Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
Please can we return to the topic! There is no valid reason to divert this thread with remarks about individuals.

The present issue is whether disasters happen according to natural laws and are **never **prevented by God… Yes or no? Why or why not?

In other words is Design entirely by very remote control? 🙂
Click to expand...
Is that a real issue in the Intelligent Design movment?
 
Al_Moritz said:
Which would not be a bad thing at this point.
Click to expand...
Especially, since I have now lost the purpose of Intelligent Design evidence.:o
I’m still trying to figure out what dogmatic generalizations are. My last guess is that it is a figure of speech. Don’t tell me because in any case it might be off topic.
 
Al_Moritz said:
I have given specific examples right at the beginning of the thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8773917&postcount=6

in answer to your initial post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8772709&postcount=1
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reference:
I agree with
  1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
Click to expand...
But this is not scientific evidence (science proper can say nothing about divine design), but evidence from science, philosophically interpreted.
Click to expand...
Evidence from science is enough for me!
I also agree with
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.
Click to expand...
But this is neither scientific evidence, nor evidence from science. It refers to an immaterial soul, which lies outside the scientific method that employs methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism, so science has nothing to say about that. It is purely philosophical evidence (and there is nothing wrong with that; science has no monopoly on rational knowledge).

So be careful with a too loose and incorrect use of the term “scientific” in this context (I say this as a scientist).
Click to expand...
Code: 
	  		  		 		  		  		  		  		 			 			 			 			 				Do you believe the body and soul are separate entities which have nothing in common?
Is rationality an entirely spiritual (or physical!) attribute?
 
Al_Moritz said:
That is one of the main problems pervading this thread – the continual confusion of philosophy with science by the biological ID proponents.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is time to drop the biological ID. Confusion is doing nothing for me.
 
Al_Moritz said:
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
Click to expand...
Al:

Yes; 308 appears to be a better enunciation of what I was trying, ever so poorly, to say. 308 speaks to a secondary cause that is not one of the four primary causes, but is a full composite of Primary matter and Form (plus, by inference, efficient and final causality).

Now, where do the laws and constants fall in this scenario?

Thank you.

God bless,
jd
 
grannymh said:
Especially, since I have now lost the purpose of Intelligent Design evidence.:o
I’m still trying to figure out what dogmatic generalizations are. My last guess is that it is a figure of speech. Don’t tell me because in any case it might be off topic.
Click to expand...
I thought you were leaving the thread anyway! 🙂
 
JDaniel said:
Al:

Yes; 308 appears to be a better enunciation of what I was trying, ever so poorly, to say. 308 speaks to a secondary cause that is not one of the four primary causes, but is a full composite of Primary matter and Form (plus, by inference, efficient and final causality).

Now, where do the laws and constants fall in this scenario?

Thank you.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
The laws and constants are the rules, given by God, under which the secondary causes operate.
 
tonyrey said:
Evidence from science is enough for me!
Click to expand...
That’s good enough for me too.

We take data from science and then interpret it to see if it supports an hypothesis.

The hypothesis is not scientific evidence – it’s a philosophical proposal.
 
tonyrey said:
This type of remark does nothing to further the discussion. It would be more to the point to give a specific example of your claim…
Click to expand...
My claim or rather my wish is that Catholic ID advocates go from the evidence of design to the evidence of a personal Creator Who loved us so much that He sent His only Son to be our Savior.
 
Al_Moritz said:
You dropped the “philosophically interpreted” part. The design inference is philosophy.
Click to expand...
Every scientific inference is philosophy. Science does not interpret anything. All interpretation is a philosophical, not scientific exercise.

The design inference is therefore of the same order as the inference to natural law or the inference to chance. Those are philosophical proposals – not scientific data.
 
tonyrey said:
Code: 
                                                                                                                                        Do you believe the body and soul are separate entities which have nothing in common?
Is rationality an entirely spiritual (or physical!) attribute?
Click to expand...
How is the answer relevant to Evidence for Design?
 
reggieM said:
That’s good enough for me too.

We take data from science and then interpret it to see if it supports an hypothesis.

The hypothesis is not scientific evidence – it’s a philosophical proposal.
Click to expand...
The hypothesis is not scientific evidence - it’s a scientific proposal.

Yeah, I’m lurking and decided it was time to post something relevant.
 
reggieM said:
Every scientific inference is philosophy. Science does not interpret anything. All interpretation is a philosophical, not scientific exercise.

The design inference is therefore of the same order as the inference to natural law or the inference to chance. Those are philosophical proposals – not scientific data.
Click to expand...
Unless you belong to the Dawkins faction! :dts:
 
Al_Moritz said:
You dropped the “philosophically interpreted” part. The design inference is philosophy.
Click to expand...
A philosophical inference **from **scientific data. Dawkins and his followers regard their inference that persons are no more than animals as a scientific fact.
 
grannymh said:
My claim or rather my wish is that Catholic ID advocates go from the evidence of design to the evidence of a personal Creator Who loved us so much that He sent His only Son to be our Savior.
Click to expand...
Do you get the feeling that somehow this concept of God is swept into a corner with other “meaningless” bits and pieces and gets covered up? Yet it is really the most important part of any attempt to explain how and why human beings (and other organisms) are the way they are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top