Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

Unless you belong to the Dawkins faction! :dts:

Yes - if everything is reduced to physical laws acting on matter, then any interpretation of data is actually just a molecular process – purely a physical response determined by natural laws. There really is no philosophy to speak of in that worldview.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A scientific proposal is a philosophical construct. It exists first in the mind – it’s a product of reason.

A scientific proposal is a scientific construct. It is governed by scientific method. A philosophic construct is not.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

They do but that takes us from the realm of philosophy to theology - and it definitely goes beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A philosophical inference **from **scientific data. Dawkins and his followers regard their inference that persons are no more than animals as a scientific fact.

Are you sure? I’m no fan of Dawkins but I would think he would be aware that there are no facts in science. His followers now, well that’s a different story.

BTW, persons (human beings) *are *animals in a scientific sense merely because they are classified as such and there are very good reasons to classify them as such.

 

[grannymh]

To Al Moritz and JDaniel,

For you :flowers: :flowers:

Thank you for your great discussion. It was worth my popping in.
I hope to be back.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[reggieM]

A scientific proposal is a scientific construct. It is governed by scientific method. A philosophic construct is not.

A scientific proposal is a philosophical construct. It is not created by science.

The scientific method is a philosophical construct. It has its origins in a philosophical system and worldview – not in science.

Science cannot create mental processes. It follows rules that were not created by science, but were created by philosophy.

Science cannot provide interpretations of reality – interpretations are philosophical concepts.

A philosophical construct is not governed by the scientific method because that method was created by philosophy.

 

[LittleSoldier]

They do but that takes us from the realm of philosophy to theology - and it definitely goes beyond the scope of this thread.

I find that to be very sad. Isn’t God and Jesus’ sacrifice the whole reason for this forum?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes - if everything is reduced to physical laws acting on matter, then any interpretation of data is actually just a molecular process – purely a physical response determined by natural laws. There really is no philosophy to speak of in that worldview.

It is an implicit philosophy, Reggie, of physicalism - based on the assumption that science can in principle explain all events that occur in the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

I find that to be very sad. Isn’t God and Jesus’ sacrifice the whole reason for this forum?

Not as far as non-believers are concerned - and this forum is also intended for their benefit.

 

[grannymh]

They do but that takes us from the realm of philosophy to theology - and it definitely goes beyond the scope of this thread.

I’m referring to the real Catholicism, the Faith I trust.
Jesus Christ never worried about going beyond the scope of this world. It is important to bring Him back into people’s lives.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Yes, I changed my opinion on an issue that is not related to the things currently discussed. Again you are engaging in distortions and deceptions.

Reggie,

My apologies for this remark. It was over the top.

 

[grannymh]

I find that to be very sad. Isn’t God and Jesus’ sacrifice the whole reason for this forum?

Yes, God and Jesus’ sacrifice is the whole reason for CAF. Of course there are secondary reasons…

 

[Al_Moritz]

To Al Moritz and JDaniel,

For you :flowers: :flowers:

Thank you for your great discussion. It was worth my popping in.

Thank you.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you sure? I’m no fan of Dawkins but I would think he would be aware that there are no facts in science. His followers now, well that’s a different story.

He certainly doesn’t accept any non-scientific facts as far as I’m aware - unless you can call his view that religion is evil and RE is child abuse are facts for him!

BTW, persons (human beings) *are *animals in a scientific sense merely because they are classified as such and there are very good reasons to classify them as such.

Classified but not explained!

 

[ricmat]

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.

Most of the ID advocates seen in this forum DO go there.

There are many who make the claim that if somehow ID evidence leads you to such a religious conclusion, then ID evidence can’t be science because it is tainted by religion. This debate has been going on for years now (on this forum).

ID presents evidence for Design (of life, the universe, etc), which most of us believe would require an intelligence and power that only “God” possesses. But the leap to “only God possesses” is not a required part of ID.

 

[Al_Moritz]

A philosophical inference **from **scientific data. Dawkins and his followers regard their inference that persons are no more than animals as a scientific fact.

Yes, they regard it as science. Also most atheists are constantly confusing science and philosophy.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m referring to the real Catholicism, the Faith I trust.
Jesus Christ never worried about going beyond the scope of this world. It is important to bring Him back into people’s lives.

That is what we are trying to do on this forum but you cannot do everything at once… One thread at a time before the garment is completed!

 

[grannymh]

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.

I have that feeling. I think it is because the word “Design” has taken on a life of its own.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A scientific proposal is a philosophical construct. It is not created by science.

A scientific proposal is a scientific construct. It is formed from analyzing previous data obtained from research using scientific method.

The scientific method is a philosophical construct. It has its origins in a philosophical system and worldview – not in science.

The scientific method is not a philosophical construct. It has its origins in science.

Science cannot create mental processes. It follows rules that were not created by science, but were created by philosophy.

Science cannot create mental processes or anything else simply because it is a system of study and does not have the power to create or form. Philosophy also cannot create mental processes as it is a system of study and does not have the power to create or form.

Science cannot provide interpretations of reality – interpretations are philosophical concepts.

I agree, to a certain extent although philosophical interpretations are not the only interpretations of reality - there is also theology (unless you are claiming that theology is a subset of philosophy).

A philosophical construct is not governed by the scientific method because that method was created by philosophy.

But a scientific construct is governed by scientific method. I don’t know how philosophical constructs are governed as I am not a philosopher but a scientist.

 

[reggieM]

Reggie,

My apologies for this remark. It was over the top.

Al – accepted, and many thanks for your kind thought.