Evidence for Design?

[Al_Moritz]

The universe includes biological life and the human person (each person is created directly by God).

Do you consider human beings to be part of the cosmos? Or are you saying that human beings show no evidence of having been designed by intelligence?

As I stated many times before, also in this thread, the laws of nature are designed. They are designed to allow for evolution (for that they have to be exceedingly special, any old laws won’t do), and evolution then brought forth life, including the human body. Since evolution was planned by God, of course, in that sense humans were designed. Furthermore, God creates directly the spiritual soul. Thus, in a emcompassing way, but through very different avenues for body and soul, human beings are designed.

 

[reggieM]

There is evidence of design in nature. But there is no scientific evidence of design in nature.

If there is no scientific evidence of design, then what does forensic science produce?

That is a different context of miracle.

Are you denying that it is a miracle?

That’s got very little to do with designing the universe.

If it is a miracle, (and a very frequent one) then God is involved in nature. On what basis do you deny that design can ever be detected in nature?

Also the physical attributes remain unchanged. What you witness at mass is more like an incarnation, rather than a physical transformation.

Do you accept miracles of healing where physical attributes are changed?
The example given was the scientific analysis of events on miracles claimed for the intercession of Pope John Paul II.

You selectively ignored that part … I’m going to suggest that your hostility to ID is biased by something. It’s important to be open-minded.

If you’re a Catholic, then you accept miracles – and the presence of the supernatural on a daily basis at Mass, in confession and other sacraments, as well as the power of prayer to change nature itself.

Adopting an anti-ID posture which asserts that “design cannot be empirically observed in nature” is really the position of scientism.

 

[grannymh]

Do you consider human beings to be part of the cosmos? Or are you saying that human beings show no evidence of having been designed by intelligence?

Good grief!

 

[Al_Moritz]

There is evidence of design in nature. But there is no scientific evidence of design in nature.

Boo-hoo. You going to have to learn to live that…

But you can only learn to do so if you do not constantly confuse philosophy with science, as Reggie has done throughout this thread.

 

[reggieM]

As I stated many times before, also in this thread, the laws of nature are designed. They are designed to allow for evolution (for that they have to be exceedingly special, any old laws won’t do), and evolution then brought forth life, including the human body. Since evolution was planned by God, of course, in that sense humans were designed. Furthermore, God creates directly the spiritual soul. Thus, in a emcompassing way, but through very different avenues for body and soul, human beings are designed.

The soul is joined to the body. You recognize the effects of the soul - those are scientifically observable (rationality is one thing).

Again, this is the biological ID position. But I can’t see a good reason for trying to convince you of this. You want to oppose ID – going so far to deny that cosmological ID even exists.

As for the scientific literature on the material origin of life - have you read the ID literature arguing against those scientific claims?

Some of the most prominent origin of life researchers today admit that science does not have a clue about how life originated.

One cannot even say that science is “getting closer”. If you don’t know what the origin is, then you don’t know if you’re getting closer or farther away.

No, science does not have an explanation for the origin of life. The improbability that chance produced the first self-replicating cell is so enormous that it remains as evidence in support of Intelligent Design itself.

 

[reggieM]

But you can only learn to do so if you do not constantly confuse philosophy with science, as Reggie has done throughout this thread.

Your claim is that there is no evidence of intelligent design in nature.

Thus, you deny that forensics or cryptology can come up with meaningful results.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The soul is joined to the body. You recognize the effects of the soul - those are scientifically observable (rationality is one thing).

Again, this is the biological ID position.

I give up arguing with you about this.

As for the scientific literature on the material origin of life - have you read the ID literature arguing against those scientific claims?

Yes, and the ID literature is entirely unconvincing and uninformed. Have you studied my article?

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t know that I’d call it “ID.” Intelligent Design has for baggage, it seems to me, that God designed reality and turned it loose. (In the manner suggested by Al.) But, is even this really the case? Is it not more plausible that what we are seeing is the continuous roll-out of Creation? We cannot see it as other than that. God can see it in an instant, but, that is the proclivity of Infinite Being. Finite beings are limited to viewing successionary events, an unfolding, a roll-out.

As such, God is tuning the mechanism on a continuous basis. Each successionary event is the next episode, so to speak, of this roll-out “mechanism.” How can an Infinite Being see it any other way? Providence is the plan, or the Design, if you will. And, each successionary event is another paint brush stroke by God. So, it appears to us as though there is a pre-thought out design. God is so different from us that we cannot think of an analogue for His method. So, we quibble. It’s ID or it isn’t ID. It’s evolution or it isn’t.

I have problems with both. ID, as I mentioned, is our illusion. Evolution is also our illusion. Evolution cannot have taken place as evolutionists present. Why? Because everything would then be subject to exquisite, pure Chance. The biologist says that there has been plenty of time for all that exists to have come to be by “chance.” I think not. Each and every one of trillions of chance events has to have taken place by the ever complexifying force of nothing more than “chance.” “Chance,” not “randomness.” In this universe it is equivalent to trillions upon trillions to one that, as Reggie insists, life alone came about by pure chance. But, then, it does not stop there. Each step in the complexification of each living thing, not to mention non-living things, is another chance occurrence that defies the plausibility and possibility of ALL of these extants.

jd’s axiom No 1: it is impossible that chance is the significant mechanism by which all things came to be and then complexify.

But it is possible, and plausible, that God is not finished - as far as we can tell. That the universe came to be at the instant of Creation is not identical with the instant of the Big Bang. We seem to have this awful tendency conflate the two. They are completely distinct. God’s “roll-out” of Creation occurs - to an Infinite Being - in an infinitesimal that is smaller than a Planck epoch. That infinitesimally-smaller-than-a-Planck-epoch is to us Time as we see it.

So, forget Design and forget Evolution. They are nothing more than not-very-interesting speculations. What I am suggesting is not without merit. The determinants of God are scattered throughout Revelation and Theological consideration. To date, I know of no one who has coherently thought through what it means to be truly infinite. We can only come to some notion of it by a via negativa, from its negation. That gives us very little of a positive basis to go on.

God has not pre-thought out Creation. We are informed that He had merely to Think it, then Will it. No span of Time can be inferred here - as we know God is without time. An Infinite cannot be in any way subject to time, nor can anything an Infinite Being does.

The ID - anti-ID argument is nothing more than an exercise for the brain.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

I again ask these two questions:

1. Did God know what Adam would look like? (this one is pretty easy and the usual answer is yes)

then

1. Did Adam look as God had planned? (this one is harder and many times the question is avoided.)

God** knows** everything!

 

[Al_Moritz]

Science is the analysis of observable phenomena. Science didn’t begin with the scientific method. But even if you accept that, materialists even before the coming of Christ claimed that the mind was a physical phenomenon.

We have debated that before. As long as you do not accept the widely agreed on fact that science is based on methodological naturalism, you will mistake things as science that are not, and you will constantly confuse philosophy and science.

As long as you persist in this confusion, it will greatly hinder any meaningful discussion.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

reggieM;8827808Ar:

If there is no scientific evidence of design, then what does forensic science produce?

Its an applied science. Forensics is a science in that it is ultimately trying to identify or measure a “physical body”, and thus it is a science in that respect. But it also involves more than simply science. They correlate physical evidence with purely philosophical pre-scientific inferences, such as the fact of mind. Its an applied science to something which is known outside the context of science. Its allowed to do this because mind itself is required for the study of science; and thus the existence of the “human mind” is not questioned on scientific grounds. Psychology does the same thing; it assumes you have a mind; but that assumption is not a scientific inference. Subjects such as forensics and psychiatry/psychology have scientific aspects to them because they also effect and measure the behaviour of physical objects. In so far as it is studying a physical object it is a science. Thus they fall into a class of science insofar as they are studying a physical object; but the study can and usually does involve using scientific data as a tool to investigate something outside the subject of science itself in so far as it speculates about the teleological behaviour of minds.

It is science plus what we immediately know outside of science.

To infer the existence of another mind, is to go beyond what the natural sciences can actually achieve. An argument that God designed a particular object is not science.

Are you saying that no true knowledge or facts exist outside of scientific inferences? Isn’t that scientism?

Adopting an anti-ID posture which asserts that “design cannot be empirically observed in nature” is really the position of scientism.

 

[buffalo]

There is evidence of design in nature. But there is no scientific evidence of design in nature.

Boo-hoo. You going to have to learn to live that.

That is a different context of miracle. That’s got very little to do with designing the universe. Also the physical attributes remain unchanged. What you witness at mass is more like an incarnation, rather than a physical transformation.

Is your claim the Universal Probability Bound carries no weight? If so, why not?

 

[buffalo]

As I stated many times before, also in this thread, the laws of nature are designed. They are designed to allow for evolution (for that they have to be exceedingly special, any old laws won’t do), and evolution then brought forth life, including the human body. Since evolution was planned by God, of course, in that sense humans were designed. Furthermore, God creates directly the spiritual soul. Thus, in a emcompassing way, but through very different avenues for body and soul, human beings are designed.

We cannot discuss #########.

Did Adam look as God planned?

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know that I’d call it “ID.” Intelligent Design has for baggage, it seems to me, that God designed reality and turned it loose. (In the manner suggested by Al.) But, is even this really the case? Is it not more plausible that what we are seeing is the continuous roll-out of Creation?

That is exactly what IDvolution is about. From the results of these threads more posters should be championing the concept. It is time to get on board.

**What is IDvolution? **

**IDvolution **- God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

IDvolution **
**
**
** ID=Intelligently Designed **
** volution - having a volute or rolled-up form.

"
“The process is astonishingly simple. In the embryo’s first moments, the Hox genes are dormant, packaged like a spool of wound yarn on the DNA. When the time is right, the strand begins to unwind. When the embryo begins to form the upper levels, the genes encoding the formation of cervical vertebrae come off the spool and become activated. Then it is the thoracic vertebrae’s turn, and so on down to the tailbone. The DNA strand acts a bit like an old-fashioned computer punchcard, delivering specific instructions as it progressively goes through the machine.” “A new gene comes out of the spool every ninety minutes, which corresponds to the time needed for a new layer of the embryo to be built,” explains Duboule. “It takes two days for the strand to completely unwind; this is the same time that’s needed for all the layers of the embryo to be completed.” This system is the first “mechanical” clock ever discovered in genetics. And it explains why the system is so remarkably precise." Source

 

[buffalo]

God** knows** everything!

Of course, that is the easy part.

Did Adam look as God planned?

 

[buffalo]

We have debated that before. As long as you do not accept the widely agreed on fact that science is based on methodological naturalism, you will mistake things as science that are not, and you will constantly confuse philosophy and science.

As long as you persist in this confusion, it will greatly hinder any meaningful discussion.

However, proper reasoning of the phenomenal and philosophy should coincide as we get closer to truth. It seems ######### is the odd man out.

 

[buffalo]

The Genesis problem New Scientist

THE term “big bang” was famously coined as a term of abuse. During a radio interview in 1949, cosmologist Fred Hoyle was pouring scorn on the idea that the universe simply popped into existence when he unwittingly invented a catchy name for the theory that eventually won out.
The big bang is now part of the furniture of modern cosmology, but Hoyle’s unease has not gone away. Many physicists have been fighting a rearguard action against it for decades, largely because of its theological overtones. If you have an instant of creation, don’t you need a creator?
Cosmologists thought they had a workaround. Over the years, they have tried on several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see “Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event”). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.
Without an escape clause, physicists and philosophers must finally answer a problem that has been nagging at them for the best part of 50 years: how do you get a universe, complete with the laws of physics, out of nothing (see “Trying to make the cosmos out of nothing”)?

more…

 

[Al_Moritz]

However, proper reasoning of the phenomenal and philosophy should coincide as we get closer to truth. It seems ######### is the odd man out.

The effort of getting closer to the truth requires proper analytical thinking. And that is possible only if categories of knowledge are not confused with one another.

Only if the different perspectives of science and philosophy are honored without confusions can an analytically proper synthesis of perspectives be achieved.

 

[buffalo]

The effort of getting closer to the truth requires proper analytical thinking. And that is possible only if categories of knowledge are not confused with one another.

Only if the different perspectives of science and philosophy are honored without confusions can an analytically proper synthesis of perspectives be achieved.

Can science provide itself with the proper illumination? Do think Revelation gives that illumination?

 

[rossum]

Is your claim the Universal Probability Bound carries no weight? If so, why not?

The UPB carries some weight, but it is easy to misuse it. Shuffle two packs of cards together, thoroughly. The chances of getting that particular order are 104! = 1.03 x 10^166, which is well above the UPB of 10^150.

Merely because the probability of something is well above the UPB does not mean it cannot happen.

Also, if the models on which the probability calculations are based is not correct, then the results of those probability calculations are useless. Many of the proposed probability models in the area of ######### are not correct.

The UPB is easily misused to give a pseudo-scientific veneer to non-scientific opinions. “Look, it has big numbers in it, so it must be scientific.”

Any use of the UPB is only as valid as the correctness of the models behind it. Using the UPB cannot save an incorrect model.

rossum