Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

I have to wonder. I keep reading in scholarly articles that this pathway led to this or that novel organ after numerous steps that took, in some cases, millions of years. The strong implication being that various events occurred in a certain order and information was added over time, gradually. Now, we have this:

“ScienceDaily (July 11, 2011) — Genetic instructions for developing limbs and digits were present in primitive fish millions of years before their descendants first crawled on to land, researchers have discovered.”

The rest of the article is here:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

Another quote from the article:

“Maybe the key was expressing a gene earlier or later or in a specific territory, but it was just a modification of a program that was already encoded in the genomes of fish almost half a billion years ago and remains there to this day.”

That’s a good example of intelligent design at the biological level. A “program” is “encoded” information that can carry out instructions to produce various outcomes.
In this case, a program was detected with instructions that produced various effects in the future.
That’s an indication of foresight – building a plan to be excuted for a future purpose. That’s evidence of intentionality and plan – and thus design.

“There is a whole universe of questions that are opened up by this discovery,” Shubin said.

A whole universe? Clearly, you can’t have that many questions if your Darwinian predictions were correct. The main question is how a program could have “arisen” in the genome through “an accumulation of copying errors”.

The claim that this sort of encoded, specified information was the product of mutations and selection is irrational.

Origin of life researcher Craig Venter discovered something similar in cell functions:

Venter also points to what the cells–powered by genomes made in a lab from four bottles of chemicals, based on instructions stored on a computer–reveal about what life is. “This is as much a philosophical as a technological advance,” he says. “The notion that this is possible means bacterial cells are software-driven biological machines. If you change the software, you build a new machine. I’m still amazed by it.”
technologyreview.com/biomedicine/25362/page2/

 

[reggieM]

…Intelligent Agent and other such inanities.

You don’t think that God is an Intelligent Agent?

According to this “theory”, the only evidence for God is in things which ID judges too complex to have occurred naturally, even by natural selection.

Now I know you’re joking.

 

[reggieM]

But ID does say * *

I think you’re a sincere person and you’re also quite intelligent. So, you should easily recognize your error in the above, right?

The original point of ID is that special creation is needed to explain life, thus ID doesn’t find God outside the 0.0000000001% that is life on Earth.

 

[inocente]

You don’t think that God is an Intelligent Agent?

Nope. To call God intelligent is an outright insult, as if He could be otherwise. To say He’s an agent means He could be one amongst many. Worse, it implies He acts on behalf of another. The term intelligent agent was invented to try to fool American courts that ID isn’t religious. Like everything else in ID, it failed.

Now I know you’re joking.

Nope, ID only sees God in what it judges to be complex. For instance, quoted on buffalo’s idvolution home page:

*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).*

I can find loads more quotes from ID sites which say ID doesn’t find God in the design of anything other than the supposedly complex.

 

[inocente]

I think you’re a sincere person and you’re also quite intelligent. So, you should easily recognize your error in the above, right?

Well thanks, but no error, not even close.

Would you like to hear my correction to this, or would you prefer to cling to an entirely incorrect, unsubstantiated notion?

By all means, but please don’t do that thing of attributing ideas to ID which predate the invention of the term. If you do, I will immediately take over ownership of the word Catholicism, as the Baptist faith is loosely based on it.

In the Thomistic view that you favor, what things in the material universe are considered “not designed”?

Nothing. The physical law designs, and God designed the physical law.

 

[reggieM]

Nope. To call God intelligent is an outright insult, as if He could be otherwise. To say He’s an agent means He could be one amongst many. Worse, it implies He acts on behalf of another. The term intelligent agent was invented to try to fool American courts that ID isn’t religious.

That is helpful to know because I’m looking for some common ground of agreement for us to be able to discuss this topic. Our understanding diverges at a much earlier point here – you feel it is in insult to consider God intelligent and an agent.
Additionally, you believe these terms were invented by ID – apparently, by the Discovery Institute.

It would be a lot better for us to discuss those issues, or perhaps even arguments prior to this in order to find out where we can start with some agreement. Arguing about processes and causes that come after this will end with each of us talking past each other (which is what we’ve been doing).

I can find loads more quotes from ID sites which say ID doesn’t find God in the design of anything other than the supposedly complex.

ID is an argument. The cosmological argument is an argument. The ontological argument is an argument. The argument from necessity is an argument. ID is limited to what it is trying to show.

It seems that you’re saying that you’d reject the argument from necessity because it does not prove the need for a first cause.

 

[reggieM]

By all means, but please don’t do that thing of attributing ideas to ID which predate the invention of the term. If you do, I will immediately take over ownership of the word Catholicism, as the Baptist faith is loosely based on it.

With this, I’d expect you to create a new term for evolution since what passes for evolutionary theory today is only loosely based on Darwin. Or for something more on-topic, you would have to create a new term for physics, etc. for the same reason.

Nothing. The physical law designs, and God designed the physical law.

Let’s set aside the fact that this is Deism, as I already pointed out.

What you seem to be saying is that “anything that has the appearance of having been designed for a purpose is the result of physical law”.

I realize that many Baptists (at least here in the U.S.) reject the idea of Free Will – is that your belief also?

 

[buffalo]

Nope. To call God intelligent is an outright insult, as if He could be otherwise. To say He’s an agent means He could be one amongst many. Worse, it implies He acts on behalf of another. The term intelligent agent was invented to try to fool American courts that ID isn’t religious. Like everything else in ID, it failed.

Nope, ID only sees God in what it judges to be complex. For instance, quoted on buffalo’s idvolution home page:

*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).*

I can find loads more quotes from ID sites which say ID doesn’t find God in the design of anything other than the supposedly complex.

I think you are confusing ID the science with ID the philosophy. Currently, the science is looking at the probabilities of something being designed or not. The starting point would be to find that which is highly differentiated, the low hanging fruit so to speak. As we progress perhaps we will be able to discern more finely.

ID, the philosophy is much richer in being able to “see” design.

 

[tonyrey]

383It is absurd and incompatible with Christianity to attribute the origin of the male and female sexes solely to natural selection! Asexuality does not provide a physical basis for love as intimate, beautiful and fulfilling as human sexuality…

I can’t remember the Church using my statements for a new version of the Catechism. How long have they been there?

This is where we part company big-time. ID, by asserting that natural selection happens naturally without God, says I’m only allowed to see God’s design in things which are (for the unimaginative and the mathematically challenged) very complex. ID thus says God has nothing to do with 99.99999999% of the universe where it says things develop naturally.

Why do you imagine that?

And of course it fails completely here since sex isn’t at all complicated (although Catholics often disagree.

Together with biologists, psychologists, philosophers, theologians and everyone else - apart from a few dissenters…

 

[Al_Moritz]

Let’s set aside the fact that this is Deism, as I already pointed out.

No, it’s not, as we have repeatedly pointed out. You’re not gonna “win” by repeating the same old nonsense over and over, hoping that in the end everyone else just gives up and you have the last word.

 

[inocente]

Our understanding diverges at a much earlier point here – you feel it is in insult to consider God intelligent and an agent

It would certainly be an insult to me to have my words so willfully misinterpreted.

Before the invention of ID did anyone ever think of worshiping an intelligent agent? In your church, do you say prayers to the Intelligent Agent? The Intelligent Agent is my shepherd? I’m saying that would be an insult to God.

It would be a lot better for us to discuss those issues, or perhaps even arguments prior to this in order to find out where we can start with some agreement. Arguing about processes and causes that come after this will end with each of us talking past each other (which is what we’ve been doing).

Agreed.

*ID is an argument. The cosmological argument is an argument. The ontological argument is an argument. The argument from necessity is an argument. ID is limited to what it is trying to show.

It seems that you’re saying that you’d reject the argument from necessity because it does not prove the need for a first cause.*

No, I reject ID because it is American twentieth century political propaganda with no scientific, philosophical or theological merit, and like Coca Cola, the years when the rest of the world would unquestioningly import insubstantial sugary nonsense from the US are coming to a close.

 

[inocente]

With this, I’d expect you to create a new term for evolution since what passes for evolutionary theory today is only loosely based on Darwin. Or for something more on-topic, you would have to create a new term for physics, etc. for the same reason.

Again, discussion of evolution is banned, but yes the modern theory is called the modern synthesis.

From past experience ID is very good at pretending to be what it isn’t. When convenient, it presents itself as an evidence-based scientific theory (which however needs to redefine science to include its “evidence”). When convenient, it presents itself as merely a new name for the teleological argument, but Thomas has nothing in common with irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the like.

Let’s set aside the fact that this is Deism, as I already pointed out.

Nice try, but no, we don’t need to bow to the altar of ID to be Christian, Paul didn’t, Peter didn’t, Thomas didn’t, etc., etc.

What you seem to be saying is that “anything that has the appearance of having been designed for a purpose is the result of physical law”.

Don’t understand - anything physical must obviously comply with the physical law.

I realize that many Baptists (at least here in the U.S.) reject the idea of Free Will – is that your belief also?

Really? No, the Baptist faith started on my side of the Pond, we’ve not imported that idea, again it seems you’ve America to thank for that one.

 

[vz71]

Really? No, the Baptist faith started on my side of the Pond, we’ve not imported that idea, again it seems you’ve America to thank for that one.

Correction.
A Baptist faith was started on your side of the pond.

 

[inocente]

I think you are confusing ID the science with ID the philosophy. Currently, the science is looking at the probabilities of something being designed or not. The starting point would be to find that which is highly differentiated, the low hanging fruit so to speak. As we progress perhaps we will be able to discern more finely.

ID, the philosophy is much richer in being able to “see” design.

Possibly I’m confusing ID the un-science with ID the un-philosophy.

The evidence is that everything in the universe is designed, Rom 1:20, so I predict ID will find a probability of 100% everywhere it looks. ID will than fade away in the style of the Emperor’s new clothes as people finally realize it never said anything anyway.

 

[inocente]

I can’t remember the Church using my statements for a new version of the Catechism. How long have they been there?

I never said any of that - why did you quote yourself as if I said it?

Why do you imagine that?

Go back down the thread aways - I never did get an answer about why ID says all those billions of galaxies are there, and what evidence it finds for their design. So it seems that the only place ID is interested in finding God is in some of the life on Earth, 0.000000001% of Creation, and then only the good stuff, not diseases of course.

Together with biologists, psychologists, philosophers, theologians and everyone else - apart from a few dissenters…

Sex in flowers must be awful complicated.

 

[grannymh]

All St. Thomas’ cosmological argument demonstrates is that an outside force must have acted as first cause.

And therefore …???

And therefore, why does"Design" stop there? What is needed in this decade is Catholic apologetics defending the basic Catholic doctrines about a “personal God” and God’s relationship with human beings. This relationship is why Jesus Christ was on earth.

Do not misunderstand me, please. Design in the material/physical world is great.
However, human nature is an unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds.

Blessings,
the nitty-gritty granny

The quest for truth needs to include both the material *and *the spiritual.

 

[grannymh]

reggieM:
I am trying to convince you that the fact of the spiritual world needs to be addressed by Catholics.

Absolutely. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not a heresy. It’s not “unCatholic”. In fact, it’s a positive bit of evidence.

“Design” per se in the material/physical world omits most of the truth contained in
Catholic doctrines. I have no clue if that is a heresy. In any case, “design” is very limited when it comes to the riches of Catholicism which starts, believe it or not, with two people at the beginning of human history.

Two points – I haven’t seen anybody “stopping with that”. Nor do I see Catholic stopping with St. Thomas’ cosmological argument. We need other arguments to prove the Trinity, for example. Secondly, the fact that we see evidence of design in nature does quite a lot for Catholicism. Remember, this argument is directed against materialism and scientism. If there is evidence of intelligent of design, as you rightly see, then this is proof against materialism (and for Catholicism).

Only one point. Before granny gets really, really cranky (feminine of snarky).

The issue is using “Design” as a way to defend the Catholic doctrines regarding two, sole, founders of the human species, original sin, human nature, and the salvific mission of Jesus Christ. There is a lot more to Catholicism than Genesis 1:1

 

[reggieM]

Before the invention of ID did anyone ever think of worshiping an intelligent agent? In your church, do you say prayers to the Intelligent Agent? The Intelligent Agent is my shepherd? I’m saying that would be an insult to God.

I’ll say this … the argument from design really brings out some fascinating insights. I learn quite a lot of things about people’s belief systems – and that does include my fellow Catholics as well as other Christians like yourself (and atheists as well).

In this case, (I think? apparently?), you are upset about certain attributes of God which have been an essential part of classical, Catholic theology since the Fathers of the Church.

No, I reject ID because it is American twentieth century political propaganda with no scientific, philosophical or theological merit, and like Coca Cola, the years when the rest of the world would unquestioningly import insubstantial sugary nonsense from the US are coming to a close.

Well, I like the beautiful nation of Spain and the many good people there. Some of them have even come to the U.S. and they enjoy drinking Coca Cola with us here.

 

[reggieM]

And therefore, why does"Design" stop there?

Well, I was building a parallel. The cosmological argument seeks to prove one thing about reality. It’s not meant to prove every possible Catholic doctrine.
Design arguments (and there are many types) have to stop at what they’re trying to prove. They can’t rightly be used to argue, example, for the nature of the Blessed Trinity. We need other arguments for that.

Do not misunderstand me, please. Design in the material/physical world is great.

That’s important and I appreciate the clarification. This thread is discussing design arguments – teleological or functional design. There is obviously a great deal of design observable in each human life also.

So, we use different arguments to prove different things. If a person denies that there is any causality at all in the world, then arguments supporting the existence of causes will be needed first, before you can argue about the effects of causes.

There’s a somewhat general progression of knowledge that a person can follow to learn about God. The very, very basic level is to recognize that an intelligent creator, beyond nature, is evident and does exist.

St. Thomas’ arguments could convince people to be Deists – believing that God created all the laws of the universe and then let them run, without requiring His involvement (meddling?) at all.

That is obviously an error and incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

So, we next need to prove to Deists that even though they’re correct in recognizing a Law Making god, they need to realize that God does interact with His creation.

 

[buffalo]

1. 
   *]The Beginning or Creation of the World
   *] All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.)
   *] The world is the work of the Divine Wisdom. (Sent. certa.)
   *] God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De fide.)
   *] The world created for the Glorification of God. (De fide.)
   *] The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De fide.)
   *] God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De fide.)
   *] God was free to create this world or any other. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] God has created a good world. (De fide.)
   *] The world had a beginning in time. (De fide.)
   *] God alone created the World. (De fide.)
   *] No Creature can, as Principal Cause (causa principalis) that is, from its own power, create something out of nothing. (Sent. communis.)
   
   The Continuous Preservation and Governing of the World
   *] God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
   *] God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
   *] God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)