Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Well, even Pope Benedict doesn’t seem to think that the doctrine of original sin requires a literal Adam & Eve
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_ponders_original_sin_speaks_about_modern_desire_for_change/

From the link.

***The Holy Father then said that, “Men today should ask themselves: What is original sin?”

Taking stock of current answers to the question of original sin, the Pope said, “Many think that, in light of the history of evolution, there is no room for the doctrine of a first sin. As a result, the question of Redemption and of the Redeemer loses its basis.”

The real answer to whether or not original sin exists requires men to distinguish between two aspects of the doctrine on original sin, Benedict said.

“There exists an empirical, tangible reality, the other relating to the mystery, the ontological foundation of the event. In effect, there is a contradiction in our being.***

When it comes to Catholicism there is a real danger in cherry picking.

This is because the Pope does not quote 2865 paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, every time he speaks. The Pope respects the intelligence of people. In other words, there is a reasonable assumption that Catholics know that the Pope supports the Catholic faith as presented in the Catechism.

Unfortunately, many Catholics do not take the time to study the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Today the odds would be that only a handful of Catholics could spot the really, really, important issue mentioned in the “quote” above.

 

[grannymh]

One friendly suggestion – instead of giving the number of the post, you could help people from having to scroll back by including a link to the post that you’re interested in.

Thanks.

Good point. Here are the highlights from post 1564.

I do not believe that anyone is denying obvious design in the universe. From my position, the big push to prove design in an already designed material world has taken on a life of its own. This “push” is ignoring the spiritual world which was suppose to be the intended goal of Intelligent Design. Or am I wrong about the “intended goal” bit?

Catholic ID advocates should be re-looking at the biological evidence and inferring a personal God, not some kind of a non-specific agent. I am sure that was what was happening when I first landed on CAF. But somehow the emphasis has shifted to all kinds of philosophical, scientific debates around the word “Design”.

It is time for Catholic ID advocates to step out in faith and go beyond the present type of “Design” discussion.

Catholic ID advocates need to re-think the choice of non-human biological organisms over an organism which is an unique unification of *both *the material and spiritual worlds. If the goal of Catholic ID advocates is to find a personal Creator, then they need to look at the one living organism made in the image of a personal Creator. They need to affirm human nature in all its glory.

 

[Al_Moritz]

An analogy from St. Thomas is of a boy, holding a stick with his hand, that is attached to his arm, pushing a stone down the road with that stick. Similarly, God is the First Mover and First Cause of absolutely everything except sin.

Agreed.

You fellows are talking past each other. You are speaking of causes as though they contain their own capacity to intend and propel.

God gave secondary causes their own capacity in the sense that they unfold according to the rules that He created and which He does not tamper with. Yet God is the sustainer behind all creation, including those secondary causes, and they cannot work without His continuous sustainance. I have always consistently maintained this priniciple, which adheres to classical philosophy and Catholic theology, but my adherence to this priniciple is constantly ignored for whatever reason. But yes, physical evolution of the universe and biological evolution is a process that follows rules that do not have to be constantly tweaked and ‘intervened’ with. Yet it works that way only because God made and planned it so, and constantly maintains it in existence as such, and because as such it falls under His Almighty Providence. God indeed rolls out creation as you say. But He rolls it out according to the rules He created, which are the unchanging laws of nature (an originally religious term, pointing to God as lawgiver), laws that He only suspends when He decides to work a miracle.

Tonyrey, et al, are telling you that the things that occur are not autonomous exigencies, acting like wind-up clocks set loose.

They are not autonomous exigencies indeed. God rolls out creation, as you say. But Tony, ReggieM et al. go further than that, and confuse God’s continuous action with ‘tweaking intervention’. Yet God sustains the laws of nature and the matter-energy that He created in order for the world to make itself, and this continuous sustainance is God’s way of being completely involved with His creation in a loving manner, as a lover who stays completely true to the creation He loves, without constantly tweaking it. Creation constantly folllows God’s plan and Providence, without Him having to step in to sculpt biological structures and the like.

Absolutely nothing happens that God does not directly make happen (except sin). It is God’s Prividence guided by His Supreme Wisdom that rolls everything out. Chance is a cause only as a secondary, or tertiary, cause, in the same way that the stick is a cause of moving the aforementioned stone.

God bless,
jd

Agreed.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Also, i’m sure tonyrey was not an ID proponent when I was on CAF last year … unless i’m confusing you with someone else… if not, how exactly did the IDers manage to brainwash you into accepting their claptrap?

Oh no, he was always one of the foremost ID proponents here. Nothing has changed – alas.

 

[tonyrey]

Oh no, he was always one of the foremost ID proponents here. Nothing has changed – alas.

An irrelevant misrepresentation that does nothing to further the discussion.

You would be well advised to address the issues rather than make derogatory comments about other members of this forum.

 

[tonyrey]

We had discussed this before. I see no need to go over it again.

You have once again failed to answer the question.
I leave others to reach their conclusions…

 

[tonyrey]

*1. Many beings have hindsight, insight and foresight

Only physicalists - or those who are virtually physicalists - believe that it can!

 

[tonyrey]

It is readily apparent that God doesn’t go around preventing earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and any number of other ills.

1. How is it apparent?
2. Do you believe God **never **prevents suffering?
3. If not why not?
4. If so how often?

Also, i’m sure tonyrey was not an ID proponent when I was on CAF last year … unless i’m confusing you with someone else… if not, how exactly did the IDers manage to brainwash you into accepting their claptrap?

Irrelevant and false argumentum ad hominem which breaches the forum rule of courtesy…

 

[tonyrey]

Hume gives a good example of the argument of design right there. We can observe, in the works of Nature, an analogy of even greater than human intelligence. Therefore, an inference to the existence of a Deity is “plainly ascertained by reason”.

Through science we observe the same thing – mathematical symmetry and complex specified function which cannot be explained by blind, unintelligent, purposeless laws.

Irrefutable! Unless one believes in miracles caused by the blind Goddess… Some Catholics have obviously been influenced by Dawkins and his Blind Watchmaker.

 

[tonyrey]

The most prominent anti-design arguments have been attacks against the Providence of God. For example, the belief that living organisms are in a constant struggle and competition for resources – selfishly seeking the survival of their own species, at the expense (if necessary) of others, was a way to explain evil that is seen in the world.
Since God is not involved in that struggle, then this supposed constant-warfare would be “part of nature”.
That would justify any similar behavior by humans – since the struggle for survival is the highest (and only ) “moral norm”. Those arguments were born out of the despair that God actually cares about His creation.

With regards to the natural laws themselves – gravity, for example, causes pain, chaos and destruction. Since God cannot intervene, then these evils are triumphant.

If the only evidence supporting God is that He created laws – then God is really unnecessary. That’s exactly what Deism holds. God started things, then the laws work without change or intervention in a determined path.

Here’s a remarkable statement from the Summa Theologica, Q8, Art.3.
Article 3. Whether God is everywhere by essence, presence and power?

St. Thomas gives this answer:
Further, others said that, although all things are subject to God’s providence, still all things are not immediately created by God; but that He immediately created the first creatures, and these created the others. Against these it is necessary to say that He is in all things by His essence. In the highlighted words we can see that St. Thomas is arguing “against” these “others” who say that God created the first things (laws, atoms) and then those created everything else.

He is arguing against Deism in that passage. He rightly teaches that God is not merely the law maker who got things started, but He is in all things - by His Essence (as the cause of their being), Presence (all things are visible to Him) and Power (all things are subject to His power).

Or, to read from the Angelic Doctor himself …
Therefore, God is in all things by His power, inasmuch as all things are subject to His power; He is by His presence in all things, as all things are bare and open to His eyes; He is in all things by His essence, inasmuch as He is present to all as the cause of their being.

It remains to be seen how those Christians who deny that Providence implies frequent miracles reconcile their view with the teaching of Jesus…

 

[reggieM]

tonyrey:
How often do you believe God intervenes to alleviate suffering and answer prayers for our physical needs?

It is readily apparent that God doesn’t go around preventing earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and any number of other ills.

Tony asked “how often”? You answered that what God does is “readily apparent” in nature – and it seems your answer is that God **never **intervenes to alleviate suffering by answering prayers and mitigating the cause of natural disasters.

That is consistent with Deism – and with the anti-design argument, certainly.

If, however, you think that God **does **intervene and answer prayers and mitigate disasters and lessen sufferings that would be caused by natural laws … then how did you determine that what God does in nature is “readily apparent”?

 

[reggieM]

1. How is it apparent?
2. Do you believe God **never **prevents suffering?
3. If not why not?
4. If so how often?

I posted the same kinds of questions before reading this. I think we can see the problem with the anti-design view.

The design view is based on the idea that we can observe some instances in nature where God’s presence is detectable, at least as a reasonable explanation for the event.

The argument against that is that God never intervenes in nature so there is no evidence of design. Blind, unintelligent natural laws explain every effect that we can observe in the universe. God is therefore unnecessary except as the first cause and lawmaker. That is the error of Determinism.

 

[reggieM]

God, then, does not have to Create then back off so that non-thinking constants and causes can take over - as though they contain their own rationalizing apparatus.

True. Actually, He **cannot **back off - He necessarily sustains all things in being.

Considering the delicateness of this fabric, does it not make more sense that God would stay with it and continuously guide it - especially if God is unalterable?

That’s an insightful and beautiful phrase/concept. The fabric is indeed delicate! It’s an immense network of relationships and dependencies. It’s a symphony – God is playing the music continually and bringing life within it.

Does it not make more sense that a being that is infinite in every perfection would not start and stop, enter then remove Himself - like a cook fretting about the meal he is cooking? Wouldn’t God, instead, simply stay with that which He loves like an ardent lover wishing to be in constant contact with the object of his love?

That’s a good analogy – or it’s like music, as above. The musician who is an artist doesn’t just “follow the laws” to create a work of beauty. The musician doesn’t just let the piano do the work either. The music of creation is on-going, and the musician brings a creative power to every note. The laws have some function and some consistency, but the great artist is “beyond the laws”. That’s why computers cannot make great art. They can follow the rules, but they do not have creative intelligence.

What we see in nature and in the universe is the presence of a Great intelligence – far beyond that of the human artist/genius. Even David Hume recognized that in the quote posted above.

That’s the design argument. Natural laws alone cannot explain what we see. Something more is needed – that’s Providence, Intelligence and Design.

Tonyrey, et al, are telling you that the things that occur are not autonomous exigencies, acting like wind-up clocks set loose.

Exactly. And we know that from observation. The universe and life - especially human life is not a wind-up clock propelled by blind, unintelligent laws alone.

 

[grannymh]

You have once again failed to answer the question.
I leave others to reach their conclusions…

My humble opinion is that real ID advocates are embarrassed.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That’s an insightful and beautiful phrase/concept. The fabric is indeed delicate! It’s an immense network of relationships and dependencies. It’s a symphony – God is playing the music continually and bringing life within it.

So according to you there are no secondary causes? Before it was just a few tweaks here and there, and now it seems that you are saying that he is moving everything in to position. Are you a pagan?

It is evident to me that there are errors in the natural world. There is not an intelligent harmony.

 

[Murci]

The design view is based on the idea that we can observe some instances in nature where God’s presence is detectable, at least as a reasonable explanation for the event.

This proposition is extremely vague. Get specific. When and where? Also the usage of the word “explanation” is incorrect. To say that some unknowable being (God) using incomprehensible means made it somehow happen is not an “explanation”. It is the opposite of explanation.

The argument against that is that God never intervenes in nature so there is no evidence of design.

No, the agrument is that there is no discernible sign of interference. Many natural disasters are predicted. They happen as predicted. Did a tsumani ever stop in rushing toward the shore? Did the winds of a hurricane suddenly stop in their way? Did the lava from a volcanic eruption stop suddenly before it would have destroyed a city? Did an avalanche ever stop one meter before it covered a village? Those would be signs of “interference”. (But, of course, there is no evidence of design anywhere.)

Blind, unintelligent natural laws explain every effect that we can observe in the universe. God is therefore unnecessary except as the first cause and lawmaker.

Almost correct. if you would have stopped right after the word “unnecessary” you would have been correct.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, even Pope Benedict doesn’t seem to think that the doctrine of original sin requires a literal Adam & Eve

Razredge:

How can we conclude that from reading the link you provided?

Yes, but why can’t the theological truth be that humanity rebelled and turned away from God without it being bundled up details like it stemming from the actions of two first parents.

Think it through: if “humanity rebelled,” one must assume that “humanity” is inclusive of fairly great numbers (of people), right? And, all or them rebelled? Every single one of them? There were no hold-outs? There were none with weak spines who would not go along with all of the others? So, en-mass and in solidarity, humanity rebelled?

Do we have any historical reference to anything like that happening before?

It is readily apparent that God doesn’t go around preventing earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and any number of other ills.

Hmmm. How is that readily apparent? How would we know that He hasn’t prevented billions of them? Would we start to see an earthquake and just as suddenly, see it stop? Would a tsunami suddenly start and then vanish? I’ve been trying to figure out how we would know - and hope that no one gets caught up in the beginning stages of a disaster (before God waves His hand and prevents it).

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Razredge:

How can we conclude that from reading the link you provided?

Post 1584 has another quote from that link which speaks of an empirical, tangible reality plus a comment about quotes from Popes in general.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8953511&postcount=1584

 

[inocente]

My humble opinion is that real ID advocates are embarrassed.

A personal observation, not to you alone but everyone.

It’s worth pointing out that the USA has less than 5% of the world population, and for the rest of us “id” usually means a part of the psyche according to Sigmund Freud rather than a failed twentieth century small-town American idea with a certain comedic value.

Tempers seem to have been getting frayed, possibly because even Americans appear to have very differing understandings of what ID means, from a vague notion of Thomas Aquinas to who knows what. Imho the more extreme ID theorizing probably sends most folk running in panic, and invites the question: if someone has never been taught about Christ, but only about an intelligent agent, would God smite her teachers?

I would suggest most of us can agree that an element of design is apparent, but only as long as we don’t try too hard to define what’s meant by design because that’s when the feathers fly, and only as long as we remember that theorizing is as nothing compared to Christ dying for us, and I’m pretty sure that’s not just a Baptist view, but Catholic too.

 

[grannymh]

Think it through: if “humanity rebelled,” one must assume that “humanity” is inclusive of fairly great numbers (of people), right? And, all or them rebelled? Every single one of them? There were no hold-outs? There were none with weak spines who would not go along with all of the others? So, en-mass and in solidarity, humanity rebelled?

Do we have any historical reference to anything like that happening before?

Excellent. Excellent questions that should, must, be considered…