Evidence for Design?

[buffalo]

Did I not refer a few posts ago to God as a cosmic Designer?

I got that, but your position is that He excludes biologic design.

Let me get this straight - He is a cosmic designer, but for some reason man, who is made in His image and likeness and the purpose of Creation, the culmination of His love is unplanned? I believe it inconsistent unless wedded to an ######### worldview.

 

[reggieM]

Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2011

2.The Design of the Butterfly Continues to Inspire and Amaze.

There is a new film about about this amazing creature. For me, the metamorphosis of the butterfly destroys the possibility that “the banned topic” theory is correct in its most wide-reaching claim. The butterfly offers remarkable evidence of design.

3.Woodpecker Drumming Inspires Shock-Absorbing System.

Biomemitics …

We notice that a scientist has developed a new adhesive, so strong it can hold thousands of pounds “on the ceiling”. It can be removed and reused. It leaves no residue when removed.

This is obviously a brilliant design – clearly, a scientist and engineers designed it.

But what if the scientist said that he stole the original design from another scientist?

Clearly, we would credit the first scientist with having the great intelligence for creating the original design.

We know the adhesive was designed by a scientist …

But now we learn that the scientist merely copied what he saw of an adhesive found in nature (on the feet of gecko lizards).

Nature does not have the intelligence to be credited with the original design. No scientist created the original design either.

It’s therefore very reasonable to conclude: Another Designer should be credited with having the genius to create the original design in nature. A Designer non-human and non-natural process (since the design is evidence of reason and there is no reason in nature itself).

 

[reggieM]

The rejection of biological design implies that physical causes are a **complete **explanation of the existence of homo sapiens - with the superimposition of a soul regarded as a superstitious accretion which infringes the law of conservation of energy…

Excellent point. It’s necessary to show the limitations of natural processes – especially since the most widespread claim in science today is that those processes alone are sufficient to explain the existence of human beings (and everything in the universe).

The rejection of biological design under the arguments that:

1. God wouldn’t intervene in nature
2. God does not reveal any evidence for design because natural laws can produce everything
3. The design that we might see in nature is an illusion

… are all false.

Intelligent Design theory has done a great job to help clarify the problems – and it has exposed a great number of problems with the most common claims of biological science.

 

[reggieM]

Let me get this straight - He is a cosmic designer, but for some reason man, who is made in His image and likeness and the purpose of Creation, the culmination of His love is unplanned? I believe it inconsistent unless wedded to an ######### worldview.

True. But it’s totally consistent with an ######## worldview. In fact, you can’t fully embrace that worldview or the most common form of the theory without asserting the contradictory idea that you posted.

 

[tonyrey]

Does the image on the Shroud of Turin give evidence of Design?
What method would you use to determine whether the evidence was strong or weak – or non-existent?
Would science be able to assist in giving evidence for Design that may be present in the image on the Shroud?

"Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development published a final report last month on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, after five years of experiments and studies. It was identified that the Shroud of Turin’s image was created by an extremely powerful flash of light, so powerful that Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of chemistry at Pavia University, described it as unearthly, “The implications are… that the image was formed by a burst of UV energy so intense it could only have been supernatural.”
http://digitaljournal.com/article/316570#ixzz1ivB6mhuo

This should help answer your questions, Reggie!
http://digitaljournal.com/article/316570#ixzz1ivB6mhuo

 

[tonyrey]

Excellent point. It’s necessary to show the limitations of natural processes – especially since the most widespread claim in science today is that those processes alone are sufficient to explain the existence of human beings (and everything in the universe).

The rejection of biological design under the arguments that:

1. God wouldn’t intervene in nature
2. God does not reveal any evidence for design because natural laws can produce everything
3. The design that we might see in nature is an illusion

… are all false.

Intelligent Design theory has done a great job to help clarify the problems – and it has exposed a great number of problems with the most common claims of biological science.

Biological Scientism neatly debunked!

 

[reggieM]

Do you believe God designed the universe, created its physical components and has taken no further part in the physical proceedings?

I find it amazing that so-called neo-neo-Thomists like Mr. Feser and several others like him (at least I so-call him that) cannot understand the basics of ID and actually argue directly against the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas in their fervent opposition of Intelligent Design ideas. When questioned, they just avoid the issues and I find that very frustrating also.

St. Thomas believed that God created the “original forms” directly – and this includes all the forms of animals that we know of. This goes directly against ####### theory, but that is just dismissed.

More importantly is the answer to your question above – Catholic metaphysics of creation, as you’re probing here. Does God just create laws and let them run unattended? That is clearly the idea with the theistic version of ######. Because, if God was involved with creation on a continual basis, then this would change ideas on how “all the variation” in nature actually arose.

Does God “intervene” in nature - - beyond rare miracles that we observe?

St. Thomas addresses this early in the Summa – Bk. 1, Question 8 – Is God In All Things? The answer is affirmative.

Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being.

Does God rely on ###### to create all the variation in nature and to “emerge” the existence of human beings?

But it belongs to the great power of God that He acts immediately in all things. Hence nothing is distant from Him, as if it could be without God in itself.

The best way to deny all of that is to say this:

“Ok, sure – of course God acts immediately in nature, and preserves all things continually in existence. But that has no impact at all on the claims of Darwinian theory at all. Everything in nature was created through mutations and natural selection. Everybody knows that. Plus, it’s impossible to ever detect God’s design in nature because … well, it just is impossible. We know that.”

And it usually doesn’t get much better than that, in my opinion.

 

[reggieM]

"Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development published a final report last month on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, after five years of experiments and studies. It was identified that the Shroud of Turin’s image was created by an extremely powerful flash of light, so powerful that Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of chemistry at Pavia University, described it as unearthly, “The implications are… that the image was formed by a burst of UV energy so intense it could only have been supernatural.”
http://digitaljournal.com/article/316570#ixzz1ivB6mhuo

This should help answer your questions, Reggie!
http://digitaljournal.com/article/316570#ixzz1ivB6mhuo

That is simply amazing. :extrahappy:

Design detection at work, by scientists. I think that says it, Tony – thank you!!!

 

[reggieM]

I will readily concede that here you have a valid point. Mere biological features are often confused with human nature as such, and the culture of anthropological science is guilty of this.

Thanks. That is my concern and I think the problem is widespread in science, and is in fact, the majority opinion by a wide margin.

In defense of science though I will point out that there is a discipline in anthropology that does just that: trying to define the earliest demarcation line of what makes us uniquely human and sets us apart from other animals.

That’s a metaphysical project for reasons already given.

This unique human feature would be rationality, and science tries to discern where it started, judging from past behavior that they observe. But how do you do that? Is certain toolmaking the beginning of rationality? Or does it start with the cave paintings of 35,000 years ago? I would suggest that this would have to the very latest possible date for the origin of rationality, since these paintings require conceptual thinking that is a hallmark of rationality. However, there may very well be earlier tell-tale signs of rationality, perhaps certain tool-making indeed.

Again, rationality is immaterial – so science should not be studying it. That violates the naturalistic method.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

youtube.com/watch?v=CqRP8xyzIWo&feature=related

Berlinski dissing Dawkins.

 

[buffalo]

There is a new film about about this amazing creature. For me, the metamorphosis of the butterfly destroys the possibility that “the banned topic” theory is correct in its most wide-reaching claim. The butterfly offers remarkable evidence of design.

Biomemitics …

We notice that a scientist has developed a new adhesive, so strong it can hold thousands of pounds “on the ceiling”. It can be removed and reused. It leaves no residue when removed.

This is obviously a brilliant design – clearly, a scientist and engineers designed it.

But what if the scientist said that he stole the original design from another scientist?

Clearly, we would credit the first scientist with having the great intelligence for creating the original design.

We know the adhesive was designed by a scientist …

But now we learn that the scientist merely copied what he saw of an adhesive found in nature (on the feet of gecko lizards).

Nature does not have the intelligence to be credited with the original design. No scientist created the original design either.

It’s therefore very reasonable to conclude: Another Designer should be credited with having the genius to create the original design in nature. A Designer non-human and non-natural process (since the design is evidence of reason and there is no reason in nature itself).

Yes, biomimicry is starting to be a big thing. Copying designs found n nature. Who woulda thunk?

 

[buffalo]

"Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development published a final report last month on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, after five years of experiments and studies. It was identified that the Shroud of Turin’s image was created by an extremely powerful flash of light, so powerful that Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of chemistry at Pavia University, described it as unearthly, “The implications are… that the image was formed by a burst of UV energy so intense it could only have been supernatural.”
http://digitaljournal.com/article/316570#ixzz1ivB6mhuo

This should help answer your questions, Reggie!
http://digitaljournal.com/article/316570#ixzz1ivB6mhuo

34 thousand billion watts…

 

[tonyrey]

34 thousand billion watts…

I’m fascinated to know how the sceptics will explain that away! :juggle:

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m fascinated to know how the sceptics will explain that away! :juggle:

It does make me smile

When science and scientists make statements that those of faith find uncomfortable, they say Oi Vey, scientists schmientists, what do they know … they’re obviously wrong and the science is wrong.

Soon as science or scientists say something they like - pow … it HAS to be right lol

I’m a sceptic - and Im especially sceptical of any so called ‘‘scientist’’ who just immediately fills in the gaps with ‘‘it must be miraculous’’. Sorry, but they have no credibility as scientists in my view. Much better to say, this is one way it COULD be done, but quite HOW it could be done this way, within the laws of nature, we don’t know for sure… rather than fill in the gaps with the supernatural.

Kinda tells me their agenda

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, biomimicry is starting to be a big thing. Copying designs found in nature. Who woulda thunk?

It amounts to believing purposeless events are capable of greater achievements than Nobel laureates. In other words Chance reigns supreme! :whacky:

 

[inocente]

The number and size of galaxies are irrelevant to the purpose of the universe.

Be sure to let God know He needn’t have made the other 170 billion galaxies then.

Heaven is not a place!

The NT thinks of Heaven as a place, Revelation 21 says it has a city of light, Jesus says it’s a place in John 14:1-4.

*The existence of rational beings on this planet is evidence that::

(a) There are probably rational beings on other planets

(b) The universe serves as a basis for life

(c) The universe does not exist for no reason or purpose

(d) Materialism is absurd*

Agreed on (a) and (d).

(b) is wrong. I know some Catholics just love dualisms, but introducing a divide between life and the universe is unscientific and not particularly coherent - life is an integral part of the universe, not separate.

On (c), even though we might have a strong personal belief that there must be a reason or purpose to existence, it is a metaphysical belief which falls outside (well outside) the scientific evidence you spoke of in your OP.

Gravity designed nothing…

Yes it did. Gravity collected the dust together and formed it into the sphere we call Earth. And in your OP you say there is evidence for design in the laws of nature - have you changed your mind in the last few days then?

 

[tonyrey]

It does make me smile

When science and scientists make statements that those of faith find uncomfortable, they say Oi Vey, scientists schmientists, what do they know … they’re obviously wrong and the science is wrong.

Soon as science or scientists say something they like - pow … it HAS to be right lol

I’m a sceptic - and Im especially sceptical of any so called ‘‘scientist’’ who just immediately fills in the gaps with ‘‘it must be miraculous’’. Sorry, but they have no credibility as scientists in my view. Much better to say, this is one way it COULD be done, but quite HOW it could be done this way, within the laws of nature, we don’t know for sure… rather than fill in the gaps with the supernatural.

Kinda tells me their agenda

Sarah x

1. How do you define “natural”?
2. What are its precise limits?
3. How do you determine them?
4. Is reality restricted to what can be detected with the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?
5. What makes you believe **everything **is “natural”?

 

[inocente]

The fact that all natural objects must have a Creator (and Designer) does not imply that **all **natural objects are **directly **created and designed. Many are byproducts which serve no useful purpose and may even disrupt the system.

This introduces another dualism which appears to diminish God by relegating Him to only having a direct role with certain objects, and is also subjective since it is you who get to decide what is and isn’t useful. Isn’t it just a lot simpler, and more likely to be true, to see God as active in everything? “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”? (Rom 1:20)

 

[tonyrey]

The number and size of galaxies are irrelevant to the purpose of the universe.

Irrelevant and an unseemly statement for a Christian…

Heaven is not a place!

The NT thinks of Heaven as a place, Revelation 21 says it has a city of light, Jesus says it’s a place in John 14:1-4.

Symbolism.

 	 		 			 				*The existence of rational beings on this planet is evidence that::

*(a) There are probably rational beings on other planets

(b) The universe serves as a basis for life

(c) The universe does not exist for no reason or purpose

(d) Materialism is absurd*
Agreed on (a) and (d).

(b) is wrong. I know some Catholics just love dualisms, but introducing a divide between life and the universe is unscientific and not particularly coherent - life is an integral part of the universe, not separate.

Your interpretation is incorrect. The universe serves as a basis for life within the universe*.
*

On (c), even though we might have a strong personal belief that there must be a reason or purpose to existence, it is a metaphysical belief which falls outside (well outside) the scientific evidence you spoke of in your OP.

Not all the evidence is scientific.

Gravity designed

nothing…
Yes it did. Gravity collected the dust together and formed it into the sphere we call Earth.

Your use of “design” is idiosyncratic…

 

[tonyrey]

*The fact that all natural objects must have a Creator (and Designer) does not imply that **all ***

A false deduction. Coincidences are not directly created or intended but they are inevitable consequences of the interplay of the laws of nature and an integral part of Creation.