Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

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.

Consider this … can a person who denies, in an absolute manner, that there is or ever can be any scientific evidence supporting the existence of God, truly accept the teachings of the Catholic Faith?

If so … please explain.

If not, then can you see the relevance and importance of ID?

 

[buffalo]

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 …

Yeah, I caught that. He still is supporting #########.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Scientism is far more likely to strike theists if they are informed by philosophers and theologians that there is no evidence whatsoever of Design in the universe…

 

[Al_Moritz]

Fr. Spitzer supports ID – but, for some reason, only with regards to cosmology.

Because he is well informed about science, that’s why (now that I hear that he supports ########, my interest in the guy has peaked drastically right there).

Apparently, we can see evidence for Design in the cosmos,

There are really good arguments for this,

but it’s unthinkable that similar evidence can be found in life itself.

It doesn’t make sense …

but there are no really good arguments for that.

It only does not makes sense if you don’t understand the data. ######## explains the apparent design in life all on its own, without the need of “hands-on” ID *). However, ######## can only occur when the laws of nature are incredibly fine-tuned.

The design lies in cosmic design.

---

*) it only does not explain human rationality because this requires an immaterial component of the mind, and ######## is a material process.

 

[reggieM]

Sorry, didn’t intend to be obscure. I wouldn’t say miracles are impossible, but if they do occur they are exceptionally rare.

Thanks for your reply. I don’t know how you determined that they’re rare, but it’s good to see that you believe that it is possible that the Image on the Shroud had a supernatural origin.

Since you recognize that possiblity, and you reference scientiifc studies – you also accept that the way to prove that the Shroud is not a supernatural effect is to show, conclusively that there is a natural or scientific explanation.

If science fails, then that supports the proposal that the Shroud has a supernatural origin. That’s exactly what the latest scientific research stated.

I didn’t understand the “design detection” comment, but if the scientific method found an origin previously thought to be supernatural, it would immediately be reclassified as natural since scientists would want to study it!

I was pointing out the design detection. The reason why scientists want to study the Shroud are obvious – it exhibits “marks of having been designed”.

In other words, scientists don’t want to study an ordinary dish-towel or an ordinary piece of clothing. They’re interesting in the Shroud because it provides evidence …

Clearly, many atheists come up with hostile responses to the Shroud – they clearly recognize that it is evidence for design.

The image is visible, especially in negative,

You’ve conducted design detection in order to arrive at that conclusion.

… although to me the face looks like an old man, not the age of Jesus. I wouldn’t say the need to explain is proportional to complexity - the image of a paper clip on the shroud might be more intriguing.

Science has analyzed the image – it’s 3-D appearance, the nature of the coloration on micro-fibers, its proportion to a real body, the blood stains … much more.

Science has produced explanations, but there is disagreement, for instance three labs independently dated fragments as 13th C but some people then claimed those fragments were from medieval repairs. As the Cathedral authorities don’t want to keep removing bits just to find its origin, the mystery will probably remain.

The claims of a medieval origin have been conclusively overturned.

As the shroud is physical, the image must have a physical origin.

You have already stated that you accept that miracles do occur. That means that a non-physical entity can have (and has had) observable effects on physical things.

I said “I don’t personally question whether Jesus existed in history”. If you parse that sentence, you’ll see it doesn’t involve a need to be convinced by historical evidence.

It seems you accept His existence for some reason having nothing to do with science or history, right? What reasons are they?

The Baptist teaching is that everyone is free to come to God in our own way, and that Baptists choose, as Paul put it, Christ crucified.

Again, that sentence can only make sense if one uses the scientific, historical and documentary (object-based) evidence that we have. Otherwise, we wouldn’t know what it means to be crucified.

The foolishness of God is that we find Christ within us, kind of the last place we may have thought to look.

I don’t think you’re saying that Christ communicates His teaching to each person through a subjective, inner means, though.

We can discover the presence of God within us, but Christ taught through a community of believers – and pointed to that community as “the pillar and ground of truth”.

So, to discover the Catholic Church – one needs to recognize God’s presence in the world also – and this is beyond what one finds in oneself alone.

 

[reggieM]

The design lies in cosmic design.

Actually, according to that view there should be no evidence of design in the universe at all. You’re willing to claim that inanimate matter shows evidence of design, but that life itself (which includes human life and the God given soul) shows none.

If you accept the materialist story about the origin of life, then the same matter that shows fine-tuning in planets also randomly created life.

It’s the same matter and physical laws at work.

I do understand. ####### theory is considered to be somewhat sacred and irrefutable by many today. But that’s not the topic here, just an observation.

 

[reggieM]

Scientism is far more likely to strike theists if they are informed by philosophers and theologians that there is no evidence whatsoever of Design in the universe…

Exactly. Some theists will even deny the possibility of miracles in order to defend the sanctity of ###### and other scientific theories.

 

[reggieM]

but there are no really good arguments for that.

You’ve already given some in your arguments against the supposed ######ary origin of the mind.

Those are ID arguments. Natural processes cannot explain the origin of the mind. That is evidence of design.

The mind originated either by chance, natural law or non-chance.
There is no evidence (as you correctly stated) that chance or law can produce a mind.
Therefore, the mind has a non-chance, designed origin.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Actually, according to that view there should be no evidence of design in the universe at all. You’re willing to claim that inanimate matter shows evidence of design, but that life itself (which includes human life and the God given soul) shows none.

Without designed laws of nature there would be neither inanimate matter nor life. The laws of nature make no distinction between the two. The same laws that drive the physical evolution of the universe drive the chemical evolution with regards to the origin of life and biological evolution.

Of course, God designed the laws of nature such that eventually they would be able to generate and develop life.

Also, why do you keep twisting my words? The soul does show design, like I just said in my previous post (I didn’t call it soul, but “immaterial component of the mind” should speak for itself).

If you accept the materialist story about the origin of life

I do accept the scientific story of the origin of life based on evidence. The scientific story is not a necessarily a materialist story. Science is agnostic about worldviews, and materialism is a worldview. So is theism, into which an origin of life by natural causes fits perfectly. After all, natural causes are not “godless” causes for the theist; on the contrary, God created them.

I do understand. ####### theory is considered to be somewhat sacred and irrefutable by many today. But that’s not the topic here, just an observation.

No, you don’t understand. If you would, you would understand that biological ID is without merit.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You’ve already given some in your arguments against the supposed ######ary origin of the mind.

Those are ID arguments. Natural processes cannot explain the origin of the mind. That is evidence of design.

The term ID is routinely used for biological ID, which allegedly results in irreducible complexity of certain biological structures. It is not correct, and confuses the issues, to call cosmic design or the design of the soul ID.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Science is agnostic about worldviews,

Before you complain and nit-pick, I will amend:

Science is agnostic about worldviews (except for certain trends in sciences that study human nature).

 

[edwest2]

Science, which has imposed certain limitations on itself, is blind to other areas of reason that we still need, such as divine revelation.

Simply stating that any being, the Christian God, or any other god, set the rules and allowed things to run themselves necessarily excludes God from intervening directly in the development of life in the universe. The greatest direct intervention is Jesus Christ Himself. When we read what the Church teaches about marriage and men and women, we are required to include the words God has given us.

The design argument requires something more than the idea that human beings are biological robots that are the natural, one in a billion? trillion? result of a series of equally innumerable twists and turns involving chemistry and physics. Archaeologists are in the business of determining a designed object from a natural object. And others are looking into ID.

biologicinstitute.org/

One of the drivers against looking for something in science is that certain possibilities can derail certain preconceived ideas. I do not fault science as a discipline, but I do know that certain people wish the idea of design to disappear because if such research continues to bear fruit it will lead to the idea that there is something - what we call God - involved.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

I do not fault science as a discipline, but I do know that certain people wish the idea of design to disappear because if such research continues to bear fruit it will lead to the idea that there is something - what we call God - involved.

Why would we fault science? Yes, its findings have, rightfully so because it investigates how physical reality actually is, undermined the classical biological design argument. Yet its findings have also, when viewed from a philosophical angle, provided us with the most powerful design argument ever imaginable: the cosmological fine-tuning argument. Once you study it in detail you realize how mind-blowingly powerful the argument is. *)

Science really has opened up our view on the grandeur and sophistication of God’s universe and its design. No biological ID required.

---

*) I know atheists look at the issue differently (mostly because they are – often wilfully – uninformed), but I would think that it is almost impossible for a theist to become an atheist once he/she has fully understood the cosmological fine-tuning argument – quite apart from all other lines of evidence for the existence of God.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I should add that the cosmological fine-tuning argument is also, apart from all the fantastic scientific details, from a merely philosophical point of view particularly powerful because it points right back at the source of nature. In that sense it is very much aligned with the cosmological arguments for the existence of God (e.g. Aquinas’ first three ways) from classical metaphysics.

 

[edwest2]

This does not explain those who look at science and see nothing more. Design is obvious but to declare it is so would upset the apple cart.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Without designed laws of nature there would be neither inanimate matter nor life. The laws of nature make no distinction between the two. The same laws that drive the physical evolution of the universe drive the chemical evolution with regards to the origin of life and biological evolution.

Design can be evidenced in the organization of inanimate matter as well as in biological fine-tuning.

You accept ID at the cosmological scale – so at least you’re open to it. Beyond that, the problems with ##### is off topic anyway.

Of course, God designed the laws of nature such that eventually they would be able to generate and develop life.

Again, you’re not making a distinction here. On this basis there is no reason to accept that design cannot be observed in biological nature.

Also, why do you keep twisting my words? The soul does show design, like I just said in my previous post (I didn’t call it soul, but “immaterial component of the mind” should speak for itself).

I’m sorry if it sounded like I was twisting things. The soul is evidence of design. That evidence is not found in the cosmos but in human life.

We can just leave it at that.

 

[reggieM]

The term ID is routinely used for biological ID, which allegedly results in irreducible complexity of certain biological structures. It is not correct, and confuses the issues, to call cosmic design or the design of the soul ID.

Cosmological ID and Biological ID share exactly the same methods and results. They’re both scientific research programs that look for evidence of design, and therefore intelligence, in nature.

The book, “The Privileged Planet” is one of the most prominent ID works yet written. It’s all about the fine-tuning of the cosmos.

 

[reggieM]

Before you complain and nit-pick, I will amend:

Science is agnostic about worldviews (except for certain trends in sciences that study human nature).

Thanks for that correction – yes, I agree.

 

[reggieM]

I should add that the cosmological fine-tuning argument is also, apart from all the fantastic scientific details, from a merely philosophical point of view particularly powerful because it points right back at the source of nature. In that sense it is very much aligned with the cosmological arguments for the existence of God (e.g. Aquinas’ first three ways) from classical metaphysics.

I think the arguments for biological fine-tuning do the same thing.

The origin of life, for example – reveals immense precision and complex functionality at the “simplest” level. There is no scientific explanation for it either.

Similarily, the role of DNA as coded information in the cell. The book Signature of the Cell illustrates the virtually infinite nature of the cell processes and how DNA is informational – and thus cannot be generated from any known natural causes.

There are countless finely-tuned, harmonic details of life on earth that cannot be explained by ######.

These also point to the source of nature. St. Thomas used biological ID arguments in his writings as well. They were taken for granted.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Design is certainly not a premise. It is a conclusion that opens our eyes to the power and glory of the Creator - and is the basis of research into the meaning and purpose of existence. Belief in non-Design leads nowhere!