Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

My interpretation was that even if we were to accept that some natural objects were designed by an agency, it doesn’t imply that the agency was the Christian God, or even that there was a single agency.

That is exactly what I once read on an ID site. I sincerely hope that this statement has been pulled, even though it could be true of ID. This is because it reads like a slam against the Catholics who are involved.

 

[tonyrey]

A stimulating dose of Design will do you far more far good!

That is because the Design is or includes the dose of Design - depending on how you look at it!

Inanimate objects are essential for the composition and purposeful activity of biological organisms - according to the atomic theory.

According to the atomic theory (which I do not know) what are the names of those inanimate objects essential for the composition and purposeful activity of biological organisms?

Protons, neutrons and electrons plus a host of other subatomic entities.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That is exactly what I once read on an ID site. I sincerely hope that this statement has been pulled, even though it could be true of ID. This is because it reads like a slam against the Catholics who are involved.

I think the real slam is that they felt the need to get involved in the first place. We need to understand that just because science rejects any evidence of God as being an inference of its methodology, it does not necessitate that there is no valid evidence outside the epistemological framework of science. Its seems to me that many Catholics are victims of the same fallacy that atheists are. They are victims of the idea that the only valuable and valid form of evidence is “scientific evidence” (Scientism). In other-words, by supporting ID Science, Catholics are unwittingly participating in and propagating a fatal fallacy which is both damaging for the dignity of Science and Philosophy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

"*Scientism refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the systematic methods and approach of science, especially the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[2][3] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[4] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[5] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[6] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[7]

Scientism may refer to science applied in excess, as criticised by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who held that science risks being made into a belief system like any other, and must be open to criticism if and when it becomes so.[8] The term “Scientism” can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses*"

 

[grannymh]

Are we getting twisted up with the word design? How about plan?

Is God a designer?
Is God a planner?

In my humble opinion, what is being either twisted or ignored is the Catholic theology of God and human origin, because apparently the only thing that counts is “design” of living material objects some of which are in humans. Nonetheless, it is essential to know that human nature itself is more than a material anatomy which includes eyes, etc.

Granted that some of the research used by ID is useful for understanding molecular biology and other areas of natural science. I am aware of a few scientists in the ID field who do hold the Catholic doctrines regarding human nature. However, their area of interest is outside of the Catholic theological position regarding the biblical Adam and Eve.

I am no longer fooled by the battle of one kind of science against another kind of unnamed science. As far as I am concerned, this battle has no real connection to the real battle of human origin and the consequent Catholic doctrines.

 

[tonyrey]

*1. Constants presuppose the absence of chaos.

Opinions differ as to whether all events are determined but what happens in the universe is irrelevant. The total absence of constants would be equivalent to chaos.

Why does constancy presuppose design? Why not the tendency of matter and forces to operate in the same way all the time, under prevailing circumstances, given they have no choice in the matter and are not directed by any sort of mind?

1. A tendency is not a necessity - unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.

If design is your final explanation, it is a cop-out, since it leaves the designer unexplained.

1. There are an immense number of valid explanations but they all leave the universe unexplained and they are not regarded as a cop-out.
2. If design is a cop-out the rejection of design is a double cop-out because it leaves the universe unexplained and offers no explanation of the universe whatsoever!

 

[buffalo]

That is exactly what I once read on an ID site. I sincerely hope that this statement has been pulled, even though it could be true of ID. This is because it reads like a slam against the Catholics who are involved.

ID the science, simply looks for probabilistic evidence of design. Philosophy identifies the designer. They are independent.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I think the real slam is that they felt the need to get involved in the first place. We need to understand that just because science rejects any evidence of God as being an inference of its methodology, it does not necessitate that there is no valid evidence outside the epistemological framework of science. Its seems to me that many Catholics are victims of the same fallacy that atheists are. They are victims of the idea that the only valuable and valid form of evidence is “scientific evidence” (Scientism). In other-words, by supporting ID Science, Catholics are unwittingly participating in and propagating a fatal fallacy which is both damaging for the dignity of Science and Philosophy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

"Scientism refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the systematic methods and approach of science, especially the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[2][3] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[4] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[5] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[6] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[7]

Scientism may refer to science applied in excess, as criticised by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who held that science risks being made into a belief system like any other, and must be open to criticism if and when it becomes so.[8] The term “Scientism” can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses"

Precisely. You pointed out a deeper and real underlying problem to the whole ID movement: scientism. And indeed, that intellectual disease strikes not just atheists, but theists as well.

This correlates with what I said earlier in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8781082&postcount=37

*. . . But this is a philosophical conclusion, outside the realm of science, which is – again – bound by methodological naturalism.

As a scientist who also values philosophy and proper analytical thinking I get really cranky if someone labels something ‘science’ that is not.

That disease of wanting to give anything the label ‘scientific’ just to make it ‘sound better’ appears to come from the culture of scientism, which is the idea that only scientific knowledge is rational and valid knowledge. Not just atheists, also Christians appear to be infected with this culture.*

 

[buffalo]

In other-words, by supporting ID Science, Catholics are unwittingly participating in and propagating a fatal fallacy which is both damaging for the dignity of Science and Philosophy.

I disagree. The search for truth in science should be supported by Catholics. Revelation tells us who the planner/designer is. So if we know the universe is part of God’s plan/design why not support the study of it?

Biomimicry is an area where designs are identified, studied and copied. That is one form of ID the science.

 

[preferanonymous]

I do not think the sort of objectivity the Catholic seeks with regard to God’s existence or the natural law can be determined by natural science. Arguments which depend on these sorts of scientific premises do not thus do justice to the truths that are integral to Catholicism.

 

[buffalo]

I do not think the sort of objectivity the Catholic seeks with regard to God’s existence or the natural law can be determined by natural science. Arguments which depend on these sorts of scientific premises do not thus do justice to the truths that are integral to Catholicism.

Agreed. science is a subset.

 

[preferanonymous]

Agreed. science is a subset.

May I ask, buffalo, having said this, whether or not you think teleological ethics depends on premises from natural science?

 

[buffalo]

May I ask, buffalo, having said this, whether or not you think teleological ethics depends on premises from natural science?

Not sure if I understand… My knee jerk response is the end does not justify the means. Is this what you were getting at?

 

[preferanonymous]

Not sure if I understand… My knee jerk response is the end does not justify the means. Is this what you were getting at?

I don’t think so. What I meant to ask is whether or not in order to make a natural law teleological argument against, let us say, sodomy, one needs to affirm some scientific premise- like a penis is ordered toward procreation. What I want to ask is whether you think ‘natural function’ sort of arguments have the same lack of objectivity that you find in science. Does one need to say something causal or objective, so to speak, about some part of the universe to make a teleological argument? If one does, and these sorts of claims are in fact not objective, then are teleological arguments and poor basis for natural law- which one might want to be objectively known?

 

[tonyrey]

I do not think the sort of objectivity the Catholic seeks with regard to God’s existence or the natural law can be determined by natural science. Arguments which depend on these sorts of scientific premises do not thus do justice to the truths that are integral to Catholicism.

Arguments which depend on these sorts of scientific premises do not thus do justice to **all **the truths that are integral to Catholicism. It doesn’t follow that they do justice to no truths!

 

[preferanonymous]

Arguments which depend on these sorts of scientific premises do not thus do justice to **all **the truths that are integral to Catholicism. It doesn’t follow that they do justice to no truths!

By doing justice I meant, I think, ‘contribute logically to a proof’. These scientific premises do not do. That being said, looking at the world can to see something like God’s design, perhaps, might contribute to faith in important ways.

I might note, I think I might be open to design being the case. That being said, I don’t think it should be a premise for an argument about God’s existence or natural law. To talk about objectivity in science is, I think, nonsense. Perhaps design is one of those things which, although it cannot be said, can be shown in other ways such that it contributes to faith.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t think so. What I meant to ask is whether or not in order to make a natural law teleological argument against, let us say, sodomy, one needs to affirm some scientific premise- like a penis is ordered toward procreation. What I want to ask is whether you think ‘natural function’ sort of arguments have the same lack of objectivity that you find in science. Does one need to say something causal or objective, so to speak, about some part of the universe to make a teleological argument? If one does, and these sorts of claims are in fact not objective, then are teleological arguments and poor basis for natural law- which one might want to be objectively known?

Ahhh, I think I get it…

Revelation tells us the moral law. (personally I do not believe man could arrive at the ten commandments by himself). That source of information/direction comes from Love (God) Himself.

Science is limited as to what it can say about the universe and its working. We are limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

Science could actually empirically make a case about procreation. The facts would show that sodomy never results in pregnancy.

Empirical science will show observable, repeatable and predictable results. From those consistent observations man has to reason the meaning. That is where I claim the weakness is, being subjective.

The arrows show the information flow.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

Natural Law

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law” (I-II.94). The eternal law is God’s wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

 

[reggieM]

Now I am really confused. If “design” is not directly concerned with the existence of God, and has many applications such as SETI, forensics, cryptology, archeology, why are Catholics promoting Intelligent Design?

I thought I understood Intelligent Design when I first landed on CAF, but the more I read here, the more confused I get.

In the same way that St. Thomas Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God are not arguments proving the existence of the Blessed Trinity.

It’s important to understand the limits and purpose of the argument.

Scientific arguments like ID can only offer probabilistic evidence. This can strengthen the case for Theism, but it’s not an absolute proof.

1. like causes produce like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. therefore the universe is the result of intelligence

Note the conclusion – it lends strength to arguments for the existence of God.

Here is the same ID argument with more detail

1. if something is fine-tuned, then it came into existence
2. if something comes into existence, then it does so either due to chance or not chance
3. if something is not chance, then it is intentional
4. there is no known instance of chance fine-tuning any complex thing
5. therefore, it is more plausible that that which is fine-tuned is due to intention, rather than chance
6. the universe is fine-tuned
7. therefore, it is more plausible that it is due to intention

Again, take a look at the conclusion. It does not prove more than it sets out to prove. Like an argument on the existence of a First Cause, other arguments are needed, for example, to prove that the Catholic Faith is true.

 

[reggieM]

How can the anthropic values of our universe’s constants be explained? Pure chance? Multiple universes? Or supernatural design?

Fr. Spitzer supports ID – but, for some reason, only with regards to cosmology.
Apparently, we can see evidence for Design in the cosmos, but it’s unthinkable that similar evidence can be found in life itself.

It doesn’t make sense …

 

[reggieM]

ID the science, simply looks for probabilistic evidence of design. Philosophy identifies the designer. They are independent.

True. Catholic theology starts with a philosophical basis. You have to accept some first principles. If a person has decided, for example, that miracles are impossible and can never possibly occur – then the best arguments to use are ID oriented. Trying to discuss the nature of the Trinity with such a person will not be very fruitful.

You have to start with a foundation. We might call it “Western Theism” – built on rationality and observations and logic, etc.

 

[reggieM]

The search for truth in science should be supported by Catholics.

True. St. Thomas Aquinas calls science an intellectual virtue. Through observations of the world, we can recognize the existence of God (as St. Paul taught in Romans 1:20).

Revelation tells us who the planner/designer is. So if we know the universe is part of God’s plan/design why not support the study of it?

Many good Catholics today have missed this point entirely. Sadly, they are vulnerable to atheist-materialistic attacks as a result.

Biomimicry is an area where designs are identified, studied and copied. That is one form of ID the science.