Evidence for Design?

[buffalo]

Yes, the question of “location” does apply to reputable research. Please refer to post 1280.

One’s personal criteria for legitimate peer review may be interesting, but that is not the way top journals, including the philosophical ones, work.

Those of us who are preparing papers on Catholicism and contemporary science for publication off line do the obvious which is to inquire about specific policies for each publication we are considering.

Depends on the type of research. If I am doing intellectual research I can do it just about anywhere. If I am doing simple research, I can do it in my garage. If I am doing research on the Higgs Bosun, then I may need a collider.

 

[grannymh]

That makes two misguided souls.

Not necessarily, when one looks at the actual evidence presented in a named research paper, and not the extrapolations.

Broad generalizations are cutesy, but they are off base when it comes to real science which can be practiced by anyone regardless if they believe in the moon being made of blue cheese.

 

[buffalo]

Exactly.

Some of the points …
Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation? Yes or no? Explain.
Science must acknowledge the reality and validity … of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible.True or false?
… a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:

*High levels of prescriptive information -
*Programming -
*Symbol systems and language -
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information -
*Formal function -
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life. True or false?

You really think innocente will give a real answer to these? :nope:

 

[buffalo]

I am retracting my original request. “Perhaps you could give me an exact example per se of evidence of design.”

Language.

 

[tonyrey]

"357

1. You asked for evidence of Catholic teaching that we are made in the image of God
2. You have received it
3. If you consider that the Catechism’s explanation - that we are “capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving” ourselves and “entering into communion with other persons” - is inadequate there is no point in continuing the discussion

 

[reggieM]

You really think innocente will give a real answer to these? :nope:

Once he discovers that the text actually came from a guy who works in a house in Maryland, then he won’t ever need to answer any of them.

 

[grannymh]

Language.

Language is a good example. Thank you.

Language is important for communication between people.

Now, please explain your reasoning for it to be also evidence for Design.

 

[grannymh]

Over and over challengers are asked about peer reviewed publications.

Here we have a guy who has published over 50 peer reviewed paper and he is trashed because the house he lives in? :banghead:

So this presents a problem - either peer review does its job or it doesn’t. What say you innocente?

Please refer to Post 1303.

One’s personal criteria for legitimate peer review may be interesting, but that is not the way top journals, including the philosophical ones, work.

Those of us who are preparing papers on Catholicism and contemporary science for publication off line do the obvious which is to inquire about specific policies for each publication we are considering.

Please refer to post 1308.

It seems that I have a more objective scientific background which is why we are not on the same page.

Note: My scientific background does not include academic credentials. I could say that my short experience in investigative journalism taught me a lot about objectivity which occurs in science.

 

[grannymh]

1. You asked for evidence of Catholic teaching that we are made in the image of God
2. You have received it
3. If you consider that the Catechism’s explanation - that we are “capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving” ourselves and entering into communion with other persons" - is inadequate there is no point in continuing the discussion

There is definitely no point in continuing this discussion because the word “part” as in part of the whole should not be equated with your “inadequate.”

For the benefit of readers. Regarding “man created in the image of God”

Tonyrey offered paragraph 357, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

When one enters a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then clicks on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 the following is under the paragraph:

»
»Table of Contents
»

As I said, CCC 357 is a very important part. For the record, I do not consider a part as being inadequate.

Paragraph 355 is where the information about being in the image of God actually begins.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=Paragraph+355&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Basically it is because human nature, in itself, unites *both *the spiritual and the material worlds that we are in the image of the Pure Spirit, God the Creator. Because of our spiritual soul, God calls us to share in His own life through knowledge and love.
Go beyond CCC 357 to some really fascinating information about our spritual soul.

Personally, I suggest reading all the way to CCC 421. I know that is a bit much, but spread the reading over days is worth the effort.

If one has a scheduled hour of Eucharistic Adoration or is a visitor, bring the Catechism along with you. Those moments with Jesus Christ, truly present in the Eucharist, is a good time to practice “knowledge and love” of God.

 

[buffalo]

Language is a good example. Thank you.

Language is important for communication between people.

Now, please explain your reasoning for it to be also evidence for Design.

Language communicates as you posted.

For a language to communicate it needs a sender, a receiver and a decoder. The only examples of this are designed.

 

[reggieM]

If one has a scheduled hour of Eucharistic Adoration or is a visitor, bring the Catechism along with you. Those moments with Jesus Christ, truly present in the Eucharist, is a good time to practice “knowledge and love” of God.

True - and that is very good advice.

To grow in the knowledge of God is an intellectual virtue. Growing in love leads to perfect contemplation, union and happiness with God.

 

[reggieM]

Once he discovers that the text actually came from a guy who works in a house in Maryland, then he won’t ever need to answer any of them.

I will add that Inocente is a lot smarter than that so I hope he will deal with the real issues.

 

[tonyrey]

There is definitely no point in continuing this discussion because the word “part” as in part of the whole should not be equated with your “inadequate.”

For the benefit of readers. Regarding “man created in the image of God”

Tonyrey offered paragraph 357, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

When one enters a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then clicks on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 the following is under the paragraph:

»
»Table of Contents
»

As I said, CCC 357 is a very important part. For the record, I do not consider a part as being inadequate.

Paragraph 355 is where the information about being in the image of God actually begins.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=Paragraph+355&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Basically it is because human nature, in itself, unites *both *the spiritual and the material worlds that we are in the image of the Pure Spirit, God the Creator. Because of our spiritual soul, God calls us to share in His own life through knowledge and love.
Go beyond CCC 357 to some really fascinating information about our spritual soul.

Personally, I suggest reading all the way to CCC 421. I know that is a bit much, but spread the reading over days is worth the effort.

If one has a scheduled hour of Eucharistic Adoration or is a visitor, bring the Catechism along with you. Those moments with Jesus Christ, truly present in the Eucharist, is a good time to practice “knowledge and love” of God.

Nothing you have stated refutes the fact that God has created us in His image…

 

[reggieM]

Language communicates as you posted.

For a language to communicate it needs a sender, a receiver and a decoder. The only examples of this are designed.

True.

Intelligent agents can arrange things with distant goals in mind.
In the use of language, intelligent human beings “search” for highly improbable, functional sequences within a vast space of combinatorial possibilities. Both sender and receiver have to know what the symbols of the language mean. There could be no communication and no language unless both sender and receiver understood the meaning and purpose of the symbols of language.

The receiver has to decode the message correctly, based on what the sender intended. Intention, future goals, purposeful arrangement of symbols to communicate meaning … all of that comes only from Design.

Goals are established in the mind before they exist in reality. Intelligence establishes the goal and then directs results to achieve a future goal (which existed only in the mind).

Language is targeted towards future goals.

In writing a book, for example, Design is required in order for symbols-letters-words of language to be designed to meet the future goal (the purpose of the book).

Language cannot be the result of accidental, chance occurrences. Language represents a highly specified, functional order which can only be the result of purposeful design.

The use of language requires free choice. It cannot be determined by natural law. There is nothing in physics, for example, that specifies what certain letters must necessarily mean.

You could take some Scrabble letters and scatter them to see if you find meaningful sentences and paragraphs emerging. If not, then the design proposal stands.

Language is an example of a causal power – the result of an intelligent cause and therefore design. The same is true of consciousness, rationality and purposeful action of any kind.

 

[reggieM]

Inocente was looking for some Catholic support of the Intelligent Design argument:

Presentations from the 2012 Science and Faith Conference: "Can Science Inform Our Understanding of God?"

Friday, December 2, 2011

Scientific Perspectives

"The Modern Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design: Strengths and Limitations” Dr. Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry, Lehigh University, and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Response by Dr. Daniel Kuebler, professor of biology at Franciscan University of Steubenville.
BeheKueblerThumb

Download the Audio

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Philosophical Perspectives

"Signs of Design from Physics and Astronomy,” Dr. Jay W. Richards, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Response by Mr. Mark Ryland, president and senior fellow of the Institute for the Study of Nature.
RichardsRylandThumb

Download the Audio

More here …

franciscan.edu/ScienceAndFaith/

 

[razredge]

That lesson of doing one’s homework can help demonstrate off line that the possibility of a real Adam and Eve exists right in the middle of contemporary genetic research.

You’ve just admitted that you haven’t done your homework since there isn’t any such possibility, since it is completely inconceivable that any ‘contemporary genetic research’ would suggest we all descend from just one pair of first parents.

And the Mitichondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam posited by modern genetics are completely unrelated to the biblical conception of Adam and Eve.

 

[reggieM]

You’ve just admitted that you haven’t done your homework since there isn’t any such possibility, since it is completely inconceivable that any ‘contemporary genetic research’ would suggest we all descend from just one pair of first parents.

I’d be careful about claiming the probability to be zero, especially when one cannot even provide a definition of the target.

The assumption here is that science can define what a human being is, and therefore can make an accurate claim about the origin of human life.

If you assert that science can provide an accurate definition of what a human being is, then you’d have to accept that humans are entirely reducible to matter and differ from animals only by the quality of some physical adaptations.

If you don’t accept that science can define what humanity is, then you should consider at least some possibility that genetic research is not enough to determine when and how human life appeared on earth.

 

[razredge]

I’d be careful about claiming the probability to be zero, especially when one cannot even provide a definition of the target.

The assumption here is that science can define what a human being is, and therefore can make an accurate claim about the origin of human life.

If you assert that science can provide an accurate definition of what a human being is, then you’d have to accept that humans are entirely reducible to matter and differ from animals only by the quality of some physical adaptations.

If you don’t accept that science can define what humanity is, then you should consider at least some possibility that genetic research is not enough to determine when and how human life appeared on earth.

Actually, by that I meant the probability of ‘current genetic research’ implying the existence of an actual Adam & Eve to be zero.

While i’m sure it could be possible for us to have two ‘spiritual’ parents as it were, it’s pretty much impossible (unless everything we know about genetics is wrong) for us to have only two biological parents.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Actually, by that I meant the probability of ‘current genetic research’ implying the existence of an actual Adam & Eve to be zero.

While i’m sure it could be possible for us to have two ‘spiritual’ parents as it were, it’s pretty much impossible (unless everything we know about genetics is wrong) for us to have only two biological parents.

Yes, genetic monogenism is excluded for certain. Three independent lines of genetic evidence show that the genetic bottleneck was never less than a few thousand people:

biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-to-a-single-primal-couple/

As Inocente once pointed out, genetic monogenism would also imply inbreeding and incest, with all the messy genetic consequences of this.

However, given the metaphysics of human nature, theological monogenism, a real Adam and Eve (though not a genetic Adam and Eve) is still possible.

Here is Edward Feser’s excellent take on this (inspired by others that he cites):

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

Here is a summary of that position:

Scientific evidence strongly indicates that the genetic bottleneck for Homo sapiens was never smaller than a few thousand individuals, making untenable the idea of genetic monogenism (a literal biological Adam and Eve from whom every human being exclusively descended, also in biological terms). Feser suggests that God gave a soul to two humanoid creatures out of this population, making them human. Here you would have theological monogenism just like the Church teaches. Yet these first humans, or their descendants, then – according to continuing natural biological attraction – mated with other humanoid creatures without spiritual souls, and their offspring also received souls from God (just like now offspring from two ensouled parents receives a soul from God). That would explain biological polygenism, conferred to humans from natural interbreeding with surrounding humanoid creatures, even though only two people had souls originally. Having a rational soul, allowing for a true intellect, then gave a selective advantage, and within a few centuries all merely humanoid creatures were out-selected in favor of ensouled humans (as discussed in the second of the three web links). The human race (in the metaphysical sense, with all individuals having souls) was born.

---

Previously I had defended the idea that the Catholic Church might still settle on theological polygenism, given certain remarks in the Church document Communion and Stewardship, but given above elegant solution I have given up on that idea, since it simply has become unnecessary. Again, both theological monogenism and biological polygenism are possible at the same time, given the metaphysics of human nature.

 

[tonyrey]

I’d be careful about claiming the probability to be zero, especially when one cannot even provide a definition of the target.

The assumption here is that science can define what a human being is, and therefore can make an accurate claim about the origin of human life.

If you assert that science can provide an accurate definition of what a human being is, then you’d have to accept that humans are entirely reducible to matter and differ from animals only by the quality of some physical adaptations.

If you don’t accept that science can define what humanity is, then you should consider at least some possibility that genetic research is not enough to determine when and how human life appeared on earth.

Irrefutable - if one is an orthodox Christian. The notion that God cannot or will not intervene at the most critical moments in history is absurd. It is an implicit admission that physical energy entirely replaces divine power…