitations.
Regarding my previous point – “Being designed for eternal love is different from design found in material/physical nature.” Outside of discovering one explanation for Transubstantiation, my metaphysics course has left my memory bank. Hopefully some of it will return.
I am not discounting your reply, rather I tend to explore life from a both-and perspective. Being “designed for eternal love” is a poetical description of human nature. Nonetheless, I see human nature as both a structural issue and a metaphysical issue. I see both Catholic theology and science in general as contributors to human nature knowledge. From my both-and position I want apologists to consider both spiritual and material domains as vital regarding human information.
In simple words. Science must be conducted properly and Catholic doctrine must be properly understood.
Blessings,
granny
“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Precisely. Both.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Excellent post.
Buffalo needs to pay particular attention also to the last paragraph – which of course is understandable only within the context of the remainder of the post.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Excellent, I agree.
G
grannymh
Guest
From the little I have learned, it appears to me, that the measuring of objective meaning in biological sciences can be translated into “degrees of difference” and/or degrees of similarity between kinds (species). This would be considered as one of the natural tools of the scientific method. Important – This translation of “objective meaning measurement” does not imply that there is only one way of looking at “meaning” in natural science.
The above is why I am sad that ID is limited to only the material/physical domain. God designed another creature out of the box of the material/physical domain. If a Catholic apologist is to be successful, she or he has to have a basic understanding as to how “degrees” terminology, which do indicate an objective meaning, are used in both science and Catholic theology. I am also sad for Catholic apologetics.
B
buffalo
Guest
The DNA code stands out since languages always come from a mind.
P
preferanonymous
Guest
“Revelation tells us the moral law.”
I think this might not be the Catholic position depending on how you mean it. As I understand it, the natural law can be known without revelation. If this is right, and we agree about what we said regarding science, it would seem we that we might prefer another approach to ethics rather than the scientific/teleological. If there is no teleology that is not reliant on natural science, then either we would need to give up the teleological approach or we would need to say, as I think you do, that revelation does much if not all of the work with respect to morals.
This latter claim, it seems to me, is quite dangerous- for it would affirm the basis of liberalism, namely, that morality is not a matter of reason and ultimately depends on private religious views. Is this where Catholics want to go?
I think this might not be the Catholic position depending on how you mean it. As I understand it, the natural law can be known without revelation. If this is right, and we agree about what we said regarding science, it would seem we that we might prefer another approach to ethics rather than the scientific/teleological. If there is no teleology that is not reliant on natural science, then either we would need to give up the teleological approach or we would need to say, as I think you do, that revelation does much if not all of the work with respect to morals.
This latter claim, it seems to me, is quite dangerous- for it would affirm the basis of liberalism, namely, that morality is not a matter of reason and ultimately depends on private religious views. Is this where Catholics want to go?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Unless one is God!
E
edwest2
Guest
See Luke 8:24
bible.cc/luke/8-24.htm
and Luke 8:25
bible.cc/luke/8-25.htm
When God can manipulate the winds and the waves literally, we are faced with things only God can do - instantly. Otherwise, we only believe in a God that starts a process and leaves it to its own devices. We cannot have it both ways. A one size fits all worldview that can tack on the word or phrase “God” or “God was involved,” but can just as easily take it away. The only difference between believing things are designed and that things are not designed is one word: God.
When we have a scientist state that living things only look like they are designed, by what authority are we to believe him? In all honesty, couldn’t we take the approach that things are designed and start from that premise?
See the book: Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson for one example.
Peace,
Ed
bible.cc/luke/8-24.htm
and Luke 8:25
bible.cc/luke/8-25.htm
When God can manipulate the winds and the waves literally, we are faced with things only God can do - instantly. Otherwise, we only believe in a God that starts a process and leaves it to its own devices. We cannot have it both ways. A one size fits all worldview that can tack on the word or phrase “God” or “God was involved,” but can just as easily take it away. The only difference between believing things are designed and that things are not designed is one word: God.
When we have a scientist state that living things only look like they are designed, by what authority are we to believe him? In all honesty, couldn’t we take the approach that things are designed and start from that premise?
See the book: Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson for one example.
Peace,
Ed
T
tonyrey
Guest
Design is obviously considered not to be directed, controlled or even remotely controlled at any stage of proceedings lasting billions of years - as if it would be an admission of failure to alleviate any suffering subsequent to the initial act of Creation rather than act according to the principles revealed to us by the Son of God!
The repulsive policy of splendid isolation is thought to be carried out to the very last convulsion…
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Of course. Even those Catholics who do believe that God lets the laws of nature that He created do their developmental work, according to His planning, believe that God at times does perform physical miracles (at least when they are orthodox Catholics). And while God was physically on Earth, in the person of Jesus Christ, He performed many physical miracles.
But physical miracles and constant ‘design intervention’ are two entirely different things.
I prefer to believe in a God who performs miracles when He wants to, not when He has to, i.e. when the laws of nature that He created would be insufficient to acomplish His ends.
The latter appears to me as an impotent God, and I don’t believe in an impotent God. I believe in God Almighty.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The issue is **how often **does God perform miracles? Once a year?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I have repeatedly noticed that you seem to have a strange concern with the frequency of physical divine intervention, as if your faith is dependent on it. It almost seems you require (the illusion of) constant material proof to be comfortable with your faith. Perhaps that is a reason why you cling so much to biological ID, apart from your lack of scientific knowledge.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your false, discourteous and illogical argumenta ad hominem evade the question:
The issue is **how often **does God perform miracles?
To which can be added:
To what extent are the laws of nature He created insufficient to accomplish His ends?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Design is limited to only the material/physical domain by some individuals. In its most comprehensive form it applies to the whole of Creation.
T
tonyrey
Guest
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
How do I know? I am not God. Also, I don’t see the relevance of the question.
They aren’t. That’s the whole point. That is why physical, chemical and biological evolution of the universe work so perfectly. Obviously, in the spiritual domain there is no evolution (evolution is a material process), and God frequently performs special creation, that of the soul of each human being. He also communicates with us spiritually, of course, and gives us the wonder of the sacraments, including the miracle of the Holy Eucharist.
B
buffalo
Guest
I again ask these two questions:Unless one is God!
- Did God know what Adam would look like? (this one is pretty easy and the usual answer is yes)
- Did Adam look as God had planned? (this one is harder and many times the question is avoided.)
- Status