Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

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.

 

[inocente]

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?

I don’t remember rebelling, jd, and at the pearly gates will blame it on a weak spine, thanks for the suggestion.

 

[tonyrey]

The design view is based on the idea that we can observe some

To say that** physical energy** somehow made everything happen - including all your thoughts and decisions - not only fails to explain anything but also makes all your conclusions worthless.

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.)

How would justify such a dogmatic generalisation?

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.

If you had stopped drawing unsupported conclusions you would be much closer to the truth!

 

[tonyrey]

My humble opinion is that real ID advocates are embarrassed.

Then perhaps you would answer the question on his behalf:

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

 

[tonyrey]

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).

According to their hypothesis God doesn’t work miracles on principle! But no one has yet explained why He does absolutely nothing to alleviate suffering on this planet.

 

[inocente]

My humble opinion is that real ID advocates are embarrassed.]
tonyrey;8954462:

Then perhaps you would answer the question on his behalf:

How often

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

tony, are you suggesting that ID has ownership on prayers of petition? The Lord’s prayer has no value for those of us who don’t believe in ID?

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Al:

Would you say that God is most like a General Contractor, providing the blueprint, the blocks, the cement, the wood, and the nails, then disappearing, except occasionally stopping by to make sure his subs are on time? And, if not precisely like that, how would He be similar, or different?

The primary causes (not necessarily “first principles”) are four: matter, form, agency, and purpose. The material and formal causes are substantial causes, with only matter being intrinsic to the subject, while the efficient cause, and final cause, are explicitly extrinsic to the subject (although the final cause can often be seen through the effect). Matter, primary or secondary, is the intrinsic principle from which a thing comes to be. Primary matter is a first subject, and in this respect it differs from secondary matter or substance. A composite of our first subject and a substantial form, secondary matter is not a first subject but a derived one. It is not a pure subject but a subject to which a certain act has been attributed by virtue of the substantial form that it possesses. (V.E. Smith, The General Science of Nature)

But, this is not what I think you are calling “second (or, secondary) causes,” is it? Primary matter is a subject from which a thing comes to be. Consequently, it is something essentially related to change. As such, it is a physical or natural subject. It is not a subject in the context of a grammatical sentence or a logical proposition. It is not even the subject in a mathematical or metaphysical perspective. It is the subject from which mobile being can naturally come into existence.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, secondary causes, in your idea, are not derived from the matter-form composite. They are like “tools” that God uses to hammer out better and better things. That is not what is meant by “secondary causes,” at least in the Scholastic sense. Here is how St. Thomas describes it: “Primary matter is the first subject from which a thing comes to be essentially and not accidentally [non-essentially] and which remains in the thing made.” - Commentary on the Physics, Bk. I, les. 15, 11; cf. and Physics, Bk. I, ch. 9, 192a, 31-33. A “first subject,” that is, a primary composition of primary matter and form, is, for example, an “apple.” A “secondary subject,” (derived from the prior existence of a matter/form composite and not absolutely essential to it), is its redness. Primary matter (or nature) is in some way, in “act.” Yet, it can also have privations (such as the apple not being “red”). These privations are not necessary (non-essential) to it. People eat green apples, and make great apple pies out of them!

So, secondary causes require a first subject, which is that which we generally regard as the “Primary matter and substantial form” composite. I prefer to use the term “non-essential” for them, whereas others use the term “accidental.” “Non-essential” leaves behind the residual baggage that “accidental,” in its modern iteration, carries with it. Would you agree with this summary?

Yet God is the sustainer behind all creation, including those secondary causes, and they cannot work without His continuous sustainance.

Can you briefly explain how you think this might work?

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.

When we say, “plan,” does that not indicate (especially to the non-theist) a mutable exigency? Does a plan come together, in its entirety, in an instant? Doesn’t the word imply a “thinking out process?”

From the Oxford Dictionary:

noun

1. a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something:
   the UN Peace Plan

verb (plans, planning, planned)[with object]

1. decide on and make arrangements for in advance:
   they were planning a trip to Egypt

with infinitive]: he plans to fly on Wednesday

no object]: we plan on getting married in the near future

1. design or make a plan of (something to be made or built):
   she had planned the garden from scratch

I mean, you may be right, but how would you counter the opposite proposition that “God planning” implies time?

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

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’.

But, it might just seem that way to us mere humans, might it not? “Tweaking” might mean like “the continuous appearance of the new,” rather than, “fixing” what already is? Might it not?

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 follows God’s plan and Providence, without Him having to step in to sculpt biological structures and the like.

What do we mean when we say, “for the world to make itself?”

God bless,
jd

 

[Murci]

To say that** physical energy** somehow made everything happen - including all your thoughts and decisions - not only fails to explain anything but also makes all your conclusions worthless.

On the very contrary, it can be investigated and verified, thus leading to actual knowledge. That is the method that leads to knowledge.

How would justify such a dogmatic generalisation?

There is nothing dogmatic about observing that there was never a tsunami, which stopped halfway toward the shore, or a hurricane suddenly disappearing. Those would be signs of “interference”. Do you have just ONE example of such event? No? I thought so.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t remember rebelling, jd, and at the pearly gates will blame it on a weak spine, thanks for the suggestion.

Inocente:

Happy to be of service!

God bless,
jd

 

[Al_Moritz]

Hi JDaniel,

here from the Catechsim of the Catholic Church:

Providence and secondary causes

306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.170

308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."171 Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for "without a Creator the creature vanishes."172 Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace.173

 

[reggieM]

This proposition is extremely vague. Get specific. When and where?

I think we’ve discussed that many times on this thread already.

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.

If we were claiming that God was unknowable and that creation was incomprehensible, then you’d be quite right.

No, the agrument is that there is no discernible sign of interference.

Could a person do the humanly impossible as against the laws of nature?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/documentary_on_miracle_of_pacocha_submarine_debuts_in_peru/
After the captain of the sub died, Lieutenant Roger Cotrina realized that it would be humanly impossible to avoid a tragedy, as the pressure from the water prevented the crew from closing an internal compartment that would have kept them alive.
“I couldn’t breathe and so I began to think as hard as I could about Sister Maria Petkovic (foundress of the Congregation of the Daughters of Mercy). I closed my eyes and I prayed. I repeated the prayer that I had heard, I thought of her and suddenly I saw a brilliant light,” he said. At that moment a supernatural force helped him close the door. A military commission later determined that what Cotrina did was humanly impossible.

Why do you discount that as evidence?

Many natural disasters are predicted.

What percentage of natural disasters never occurred because of God’s interference?
That would be an interesting statistic.

Did a tsumani ever stop in rushing toward the shore?

Did a tsumani ever suddenly avoid destroying things than it might have?

Did the winds of a hurricane suddenly stop in their way?

As above – did winds ever suddenly avoid doing more damage?

Did the lava from a volcanic eruption stop suddenly before it would have destroyed a city?

Did a volcano ever stop from erupting in the first place?

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.)

There are many examples where people realized that a miracle occurred – that God’s intervention helped in a case where natural laws caused a disaster.

The destructive power of natural laws are an effect of evil – which has its orientation in sin. God’s prevention and mitigation of the suffering of disasters is a response of mercy due to prayer and sacrifice from those who offer themselves for such.

That is why Catholic religious offer prayer and fasting – to contribute to the redemption of the world. There are spiritual laws that govern things as well – not just natural laws.

You can learn about these spiritual laws from the many instances of miracles that we can explore in the world, as well as from Christian revelation, as among many other sources (Catholic mystical theology, for example).

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

Yours is a straightfoward and clear response. You’re claiming that if the natural laws explain everything we can observe in science in the universe – then God is unnecessary.

Some of my Catholic friends don’t believe there is anyone who holds the views that you do – but thankfully we’ve found you, and you’ve made your view quite clear.

 

[reggieM]

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).

Exactly.

Perhaps someone could count all of the earthquakes that didn’t happen because of the prayers and sacrifices of believers over the ages.

Let’s just be thankful for the many times God has already protected us from the devastating effects of blind natural laws. And we should keep praying for His help and mercy for everyone, especially those who have no gratitude to Him and don’t want to pray.

 

[tonyrey]

tony, are you suggesting that ID has ownership on prayers of petition? The Lord’s prayer has no value for those of us who don’t believe in ID?

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

 

[reggieM]

But, it might just seem that way to us mere humans, might it not? “Tweaking” might mean like “the continuous appearance of the new,” rather than, “fixing” what already is? Might it not?

Yes, and of course, the terms “tweaking”, or “tampering” or “meddling” or “tinkering” are not terms that have been used by the advocates of God’s design in nature in the first place. The fact that there is design evident in nature doesn’t mean that God had to “fix” anything. Or that He used His hands one day to “sculpt” something. Or that by creating cosmological constants He “interrupted” or “fixed” something in nature – even though natural laws cannot explain the fine tuning in the universe. The evidence for design that we can observe and we can evaluate scientifically is an integrated part of creation. It is something that cannot be explained by natural laws – that’s why it is distinguished especially as evidence of a rational planning intelligence.

 

[tonyrey]

To say that* physical energy***

1. How do you** know** physical energy is the** sole **factor that has made **everything **happen?
2. Are **all **your thoughts and decisions caused by things beyond your control?
3. How can you be responsible for any of your thoughts or conclusions?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Exactly.

You cannot seriously believe that Daniel made a good argument?

That God might have prevented more disasters is not evident to the Natural Sciences; and there is no reason, given the investigative principles of the Natural Sciences, that we should think that a God has prevented any disasters whatsoever.

 

[reggieM]

On the very contrary, it can be investigated and verified, thus leading to actual knowledge. That is the method that leads to knowledge.

If the method originated from an unintelligent, irrational source – then whatever conclusions its method reaches are equally irrational and lacking knowledge.

The pursuit of truth requires freedom – and a distinction between truth and falsehood. Blind natural laws cannot provide that distinction since what is false does not truly exist – and nature can only act upon and “see” that which exists.

There is nothing dogmatic about observing that there was never a tsunami, which stopped halfway toward the shore, or a hurricane suddenly disappearing. Those would be signs of “interference”. Do you have just ONE example of such event? No? I thought so.

Hurricanes can suddenly change direction and often do. In some cases, huge hurricanes are predicted but then they disappear and amount to very little.

If you’re sincere in your search for evidence of God in the world, it’s important to be open to whatever you may find. Establishing an arbitrary standard (God has to part the Red Sea again) will cause you to exclude and miss other important evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

Yours is a straightfoward and clear response. You’re claiming that if the natural laws explain everything we can observe in science in the universe – then God is unnecessary.

Some of my Catholic friends don’t believe there is anyone who holds the views that you do – but thankfully we’ve found you, and you’ve made your view quite clear.

Their views are identical - apart from the reduction of God to a Sustainer rather than a loving Father…

 

[reggieM]

That God might have prevented more disasters is not evident to the Natural Sciences;

If nature is affected only by natural laws – as you’ve continually claimed – and not by God’s continual, active presence within nature, then no disasters would be prevented at all.

and there is no reason, given the investigative principles of the Natural Sciences, that we should think that a God has prevented any disasters whatsoever.

That’s a definitive answer. According to this view, science tells us that God has not prevented any disasters. Any disaster that is the predictable result of natural laws, necessarily must have happened according to the same consistent, knowable natural laws.

That is scientific determinism – that natural laws produce all of the outcomes in human life and the universe.