Al,
But ID science (not theology) is limited to the natural world and the creation story minus Adam and Eve. What is happening now is that design in general is being talked about whereas ID science is saying that design in particular over rules the “chance” factor in the natural world.
I just want to say that I do not think that I am sure about this last bit is to be expressed, about talk of design as nonsense, is true. Nor am I sure whether or not, if it is nonsense, it means anything to say that it can be shown. I suppose it might be true that I mentioned this, I think, more to try and appeal to those on this forum who feel something is important about the idea of design than because I thought it, design, was true.
Yes, exactly, and very clearly stated here. Natural engineering is evidence of the fine-tuning that can be found in nature. Not only are natural laws inadequate to explain these sophisticated functions, but human intelligence itself cannot even understand how these functions work, much less how they supposedly were generated from natural processes.
The reason I let this go is that you already accept biological ID. When you argue that natural laws cannot explain the existence of the immaterial mind (and thus, free-will, the moral law and consciousness) then that is saying exactly what you criticize here – that a designer creates within nature.
I can provide many examples from St. Thomas and from St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom and other Fathers of the Church. But how will this information help you? Won’t you simply dismiss it as you’ve done with the claim that St. Thomas was not a scientist?
So is biological ID.
You’ve contradicted the above. You state first that it is a scientific finding. Then you say it is philosophical.
Note what I just pointed out. Cosmological ID points out that science is inadequate to explain the fine-tuning which is observable. Biological ID does the same thing.
Science does not support cosmological ID either – but you have no problem with that.
I don’t understand that. Biological ID uses the scientific method. It also uses methodological naturalism – just as cosmological ID does.
Since the soul is immaterial, as we both agree, it is not part of human biology. It is part of human nature, which emcompasses biology (material (body) and soul. And no, I do not accept biological ID. Please do not obfuscate the issues.
One cannot accept the Catholic Faith with a non-design position in a wider sense. Of course the universe was designed as it wad created. The term “ID” is commonly used for biological ID as I have pointed out to you before, and should not be used otherwise. Please do not obfuscate the issues.
That’s a very important point. The design argument is based on the truth that God sustains nature continually.
In your dreams.
That is not what I said. I first said that fine-tuning is a scientific finding, and that, when taken into the realm of philosophy, it becomes a design argument (or can become one, depending on the philosophy).
You’ve given evidence to support your belief by referring to natural phenomena. You stated that the enlargement of the human brain was evidence of the presence of the soul.
In the narrow sense. Please be clear – are you stating that there is no evidence of design cannot be observed in biological nature? That is the anti-ID position. If that is your position then, your view is in conflict with the Catholic Faith.
The universe includes biological life and the human person (each person is created directly by God).
The existence of consciousness, free-will and a moral sense in humans are scientific findings also.
Exactly. It’s impossible to be a Catholic and claim that there is no evidence of design in nature.
I just pointed out that fine-tuning qua science is not a design argument; it becomes only a design argument as philosophical argument from science. As a philosophical argument it transcends the methodological naturalism of science.
I think you are confused about what people are actually claiming rubbishThat is not what I said. I said that there may be a possibility of such but it was a mere speculation (not evidence), and I am not sufficiently interesting to expand on it at this point. Again, as as so often, you twist my words. it becomes really tiresome.
Science is the analysis of observable phenomena. Science didn’t begin with the scientific method. But even if you accept that, materialists even before the coming of Christ claimed that the mind was a physical phenomenon.
I have never heard that before. Are you saying that we didn’t know we had minds, freewill, and a moral sense, before the scientific method came along?
I can show you scientific literature from the most prominent #######ary biologists in the world. But it might be better if you offer your point of view. Are you asserting that science does not claim to have an explanation for the origin of free-will, the mind and the moral sense in human beings?
I’ll interpret this to mean:
There is evidence of design in nature. But there is no scientific evidence of design in nature.
That is a different context of miracle. That’s got very little to do with designing the universe. Also the physical attributes remain unchanged. What you witness at mass is more like an incarnation, rather than a physical transformation.
Since you stated “Biological ID shows that natural, biological laws cannot produce free-will (or consciousness, or the mind, or moral awareness).” I would like to analyze the "Biological ID which you refer to. I would also like to analyze the claims that free-will is caused by material processes. I am especially interested in those processes. I would like to compare these claims to a research paper I have.