Evidence for Design?

[Candide_West]

Design is not a substitute for explanations. It is an explanation of explanations!

You said “design explains…” I was agreeing with you that “design” in a broad sense can explain more or less anything you want it to. But that isn’t evidence that such a design exists. To be fair I don’t think your original point was that it did. So my statement may well have been moot.

*God cannot be used to explain fortuitous events or human decisions.

And yet God very often IS used to explain fortuitous events and human decisions. I have personally witnessed people thanking God for things that I’d done for them, or events with a large degree of chance such as just avoiding a car crash. In both cases the people concerned honestly believed that God had intervened to help them. Either through luck or agency of people.

*No one has ever explained the increase in complexity.

Yes, they have. In fact every competently written book on evolution and evolutionary biology that I’ve ever read explains increasing complexity. It’s really one of the key features of the whole deal.*

*On the contrary. All the laws of the universe require a rational explanation.

And scientists are of course trying to understand why the laws of the physics etc are the way they are. But nobody seems to have a complete picture yet.

*If they’re not laws how do explain the success of science?

Well it depends what you mean by a “law” I guess. There is certainly some evidence that the “universal constants” may not be constant and there’s now a hefty lump of doubt on whether the “universal speed limit” can actually be broken etc.

I’m not* positing any being. I am inferring **that rational, purposeful activity has a rational, purposeful cause.

Fair enough, but you are saying that x, y and z appear to have been designed. But if I’m to have any confidence in your ability to tell me that some things are designed, then you have to be able to tell the difference between designed and not-designed.*

So… What do you mean by designed as opposed to undesigned? Also how can we tell whether one thing we look at is designed while another is not. Also perhaps some examples? What things in the universe do you believe were not subjected to a design process?

*Why do you think SETI is doing?

It is searching for signals which appear to have been generated by intelligent life. One of the keys things in such a project was to define what we would expect to observe in signals generated by intelligent life. Perhaps with answers to the above questions we’ll be able to progress in this direction.

 

[Candide_West]

I think you have to start by accepting that design exists. That’s an axiom or starting point.

If you say “there is no such thing as design”, then it’s true that the word “design” can explain anything, since it will have no meaning.

But ordinary life shows that intelligent, planned, intent – towards goals – does exist.

If it didn’t, we couldn’t have a criminal justice system, for example. Or even any educational system. There could be no designed plan to teach students. Randomly doing whatever would be the same as learning from a designed program.

So to discuss the topic, you have to start with an agreement on that first point.

Design exists. We see it as a product of intelligence. Designed things have certain characteristics that we can observe.

Yes, indeed. I agree that some things are designed. All of the things which I would refer to as designed however were designed by humans. While none of the items identified by TR were. So I’m looking for clarity on what is being referred to by the word “design” here.

 

[shoe]

Again, science is bound by methodological naturalism. This is its method, otherwise it would not be science – by definition.

I think that when methodological naturalism comes across as being objectively uninfluenced by personal prejudices, it could very well be acting as a blind for metaphysical materialism, which basically assumes that even if God exists (or anything supernatural) it would not be evident in the universe.

Methodological naturalism says that scientists must do their work as if God did not exist; and that everything they investigate can be explained only by time, chance, and the laws of nature. But actually the founding fathers of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, calculus; Louis Pastor, bacteriology; Charles Babbage, computer science, etc., were all devout Christians who had based their research on the assumption that the universe was designed by a Designer.

It was their belief in the Supernatural Designer (God) that led the founding fathers of modern science to believe that they could logically understand the scientific intelligibility of the universe because the God who made the universe was also the God who made the human mind.

And I believe it was this understanding of the Supernatural Creator by these early Christian pioneers of modern science that made it possible for mankind to be able to uncover and comprehend the mathematical explanation of the laws and wonders of nature.

“The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Sir Isaac Newton

 

[reggieM]

Yes, indeed. I agree that some things are designed. All of the things which I would refer to as designed however were designed by humans.

Would you accept that animals can design things?

 

[reggieM]

That disease of wanting to give anything the label ‘scientific’ just to make it ‘sound better’ appears to come from the culture of scientism, which is the idea that only scientific knowledge is rational and valid knowledge. Not just atheists, also Christians appear to be infected with this culture.

That is actually a good point - something necessary to be aware of.
But there’s also another important aspect.
The scientific culture itself is the primary source of scientism. Certainly, the “banned topic” community is almost entirely of the belief that everything is reducible to science.
Therefore, the only way that Christians can effectively convince such people is to use the terms that atheists use – and that is to argue as if scientism was true. That is the only worldview that such people accept. They think that the only knowledge is scientific.
So, you have to show them that science is inadequate for many kinds of knowledge – and you do that by using science to demonstrate those limits.

 

[reggieM]

I wish everyone shared your opinion, Reggie, but we mustn’t be too ambitious… .

True words, Tony – we have to practice some patience.

1. Neuroscientists work on the principle that the mind can be explained in terms of brain functions

That’s right – they reduce the mind to a biological function.

1. Therefore neuroscientists are attempting to establish a metaphysical as well as a scientific explanation of the mind

That is interesting and true also. Interesting, because neuroscientists can deny that they’re doing that, but they’re not arguing from the metaphysical perspective. From the philosophical perspective, they’re attempting to establish a scientific explanation for a metaphysical reality.

1. Even though we believe they are misguided they are entitled to their opinion and modus operandi

Exactly. The rules governing what is or isn’t science are not sacred or immutable.

1. Therefore science and metaphysics cannot always be clearly demarcated

Exactly right again. For the great number of scientists who reduce all of reality to material functions, metaphysical thought is itself just a neurological/chemical process in the brain.

1. The Design argument is another attempt to establish a metaphysical conclusion based on scientific facts

There shouldn’t be any problem with that.

1. SETI uses scientific methods to discover a metaphysical conclusion, i.e. whether persons exist elsewhere in the universe

That is a great point – I had not heard that before. Again, that’s the way it works.

1. That metaphysical conclusion has no bearing on the metaphysical nature of persons

True – science cannot determine what a person is, but it attempts to do so anyway. In fact, science claims to know the “origin of human life”, but science cannot determine what human life is without using metaphysics.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Methodological naturalism says that scientists must do their work as if God did not exist;

It says nothing of that kind. It only says that natural causes for natural effects should be investigated. For a theist natural causes are simply secondary causes which God, the primary cause, created – they are not ‘godless causes’. Only for a naturalist they are '‘godless causes’. But regardless of their philosophical view on natural causes, theists and atheist scientists alike investigate their workings. Theists and atheist scientists alike perform the same science; their scientific activity is indiscernible.

and that everything they investigate can be explained only by time, chance, and the laws of nature.

Make that: the laws of nature.

But actually the founding fathers of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, calculus; Louis Pastor, bacteriology; Charles Babbage, computer science, etc., were all devout Christians who had based their research on the assumption that the universe was designed by a Designer.

That is correct. But their belief was of God as a lawgiver, and that is what they wanted to investigate, the ‘laws of nature’ (originally thus a religious term): how natural causes for natural effects operate. Thus they in fact invented methodological naturalism (even though the term itself was coined much later). Methodological naturalism is not an ‘atheist invention’ – quite the contrary.

Certainly, there are some scientists (and ignorant non-scientist theists and atheists as well) who conflate methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. But the two are distinct: the former is a method, the latter is a worldview. And clearly, scientists who believe in God would never conflate the two.

It was their belief in the Supernatural Designer (God) that led the founding fathers of modern science to believe that they could logically understand the scientific intelligibility of the universe because the God who made the universe was also the God who made the human mind.

And I believe it was this understanding of the Supernatural Creator by these early Christian pioneers of modern science that made it possible for mankind to be able to uncover and comprehend the mathematical explanation of the laws and wonders of nature.

“The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Sir Isaac Newton

Precisely.

 

[reggieM]

True – science cannot determine what a person is, but it attempts to do so anyway. In fact, science claims to know the “origin of human life”, but science cannot determine what human life is without using metaphysics.

I should add – the “origin of human life” is a subject for metaphysics. Human beings cannot be reduced to biology and chemistry and therefore, science cannot even explain what the true nature of a human person is, much less the origin.

However, the entire scientific enterprise supports a so-called scientific theory on this very topic.
To claim that “some scientists” conflate science and metaphysics is laughably absurd. It is the entire academic discipline called “science” that does this.

 

[tonyrey]

That is actually a good point - something necessary to be aware of.
But there’s also another important aspect.
The scientific culture itself is the primary source of scientism. Certainly, the “banned topic” community is almost entirely of the belief that everything is reducible to science.
Therefore, the only way that Christians can effectively convince such people is to use the terms that atheists use – and that is to argue **as if **scientism was true. That is the only worldview that such people accept. They think that the only knowledge is scientific.
So, you have to show them that science is inadequate for many kinds of knowledge – and you do that by using science to demonstrate those limits.

In other words you have to use a Trojan horse! :clapping:

 

[tonyrey]

I should add – the “origin of human life” is a subject for metaphysics. Human beings cannot be reduced to biology and chemistry and therefore, science cannot even explain what the true nature of a human person is, much less the origin.

However, the entire scientific enterprise supports a so-called scientific theory on this very topic.
To claim that “some scientists” conflate science and metaphysics is laughably absurd. It is the entire academic discipline called “science” that does this.

In other words they confuse a heuristic principle with a constititutive principle to such an extent that they convince themselves they can discover a Theory of Everything!

The sparks in the dark succeed in illuminating the entire universe…

 

[Al_Moritz]

I should add – the “origin of human life” is a subject for metaphysics. Human beings cannot be reduced to biology and chemistry and therefore, science cannot even explain what the true nature of a human person is, much less the origin.

That is correct, but science nonetheless can give an ever more detailed account of the biological origins of humans. There is nothing wrong with that at all, and it is very desirable knowledge, even though it is just part of the story.

However, the entire scientific enterprise supports a so-called scientific theory on this very topic.
To claim that “some scientists” conflate science and metaphysics is laughably absurd. It is the entire academic discipline called “science” that does this.

This shows again that you have no clue about science.

First of all, each scientist works in a very narrow field of expertise, and their knowledge of other scientific disciplines is usually rather limited. Few biochemists know about cosmology for example, and few geologists know about biological anthropology. So even if it were so that all biologists who study human origins would conflate science with metaphysics, this would affect other scientists very little. And certainly even if that were the case it would be preposterous to claim that it involves, in your words, ‘the entire academic discipline called “science”’.

Also, science itself does not conflate itself with metaphysics – it is individual scientists who do. The fact that science looks for biological origins of humans does not suggest in itself that ‘science’ believes that this is the whole story – individual scientists, and certainly not all of them, do.

Second, it would be hard to believe that there are no biologists who study human origins that are not theists. These would never conflate science with metaphysics. Also in other fields that study parts of human nature you would find theists who would not do that. Take for example neuroscientist John Eccles. He won the Nobel Prize for his work on the synapse, but he was also a firm believer in God and an immaterial soul. He never brought his belief in the human soul to the lab bench – that is not where it can be studied according to scientific methodology – but he was never silent about his personal beliefs either. Yet obviously he knew that he was not speaking as a scientist about these beliefs. Science does not negate nor confirm such beliefs as science. Metaphysical beliefs or disbeliefs are simply irrelevant to its proceedings.

And that you have shown throughout this thread that you are not willing to accept how science works even from me, a Catholic scientist, thus a believer who is also a knowing insider, but instead only keep listening to your own prejudices – now that is laughably absurd.

 

[tonyrey]

I should add – the “origin of human life” is a subject for metaphysics. Human beings cannot be reduced to biology and chemistry and therefore, science cannot even explain what the true nature of a human person is, much less the origin.

However, the entire scientific enterprise supports a so-called scientific theory on this very topic.
To claim that “some scientists” conflate science and metaphysics is laughably absurd. It is the entire academic discipline called “science” that does this.

Some scientists believe science has demonstrated that metaphysics is superfluous. One materialist on this forum described truth as an “isomorph” of atomic particles!

 

[Al_Moritz]

There appears to be this naive belief among non-scientists that science is this ominous big fat ‘enemy’, out to destroy metaphysical worldviews. In reality, science does not at all care about worldviews, one way or another, and they are practically never discussed in scientific journals, and if they are, which happens extremely rarely, then only on their opinion pages, not in scientific articles proper.

Popular science books written by scientists with a metaphysical agenda are a different story. But these are not the same as science itself. And do not confuse Scientific American with a peer-reviewed scientific journal that serves as the actual vehicle to publish primary scientific data.

 

[tonyrey]

]Design is not a substitute for explanations. It is an explanation of explanations!

God cannot be used to explain fortuitous events or human decisions.

And yet God very often IS used to explain fortuitous events and human decisions. I have personally witnessed people thanking God for things that I’d done for them, or events with a large degree of chance such as just avoiding a car crash. In both cases the people concerned honestly believed that God had intervened to help them. Either through luck or agency of people.

You are assuming God does not exist and never intervenes. It is impossible for us to know whether particular events are fortuitous or even whether human decisions are influenced by God but there is abundant evidence of scientifically inexplicable cases of survival.

No one has ever explained the increase in complexity.

Yes, they have. In fact every competently written book on evolution and evolutionary biology that I’ve ever read explains increasing complexity. It’s really one of the key features of the whole deal.

They explain what has occurred but they do not explain **the laws of nature **which cause the increase in complexity, nor the cause of the initial state of the universe, nor the mechanisms which cause diversification and organization.

On the contrary. All the laws of the universe require a rational explanation.

And scientists are of course trying to understand why the laws of the physics etc are the way they are. But nobody seems to have a complete picture yet.

Explanations in terms of **physical **causality are not rational explanations!

If they’re not laws how do explain the success of science?

Well it depends what you mean by a “law” I guess. There is certainly some evidence that the “universal constants” may not be constant and there’s now a hefty lump of doubt on whether the “universal speed limit” can actually be broken etc.

The laws of nature have been sufficiently constant for billions of years to serve as a basis for development. The onus is on you to explain the success of science if you reject the **fundamental **order and regularity of events in the universe.

I’m not positing any being. I am inferring that rational, purposeful activity has a rational, purposeful cause.

Fair enough, but you are saying that x, y and z appear to have been designed. But if I’m to have any confidence in your ability to tell me that some things are designed, then you have to be able to tell the difference between designed and not-designed.

Complex organization which universally and consistently produces successful results that cannot be explained by physical causes.

So… What do you mean by designed as opposed to undesigned? Also how can we tell whether one thing we look at is designed while another is not. Also perhaps some examples? What things in the universe do you believe were not subjected to a design process?

Coincidences which are dysteleological like deformities and natural disasters…

Why do you think SETI is doing?

It is searching for signals which appear to have been generated by intelligent life. One of the keys things in such a project was to define what we would expect to observe in signals generated by intelligent life. Perhaps with answers to the above questions we’ll be able to progress in this direction.

Consistent order and regularity which serve as a basis for purposeful activity and rational consequences that have never been produced by fortuitous coincidences.

 

[Candide_West]

Would you accept that animals can design things?

Well it really depends what you mean by the term “design”. Again if you want to talk about if x is designed then you’re going to need to define what you mean by designed.

I’d actually tend to disagree, animals certainly build things. But that doesn’t mean that they designed them or even understand what they are doing. For example spiders build incredibly complex webs, but I wouldn’t say they design them. They are producing them by following a set of highly complex instructions which evolved to be part of their genetic makeup.

Again it comes down to how you define “designed”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well it really depends what you mean by the term “design”. Again if you want to talk about if x is designed then you’re going to need to define what you mean by designed.

I’d actually tend to disagree, animals certainly build things. But that doesn’t mean that they designed them or even understand what they are doing. For example spiders build incredibly complex webs, but I wouldn’t say they design them. They are producing them by following a set of highly complex instructions which evolved to be part of their genetic makeup.

I agree.

 

[buffalo]

There appears to be this naive belief among non-scientists that science is this ominous big fat ‘enemy’, out to destroy metaphysical worldviews. In reality, science does not at all care about worldviews, one way or another, and they are practically never discussed in scientific journals, and if they are, which happens extremely rarely, then only on their opinion pages, not in scientific articles proper.

I already showed the surveys of scientists and their worldview positions. Science/scientists get a lot of funding by staying in the “safe” area.

Perhaps we should examine the grant process, who approves it etc…

 

[buffalo]

Well it really depends what you mean by the term “design”. Again if you want to talk about if x is designed then you’re going to need to define what you mean by designed.

I’d actually tend to disagree, animals certainly build things. But that doesn’t mean that they designed them or even understand what they are doing. For example spiders build incredibly complex webs, but I wouldn’t say they design them. They are producing them by following a set of highly complex instructions which evolved to be part of their genetic makeup.

Again it comes down to how you define “designed”.

Where did this information/instructions come from? Citations?

 

[Al_Moritz]

I already showed the surveys of scientists and their worldview positions. Science/scientists get a lot of funding by staying in the “safe” area.

Perhaps we should examine the grant process, who approves it etc…

Completely irrelevant. Unless you want change the scientific method away from methodological naturalism. But this is silly, because then anything goes and science undercuts itself: if any explanation goes, then when should we stop looking for natural causes? At will? Who decides? And so on – no end in sight to the problems.

I know, ID folks like you want to change the scientific method, and ID even has a ‘God lab’. This goes nowhere.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is so odd how several of the theists here have a problem accepting that the method of science is by definition methodological naturalism. Again, it’s just a method, not a worldview!

Let me repeat: it’s just a method, not a worldview.

Let me repeat: it’s just a method, not a worldview.

Let me repeat: it’s just a method, not a worldview.

Let me repeat: it’s just a method, not a worldview.

Get it, finally?