Evidence for Design?

[JDaniel]

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.

Muchas gracias, Senora!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Especially if we include those that occurred to prevent animals suffering before the human race appeared on this planet…

How true. Now, I’m never going to do it!

God bless,
jd

 

[Al_Moritz]

I think you’ll find that biologists have considered this as settled science since before Dawkins was even born. The only ones that didn’t are the ones that, like you, would prefer to believe in the fairy-tale of creationism (or the oft-debunked “intelligent design” as it’s currently called) rather than having the intellectual honesty and/or courage to follow the evidence where it leads. This former demographic is now tiny amongst biologists and other scientists, as rejecting the evidence is tantamount to declaring oneself an idiot - or at least, an incompetent scientist.

You’re crediting Dawkins with far too much by implying that he has led the charge in establishing humans as part of the animal kingdom; I can only think that this is an attempt to persuade yourself that the reality of animal taxonomy is nothing more than a recent atheist subterfuge, rather than the well-established, immensely-evidenced scientific fact that it actually is.

Really, do you honestly believe what you’re saying when you publicly reject the facts? I find it hard to imagine that anybody can be so obtuse as to ignore the overwhelming groundswell of scientific evidence that supports the fact of evolution - including human development. Or do you just not allow yourself to really think about it, because you know the consequences if you did? Maybe you think that it’ll go away if you shout loudly and frequently enough?

The issue is not if humans are animals. Of course they are. This has been settled long before science. Already scholastic philosophers referred to humans as “rational animals”. The issue is if humans are “no more than animals”, and if the “rational” part can be explained by purely material processes. And that is far from settled.

 

[reggieM]

Reggie:

The only refutation of that is an uncategorical denial. Which is, as we know, nothing more than a non-refutation.

God bless,
jd

Exactly! There’s no real refutation offered at all. The universe and nature itself reveals many aspects of design – design is implanted into the structure of nature itself.

 

[reggieM]

wanstronian;8956646:

There is more than one type of evolution. One is a far more verifiable version than (Neo)Darwinism, i.e. that with a **rational **

foundation.

True – and scientists and pointing out that NeoDarwinism is not an adequate explanation:

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.
springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

The Darwinian inferences (philosophical conclusions) are far from certain – they’re being rejected more openly now.

Oh yes, this discussion is off-topic!

 

[reggieM]

The issue is if humans are “no more than animals”, and if the “rational” part can be explained by purely material processes. And that is far from settled.

True! Rational processes are not reducible to matter and physical laws.

 

[razredge]

From the link.

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

Yes, and? Did he say anything about a literal Adam and Eve in a garden with a talking snake? No

How was this possible, how did it happen? This remains obscure.

t has been presented in great images, as does chapter 3 of Genesis, with the vision of two trees, of the serpent, of sinful man. A great image that makes us guess, but it cannot explain how much in itself is illogical. We can guess, not explain; nor can we recount it as a fact next to another, because it is a more profound reality. It remains a mystery of darkness, of night.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, and? Did he say anything about a literal Adam and Eve in a garden with a talking snake? No

Seems to me from reading CAF posts, that the people who refer to a talking snake per se are not familiar with the Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin. Now, the Pope does know the Catholic Doctrine so of course he wouldn’t refer to a talking snake per se. Unless maybe he winked.

 

[razredge]

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

Do you watch the news? It’s readily apparent.

No, I don’t believe God generally intervenes directly to prevent suffering.
I don’t know why, if I did we wouldn’t have a problem of evil, now would we.

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

Sorry, my mistake - I confused you with someone else.

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.

Yes, I don’t think God answers prayers by intervening in the natural order

Razredge:

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 doesn’t make much of a difference whether two, a 100 or 10,000 people rebelled first or how fast it spread to the other members of the populace.
The point is humanity rebelled against God.

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).

Sure, He could right now be preventing 12 earthquakes, 5 volcanic eruptions, 3 hurricanes, 2 tsunamis and an alien invasion to boot.

See the problem with this idea is its unfalsifiability, “my inability to invalidate your hypothesis is not the same thing as proving your hypothesis is true” as Sagan would say.

 

[razredge]

Seems to me from reading CAF posts, that the people who refer to a talking snake per se are not familiar with the Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin. Now, the Pope does know the Catholic Doctrine so of course he wouldn’t refer to a talking snake per se. Unless maybe he winked.

Oh so the talking snake part of the story isn’t true, but the two first humans called Adam & Eve part is - tell me Granny, how exactly do you ascertain that certain details of the same story are true while other details aren’t?

And along with the talking snake, Benedict didn’t say anything about a literal first couple either.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, I don’t think God answers prayers by intervening in the natural order

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[grannymh]

Oh so the talking snake part of the story isn’t true, but the two first humans called Adam & Eve part is - tell me Granny, how exactly do you ascertain that certain details of the same story are true while other details aren’t?

And along with the talking snake, Benedict didn’t say anything about a literal first couple either.

Do you really want me to share my secret way for telling which details are true?

When one talks about Original Sin, it is taken for granted that the listeners know the story – unless this is a religious ed class where no one has read those cutesy children’s books where there are plenty of leaves…

Seriously, when it comes to the truth in the first three chapters of Genesis, I have a handy cheat sheet called the “Index of Citations”. This is in the hard copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Also, I learned Catholic doctrines before I opened a Bible so I don’t have a whole lot of trouble. Even so, I have learned a couple new things while on CAF. Actually, I have learned a lot – mostly in-depth information about human nature. We, humans are indeed amazing!

This is why I keep saying that the very best “evidence for design” is the human person.

 

[razredge]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Well to me it seems to be the simplest solution to the problem of evil and the conclusion best supported by our experience - it also avoids problems like what happens if two people pray for conflicting requests.

There are quite a few theologians, philosophers and theistic scientists also seem to believe in a God who doesn’t generally interfere in the natural order.

 

[razredge]

Do you really want me to share my secret way for telling which details are true?

Seriously, when it comes to the truth in the first three chapters of Genesis, I have a handy cheat sheet called the “Index of Citations”. This is in the hard copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Also, I learned Catholic doctrines before I opened a Bible so I don’t have a whole lot of trouble. Even so, I have learned a couple new things while on CAF. Actually, I have learned a lot – mostly in-depth information about human nature. We, humans are indeed amazing!

This is why I keep saying that the very best “evidence for design” is the human person.

Granny, I think this post was written for you:
On the Misuse of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

How do you know that the Catechism of the Catholic Church gets it right?
For example in the article on the fall it also claims that death entered the world at the Fall, which is clearly false as there had already been billions of years of death before that

413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).

4 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

 

[wanstronian]

Not the Dawkins version!

And what do you consider to be “the Dawkins version” and how does it differ from the scientific concensus?

You are making the common mistake of equating Design with Creationism.

Its common - but it’s not a mistake. If you’re a proponent of ID, you should at least be aware of its history. Read the Wedge document.

Animal taxonomy is not an adequate explanation of rational beings.

Well, I disagree. You can see rationality on a broad continuum across the animal kingdom. Many “higher” animals have a clear ability to communicate and act on that communication. Many great apes have shown evidence of the “theory of mind” and exhibit rational behaviours as a result This is good evidence for rationality. The fact that humans are the most rational does not demand a special explanation.

There is more than one type of evolution. One is a far more verifiable version than (Neo)Darwinism, i.e. that with a **rational **foundation.

There are many disingenuous interpretations of evolution, but the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection first espoused by Darwin & Wallace, and refined and confirmed by scientific investigation ever since, is pretty settled and robust. Of course it’s incomplete, as is any scientific theory; but not to the point where it’s in any doubt. But guided evolution or ID, for example, simply takes this theory, adds an unnecessary, unverifiable and unknowable supernatural element, and claims, without evidence, that this supernatural element is the only thing that can make it “rational.”. But it’s NOT rational, and it’s not science. It’s bunk.

 

[grannymh]

This is why I keep saying that the very best “evidence for design” is the human person.

We humans are “designed” to have an eternal love-filled relationship with our Creator.
We have a spiritual soul which gives us the ability to share in God’s life through knowledge and love.

And how do I know this? Children know this in a song. “Jesus loves us this we know. For the Bible tells us so.”

 

[inocente]

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?

Every time someone falls down and another picks them up.

But then you answered my question with a question, and I wouldn’t ask again except the stickies say that’s not allowed, so: 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?

 

[inocente]

Why is it so necessary for Catholic ID avocates to depend on ID science or ID philosophy when there is so much more truth in the Catholic Church?

I propose they don’t understand the difference between philosophy, science and Twitter, which is either charming or a condemnation of modern edukashon, depending on the observer.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, I think this post was written for you:
On the Misuse of the Catechism of the Catholic Church



Here is an “out-of-context quote”


“When the CCC is read in isolation from Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the other teachings of the Magisterium, it is very likely to be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied.”


Obviously, the writer has somehow missed the footnotes which contain

"Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Teachings of the Magisterium, Writings of the Early Church Fathers, Prayers from the Liturgy, Philosophy from St. Thomas Aquinas, Encyclicals, Decrees from the Ecumenical Church Councils, Poetic Writings, Professions of Faith, Roman Catechism, Canon Law, Liturgy of the Hours, Eastern Rites, and Ecclesiastical Writers.

This is a recommended book.

The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ISBN 0-89870-450-2 (HB); ISBN 0-89870-451-0 (PB)

Seriously, there are some excellent points in the link.

To avoid some of the mistakes mentioned, readers should read the beginning sections on how to use the Catechism and how to follow its structure. Also read the two documents at the very front of the hard copy.

Be careful of the wishy-washy statements about the authority of the Catechism. As seen above, the sources presented in the Catechism assure us that the Catholic Deposit of Faith is handed down to us correctly.

 

[inocente]

On the Misuse of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Excellent for showing to those who think they’re the Pope and forget they’re laity, thanks.