Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Buddhism is unconcerned with the origins of life.

then it is deficient because the origin of life throws light on its nature.

Buddha said “I teach suffering and the end of suffering”.

An **unbalanced **view of life.

Buddhism is about the human condition, not abstract philosophical or scientific speculation.

What constitutes the human condition is a metaphysical issue.

So its very compatible with science.It also doesn’t matter whether a god created the world or not**,** Buddhism still works and considers God’s existence irrelevant, especially due to the Problem of Evil.

Contradictory statements!
It remains to be proved that “Buddhism still works”.

Life is pretty pessimistic, full of pain and suffering.

**Life **is not pessimistic; individuals regard it as " full" (!) of pain and suffering.

What kind of monster denies that? The world is an ocean of suffering.

A gross exaggeration and a nihilistic view of life.

Buddha said the world is like a burning house. People should take the suffering of the world seriously and focus on the Dharma above all else and avoid sensory pleasures, because the Dharma alone brings true happiness in this world.

Many people who are not Buddhists take the suffering of the world seriously and focus on alleviating it rather than adopting a negative attitude to life in this world
and rejecting the value of sensory pleasures.

 

[buffalo]

Getting back to design - Prof John Walton shows the impossibility of the RNA world scenario. This will be of special interest to Al Moritz and others.

The Origin of Life - Professor John Walton demonstates the odds against a random start

 

[reggieM]

Getting back to design - Prof John Walton shows the impossibility of the RNA world scenario. This will be of special interest to Al Moritz and others.

The Origin of Life - Professor John Walton demonstates the odds against a random start

He holds two doctorates and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Key points from his talk as summarized by Vincent Torley:

– Statistically, the chance of forming even one “useful” RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.
– The complexity of the first self-replicating system, and the information needed to build it, imply intelligent design.
– Hope of beating the colossal odds against random formation of replicating RNA is based on ideology rather than science.
– As lab experiments on model replicators become more complex they demonstrate the need for (name removed by moderator)ut from intelligent mind(s).
– Acceptance of an early earth atmosphere free of oxygen atoms strains belief beyond breaking point!
– No chemically or geologically plausible routes to nucleotides or RNA strands have been developed.
– Geological field work shows no support for a “prebiotic soup.” It favors little change in the atmosphere over time. Living things have been present since the first crustal rocks.
– After over 50 years of sterile origin of life research it is time to give intelligent design a fair hearing.

 

[Al_Moritz]

– The complexity of the first self-replicating system, and the information needed to build it, imply intelligent design.

What nonsense. The first self-replicating system would have been incredibly simple, see my article. In my article you can study an overview of what the real cutting edge of origin life research is all about:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

If against all evidence you want to continue to cling to biological ID please do so. But don’t complain if others do not find it credible.

 

[Al_Moritz]

“- No chemically or geologically plausible routes to nucleotides or RNA strands have been developed.”

Really? How old is this talk anyway? Before 2009? Read my article for new developments.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al

**If against all evidence you want to continue to cling to biological ID please do so. But don’t complain if others do not find it credible. **

Try not to complain if others find it rather credible?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al

**If against all evidence you want to continue to cling to biological ID please do so. But don’t complain if others do not find it credible. **

Try not to complain if others find it rather credible?

Seriously, it is the difference between scientific knowledge of the issues and not.

Look, I have repeatedly admitted that I was a (biological) ID guy myself. Until I actually studied things in more detail, and the origin of life in real depth – by exhaustively delving into the primary scientific literature.

 

[grannymh]

Seriously, it is the difference between scientific knowledge of the issues and not.

Look, I have repeatedly admitted that I was a (biological) ID guy myself. Until I actually studied things in more detail, and the origin of life in real depth – by exhaustively delving into the primary scientific literature.

May I add…
So far, I have not seen anything which links (biological) ID with the Catholic doctrines regarding human nature, including its origin and purpose.

 

[Sair]

It is an arrogant presumption to believe that one’s desire that the universe is purposeless is satisfied - thereby removing any obstacle to the satisfaction of** all** one’s desires!

That doesn’t even make sense. An acceptance of the indifference of the universe and the limitation, relative insignificance, and finality of human existence (which I can assure you, I did not come to because I subjectively wished it) necessarily involves an acceptance that we cannot fulfil all the deepest desires we might have - certainly not without significant and sometimes overwhelming efforts on our part. An eternal afterlife does, however, afford the possibility of ultimate fulfilment through adherence to concrete rules, which is why, I suspect, so many people cling to belief in such a thing in the face of a profound lack of evidence.

An argumentum ad hominem. Your question has no bearing on the nature of reality. An equally irrelevant - but revealing - question would be:

What do you expect to gain from your rejection of religion?

A question about what you hope to gain from your beliefs hardly constitutes an argumentum ad hominem, particularly when it is asked in response to a more-or-less direct accusation (one continually and doggedly levelled despite numerous refutations) of the desire to be absolved of all possible responsibility. But perhaps it would have been fairer to ask what you feel your beliefs offer you, that a lack of belief would not. I did not, in advance, reject belief in supernatural deities and eternal persistence of human consciousness because I thought, in advance, that it would make me feel better. Quite the opposite, in fact. I fought against belief in ultimate meaninglessness for as long as I could, until it impressed itself upon me as the most likely possibility. As to what I would gain from such a belief, if anything it would have to be the comfort of knowing that I can, with equanimity, accept the harsher of two alternatives - if there is, in fact, something to be had beyond this life, I will be pleasantly surprised (although religious believers may have other thoughts on that, since I reject belief in their deities-of-choice). I will continue to do what I believe is good, just because I believe it is good and that it will afford me subjective satisfaction; and if the one true god is a genuinely rational and benevolent being, he/she/it will appreciate my efforts.

What is the basis of that assumption?

Traditional Christian belief - including the Catholicism in which I was brought up - holds that only humans have souls, only humans have the possibility of true understanding and appreciation of spiritual reality, and only humans will go on to experience eternal union with God. Only humans - that is, one species inhabiting one planet in a vast universe. Why only us?

 

[grannymh]

That doesn’t even make sense. An acceptance of the indifference of the universe and the limitation, relative insignificance, and finality of human existence (which I can assure you, I did not come to because I subjectively wished it) necessarily involves an acceptance that we cannot fulfil all the deepest desires we might have - certainly not without significant and sometimes overwhelming efforts on our part. An eternal afterlife does, however, afford the possibility of ultimate fulfilment through adherence to concrete rules, which is why, I suspect, so many people cling to belief in such a thing in the face of a profound lack of evidence.

A question about what you hope to gain from your beliefs hardly constitutes an argumentum ad hominem, particularly when it is asked in response to a more-or-less direct accusation (one continually and doggedly levelled despite numerous refutations) of the desire to be absolved of all possible responsibility. But perhaps it would have been fairer to ask what you feel your beliefs offer you, that a lack of belief would not. I did not, in advance, reject belief in supernatural deities and eternal persistence of human consciousness because I thought, in advance, that it would make me feel better. Quite the opposite, in fact. I fought against belief in ultimate meaninglessness for as long as I could, until it impressed itself upon me as the most likely possibility. As to what I would gain from such a belief, if anything it would have to be the comfort of knowing that I can, with equanimity, accept the harsher of two alternatives - if there is, in fact, something to be had beyond this life, I will be pleasantly surprised (although religious believers may have other thoughts on that, since I reject belief in their deities-of-choice). I will continue to do what I believe is good, just because I believe it is good and that it will afford me subjective satisfaction; and if the one true god is a genuinely rational and benevolent being, he/she/it will appreciate my efforts.

Traditional Christian belief - including the Catholicism in which I was brought up - holds that only humans have souls, only humans have the possibility of true understanding and appreciation of spiritual reality, and only humans will go on to experience eternal union with God. Only humans - that is, one species inhabiting one planet in a vast universe. Why only us?

I have known for a long time that there can be difficult struggles when one is considering some form of non-theism. To even address some of those issues is beyond me. However, I can tackle the last question "Why only us?

"Why only us? is a question which belongs in the Ivory Tower of hypothetical discussions. The real life question is "Why can humans, themselves, go beyond death to experience eternal peace in a supernatural realm?

 

[tonyrey]

It is an arrogant presumption to believe that one’s desire that the universe is purposeless is satisfied - thereby removing any obstacle to the satisfaction of all one’s desires!

Your overriding motive for rejecting belief in God was to liberate yourself from the obstacle to the fulfilment of your desires - as you yourself have admitted. You are now rationalising your decision by seeking reasons to prove that life is ultimately purposeless.

An eternal afterlife does, however, afford the possibility of ultimate fulfilment, which is why, I suspect, so many people cling to belief in such a thing in the face of a profound lack of evidence.

There is a profound lack of evidence that life is fundamentally purposeless:

“A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere the careless, the most stupid thinker.” - David Hume

A question about what you hope to gain from your beliefs hardly constitutes an argumentum ad hominem, particularly when it is asked in response to a more-or-less direct accusation (one continually and doggedly levelled despite numerous refutations) of the desire to be absolved of all possible responsibility.

The issue is not the absence of responsibility but the rational basis of responsibility - which you have chosen to reject in favour of subjective opinion.

But perhaps it would have been fairer to ask what you feel your beliefs offer you, that a lack of belief would not. I did not, in advance, reject belief in supernatural deities and eternal persistence of human consciousness because I thought, in advance, that it would make me feel better. Quite the opposite, in fact. I fought against belief in ultimate meaninglessness for as long as I could, until it impressed itself upon me as the most likely possibility.

How do you derive meaning from that which is meaningless?

As to what I would gain from such a belief, if anything it would have to be the comfort of knowing that I can, with equanimity, accept the harsher of two alternatives - if there is, in fact, something to be had beyond this life, I will be pleasantly surprised (although religious believers may have other thoughts on that, since I reject belief in their deities-of-choice). I will continue to do what I believe is good, just because I believe it is good, and if the one true god is a genuinely rational and benevolent being, he/she/it will appreciate my efforts.

Where did you obtain your belief in goodness in the first place?

Traditional Christian belief - including the Catholicism in which I was brought up - holds that only humans have souls, only humans have the possibility of true understanding and appreciation of spiritual reality, and only humans will go on to experience eternal union with God. Only humans - that is, one species inhabiting one planet in a vast universe. Why only us?

Is there a Catholic doctrine stating that the only persons in the universe exist on this planet?

 

[grannymh]

Where did you obtain your belief in goodness in the first place?

Literally anyone can find some form of “goodness” by realizing that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[tonyrey]

He holds two doctorates and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Key points from his talk as summarized by Vincent Torley:
– Statistically, the chance of forming even one “useful” RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.
– The complexity of the first self-replicating system, and the information needed to build it, imply intelligent design.
– Hope of beating the colossal odds against random formation of replicating RNA is based on ideology rather than science.
– As lab experiments on model replicators become more complex they demonstrate the need for (name removed by moderator)ut from intelligent mind(s).
– Acceptance of an early earth atmosphere free of oxygen atoms strains belief beyond breaking point!
– No chemically or geologically plausible routes to nucleotides or RNA strands have been developed.
– Geological field work shows no support for a “prebiotic soup.” It favors little change in the atmosphere over time. Living things have been present since the first crustal rocks.
– After over 50 years of sterile origin of life research it is time to give intelligent design a fair hearing.

The sheer amount of time and energy devoted by scientists to research into the origin of life is overwhelming evidence that its immense complexity is not due to a “fortuitous concourse of atoms”. GIGO An information system does not proceed from inanimate objects devoid of insight - unless one is a devout materialist!

 

[Sair]

Your overriding motive for rejecting belief in God was to liberate yourself from the obstacle to the fulfilment of your desires - as you yourself have admitted. You are now rationalising your decision by seeking reasons to prove that life is ultimately purposeless.

Where have I admitted such a thing in the context of what you assume to be the nature my desires? It is quite clear that you view human desires as fundamentally flawed, when in fact they are all we have to go on; religion has a way of amplifying the more unattractive and divisive of our desires.

There is a profound lack of evidence that life is fundamentally purposeless:

Where?

“A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere the careless, the most stupid thinker.” - David Hume

But not, obviously, the more astute thinker…

The issue is not the absence of responsibility but the rational basis of responsibility - which you have chosen to reject in favour of subjective opinion.

Without accepting at least a certain degree of responsibility, we would never actually do anything, even feed ourselves. Rationality is derived from our understanding of cause and effect - if we don’t eat, we die.

How do you derive meaning from that which is meaningless?

Meaning is what I derive from my experiences of the world, and my relationships with others. How do you suppose life refers to anything other than itself? That is, after all, what meaning ultimately requires. Why do we have to be here for some other, overriding purpose?

Where did you obtain your belief in goodness in the first place?

Subjective experience. Where else? ‘Goodness’ is a subjective judgement.

Is there a Catholic doctrine stating that the only persons in the universe exist on this planet?

I’m unaware of either a Catholic doctrine or a scientific study identifying any life on other planets. This doesn’t, of course, mean that life and even intelligent life does not exist on other planets, just that we haven’t yet discovered it - the universe is, after all, vast. Having said that, Catholic doctrine was invented by people who believed the earth was the centre of the universe, and whose vision was therefore quite truncated.

 

[tonyrey]

Where did you obtain your belief in goodness in the first place?

In practice the belief that those worthy of profound respect is often restricted to one’s family, friends and pets…

 

[Sair]

In practice the belief that those worthy of profound respect is often restricted to one’s family, friends and pets…

Yet, strangely enough, we are also capable of recognising that pretty much everyone we meet is the relative, friend or pet of someone, and thus means the same to someone else as our own loved ones mean to us. Perception and understanding of cause and effect, generalisation from specific circumstances - these are handy functions performed by our complex, highly evolved brains.

 

[tonyrey]

Your overriding motive for rejecting belief in God was to liberate yourself from the obstacle to the fulfilment of your desires - as you yourself have admitted. You are now rationalising your decision by seeking reasons to prove that life is ultimately purposeless.

I have no wish to embarrass you by referring to your statements on another thread.

It is quite clear that you view human desires as fundamentally flawed, when in fact they are all we have to go on; religion has a way of amplifying the more unattractive and divisive of our desires.

A false deduction and an unsubstantiated generalisation!

There is a profound lack of evidence that life is fundamentally purposeless:

Where?

In life itself!

“A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere the careless, the most stupid thinker.” - David Hume

But not, obviously, the more astute thinker…

You are obviously unaware that Hume was a sceptic…

The issue is not the absence

of responsibility but the rational basis of responsibility - which you have chosen to reject in favour of subjective opinion.
Without accepting at least a certain degree of responsibility, we would never actually do anything, even feed ourselves.

Is morality limited to survival?

How do you derive meaning from that which is meaningless?

Meaning is manifest in my experiences of the world, and those of others.

Meaning is manifest in your **interpretation **of your experiences.

How do you suppose life refers to anything other than itself?

Nothing can explain itself - unless it is divine…

That is, after all, what meaning ultimately requires. Why do we have to be here for some other, overriding purpose?

Why do we have to be?!

Where did you obtain your belief in goodness in the first place?

Subjective experience. Where else? ‘Goodness’ is a subjective judgement.

So you owe nothing to anyone or anything else?

Is there a Catholic doctrine stating that the only persons in the universe exist on this planet

?
I’m unaware of either a Catholic doctrine or a scientific study identifying any life on other planets. This doesn’t, of course, mean that life and even intelligent life does not exist on other planets, just that we haven’t yet discovered it - the universe is, after all, vast. Having said that, Catholic doctrine was invented by people who believed the earth was the centre of the universe, and whose vision was therefore quite truncated.

Catholic doctrine was not invented by people but based on the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who created the wonder and beauty of nature of which we are the custodians. It is not a scientific compendium but a set of historical, moral and spiritual truths safeguarded by the Apostolic Church.

 

[Al_Moritz]

May I add…
So far, I have not seen anything which links (biological) ID with the Catholic doctrines regarding human nature, including its origin and purpose.

Precisely! Thank you.

You understand the issues.

 

[grannymh]

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

In practice the belief that those worthy of profound respect is often restricted to one’s family, friends and pets…

In human eyes, you are probably right about your neighborhood or a larger area.

However, the Catholic [universal] Church looks at the teachings of St. Paul regarding Christ’s death as the Salvific event for all people. No restrictions allowable. “All people” is based on the fact that Adam and Eve are the sole founders of humanity.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

You keep saying that grannymh, but where is the evidence? Why can’t I just eat a human especially if they taste like chicken.