Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

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.

Exactly. The position that some take, namely, that there is no and has never been any, evidence of Design (intent, purpose, intervention) in the development of life on earth is incompatible with the Catholic Faith. God necessarily preserves all creatures in being – continually, and yes, especially in the life of Christ we see abundant evidence of the power of God’s design at work in nature.

Even in simpler things, Jesus taught us to observe the work of God in nature …

“Behold the lilies of the field …” Why? Because they are evidence of God’s providence, not of the competition for resources, mutations and reproductive success. They are evidence of design, because purposeless natural laws (as ###### is defined) cannot produce such things. Thus we have ID.

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.

True.

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.

There is a lot of hostility to the idea that life on earth remains a mystery that science cannot penetrate.

Some feel frightened that they will be considered ignorant – as seen in the Spencer Tracy movie Inherit the Wind. Others do not want God to get that close. It’s ok if He has done things in the cosmos billions of years ago – but not in the every day life that we see around us. Is there a spiritual fear that God truly wants us to pray – so that He will directly answer our prayers and “intervene in nature on a daily basis”?

If we can touch it and put it into a test-tube, then we think we know it and can control it. Science even claims to know the origin of all the variation and diversity of life on this planet – without first even having discovered it all …

There is arrogance at work in all of this – that much is certain.

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly. The position that some take, namely, that there is no and has never been any, evidence of Design (intent, purpose, intervention) in the development of life on earth is incompatible with the Catholic Faith. God necessarily preserves all creatures in being – continually, and yes, especially in the life of Christ we see abundant evidence of the power of God’s design at work in nature.

Even in simpler things, Jesus taught us to observe the work of God in nature …

“Behold the lilies of the field …” Why? Because they are evidence of God’s providence, not of the competition for resources, mutations and reproductive success. They are evidence of design, because purposeless natural laws (as ###### is defined) cannot produce such things. Thus we have ID.

Succinct and irrefutable!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Indeed! It offends the preconceptions of the Scientific Establishment!

 

[Al_Moritz]

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.

Design can be observed in the laws of nature that allow for the emergence of biological structures, but it cannot be observed in the biological structures themselves, in the sense that a designer artisan would have made them – even though they seem so designed.

I’m sorry if it sounded like I was twisting things.

No problem.

The soul is evidence of design. That evidence is not found in the cosmos but in human life.

Yes.

We can just leave it at that.

Agreed. But you didn’t leave it at that in your further posts

 

[Al_Moritz]

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.

I thought so too, until I seriously studied the issues. My article on the origin of life by natural causes contains more than 100 references from the primary scientific literature which almost all of them I have studied in great detail:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

And yes, life very likely was able to evolve from the simplest beginnings imaginable – see my article.

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.

I thought so too, until I seriously studied the issues.

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.

They do not point to the source of nature in the way the cosmological fine-tuning argument does. They allegedly (not really, as science has shown) point to an artisan that sculpts within nature.

And St. Thomas was a philosopher, not a scientist (I would be interested, by the way, in examples where he did use biological ID arguments). The physics of Aristotle has been discarded too, but his metaphysics is impressive until this day. And Aquinas took it as foundation for his own metaphysics – which is impressive until this day as well.

 

[Al_Moritz]

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.

False, there is a big difference. Cosmological fine-tuning is a mainstream scientific finding, entirely based on the scientific method of methodological naturalism. It becomes an argument for a designer from a philosophical perspective.

Biological ID on the other hand pretends that science does not explain things properly. Science does not support biological ID.

And if biological ID wants to be portrayed as a “scientific research program”, it needs to abandon the scientific method of methodological naturalism. Bad move.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Even in simpler things, Jesus taught us to observe the work of God in nature …

“Behold the lilies of the field …” Why? Because they are evidence of God’s providence,

Correct.

not of the competition for resources, mutations and reproductive success.

God’s providence does not exclude these. I suggest you study (not just glance over) paragraph 69 of the document of the Catholic Church, Communion and Stewardship (emphasis in original):

1. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

---

Please note that this text is neutral towards biological ID:

“The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence.”

They are evidence of design, because purposeless natural laws (as ###### is defined) cannot produce such things.

As I have pointed out before, the metaphysical term “purposeless” is not a term used within science as strict discipline. You will be hard-pressed to find it in any primary scientific literature. When it is used by some scientists in books of popular science to make a metaphysical statement, this is a different matter. Please do not confuse the issues.

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, from a Catholic perspective the laws of nature are created by God, and thus are neither purposeless nor “godless” – they are part of God’s almighty Providence.

 

[grannymh]

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.

I am longing for the day when an ID reserach program discovers that the earth was designed for the origin of humanity by two, sole founders.

 

[inocente]

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.

Not really. To me a supernatural explanation just says “here a miracle happened”, or put another way “we dunno”.

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.

A miracle is an event which may be attributed to divine intervention, but it is people doing the attribution when they can’t come up with another explanation.

The design argument has the same problem – a design is only attributed to an intelligent designer when people can’t come up with another explanation.

We could see the idea of design and miracles as logically connected. There is nothing in the design argument to say the intelligent designer hasn’t since moved away, so a belief in miracles gives a reassurance the designer is still around. This though leads to the inconsistency that in order to accomplish a miracle, the designer has to interrupt the very laws of nature which it designed! The resulting theology is a bit questionable anyway, a world running on autopilot with the designer intervening every so often, rather than a God who always sustains all creation.

To me, Paul in 1 Cor 1:18-31 is saying that all of such attempts at theorizing are foolishness compared with Christ crucified. “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord”.

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

He died for us.

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

Darn tooting - His Spirit.

 

[inocente]

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.

I don’t think that’s the argument, possibly it’s more to do with degrees of perfection.

If we look for design in the physical law (including fine tuning), we can easily see that it is perfect and so perfectly represents the perfectly good god of monotheism.

Whereas if we look for design in living organisms, we can easily see they are not perfect, and must then explain how their imperfection could come from the perfectly good god of monotheism.

That plays out in the fact that we never needed any special research programs to find perfection in the physical law, it was obviously always there, whereas people have to jump through hoops to try to find evidence of perfect design in living organisms.

Why they haven’t realized by now that they’re looking in the wrong place is a bit of a mystery.

 

[grannymh]

Why they haven’t realized by now that they’re looking in the wrong place is a bit of a mystery.

It is very difficult to figure out that being designed for eternal love is different from design found in material/physical nature.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Is God a designer?
Is God a planner?

A planner is generally regarded as a person who works with existing material whereas a designer often creates the material…

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is very difficult to figure out that being designed for eternal love is different from design found in material/physical nature.

A very good point. Yes it is difficult.

Until you realize that the latter is a structural issue, while the former is a metaphysical issue.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think that’s the argument, possibly it’s more to do with degrees of perfection.

If we look for design in the physical law (including fine tuning), we can easily see that it is perfect and so perfectly represents the perfectly good god of monotheism.

Whereas if we look for design in living organisms, we can easily see they are not perfect, and must then explain how their imperfection could come from the perfectly good god of monotheism.

1. Interference and conflict are inevitable in an immensely complex world where billions of individuals are pursuing different goals.
2. It is impossible for the laws of nature to cater for every contingency.
3. Only God is perfect in every respect.

 

[inocente]

1. Interference and conflict are inevitable in an immensely complex world where billions of individuals are pursuing different goals.
2. It is impossible for the laws of nature to cater for every contingency.
3. Only God is perfect in every respect.

1. Only because we’re not perfect.
2. The laws do cater for every contingency or else the fabric of the universe would collapse. It is remarkable (or I think so anyway) that even entire galactic clusters can collide and the universe serenely continues on.
3. God is the only perfect being – or is there a doctrine which says He’s not allowed to create anything perfect, that all His attempts at perfection are doomed to fail?

 

[buffalo]

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

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

Science by definition, perhaps, but humans all haves bias and worldview and humans do the reasoning.

 

[buffalo]

A planner is generally regarded as a person who works with existing material whereas a designer often creates the material…

One usually doesn’t design without a plan.

 

[buffalo]

Al, let’s us focus for a minute on the DNA code, not the DNA molecule.

Do you think the DNA code is of natural origin?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al, let’s us focus for a minute on the DNA code, not the DNA molecule.

Do you think the DNA code is of natural origin?

Of course. All you need is a random self-replicating RNA molecule, and going from there (DNA followed later).

Read my article, chapters 3 and 4:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html