Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

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.

Forensics is seeking evidence of design (plan, intention, purpose) in observable matter.

This refutes your claim that science cannot observe design.

They correlate physical evidence with purely philosophical pre-scientific inferences, such as the fact of mind.

This is what every science does. You can’t do science without purely philosophical first principles and assumptions.

In any case, ID uses the same method. It looks for evidence of design – which is evidence of intelligence.

Its an applied science to something which is known outside the context of science.

Again, every conclusion of science is necessarily “outside of science”. Science offers data, but it must be interpreted.

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.

Forensics looks for evidence of intelligent design. So does cryptology and archeology.

Psychology does the same thing; it assumes you have a mind; but that assumption is not a scientific inference.

Again, all science makes philosophical assumptions. There is an assumption that natural laws operate consistently, and have done so from the beginning of the universe. Science makes assumptions about the human mind.

Subjects such as forensics and psychiatry/psychology have scientific aspects to them because they also effect and measure the behaviour of physical objects.

Again, this is what ID does. So you’ve refuted your own objections to that kind of research.

In so far as it is studying a physical object it is a science.

That is what forensics does. That is what ID does.

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.

SETI infers the existence of other minds. So science does that.

Are you saying that no true knowledge or facts exist outside of scientific inferences?

No.

Isn’t that scientism?

Yes, it would be. Just as the claim “there is no scientific evidence of design” would be a conclusion from scientism (and a claim easily falsified as we saw here).

 

[reggieM]

I give up arguing with you about this.

Fair enough. I will do the same.

 

[tonyrey]

Forensics is seeking evidence of design (plan, intention, purpose) in observable matter.

This is what every science does. You can’t do science without purely philosophical first principles and assumptions.

In any case, ID uses the same method. It looks for evidence of design – which is evidence of intelligence.

Again, every conclusion of science is necessarily “outside of science”. Science offers data, but it must be interpreted.

Forensics looks for evidence of intelligent design. So does cryptology and archeology.

Again, all science makes philosophical assumptions. There is an assumption that natural laws operate consistently, and have done so from the beginning of the universe. Science makes assumptions about the human mind.

Again, this is what ID does. So you’ve refuted your own objections to that kind of research.

That is what forensics does. That is what ID does.

SETI infers the existence of other minds. So science does that.

Yes, it would be. Just as the claim “there is no scientific evidence of design” would be a conclusion from scientism (and a claim easily falsified as we saw here).

All these propositions are irrefutable.

 

[tonyrey]

Can science provide itself with the proper illumination?

No!

Do think Revelation gives that illumination?

Yes!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

It is a mistake to think there is a intraversible gulf between philosophy and science. How do establish the border line? Is it impossible for a proposition to be both philosophical and scientific?

 

[reggieM]

JD – interesting thoughts.

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.)

ID looks for evidence of design in nature. As such, it doesn’t propose how God did things, or even that it is necessarily God that did them. It’s limited to what we can observe scientifically. We know that the only source of design is intelligence. When design is then seen in nature, it must also have an intelligent source.

… JD’s thoughts about ##### …

All I can say is – I fully agree!

You pointed clearly to the problem. When chance is ruled out, we are left with intention, plan, rationality, intention … and design. That is the way St. Thomas Aquinas viewed it also. We notice things that cannot have been produced by chance. Thus an intelligent agent was the cause.

In this universe it is equivalent to trillions upon trillions to one that … life alone came about by pure chance.

Exactly. There is not enough time. Here’s what one famous origin-of-life researcher said (he was an atheist, since passed away):

Robert Shapiro:

I’m always running out of metaphors to try and explain what the difficulty [of explaining the origin of life] is. But suppose you took Scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters, containing every language on Earth, and you heap them together and you then took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there, and the letters fell into a line which contained the words “To be or not to be, that is the question,” that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule, given no feedback — and there would be no feedback, because it wouldn’t be functional until it attained a certain length and could copy itself — appearing on the Earth.
Christian de Duve, the Nobel laureate, once wrote a letter to Nature which was headed, ‘Did God Make RNA?’ Because it’s hard to think of any other manner in which RNA out of purely abiotic chemistry would assemble itself on the early Earth.

edge.org/documents/life/Life.pdf

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.

Very true. Complex functionality is an indication of design. Here’s how St. Thomas addressed that (with comments from a Thomistic philosopher):

angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/thomas1long.html#smoking10

Summa Theologica I, q. 91 art. 2, Reply to Objection 2 (Whether The Human Body Was Immediately Produced By God?):

Reply to Objection 2. Perfect animals, produced from seed, cannot be made by the sole power of a heavenly body, as Avicenna imagined; although the power of a heavenly body may assist by co-operation in the work of natural generation, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 26), "man and the sun beget man from matter." For this reason, a place of moderate temperature is required for the production of man and other animals. But the power of heavenly bodies suffices for the production of some imperfect animals from properly disposed matter: for it is clear that more conditions are required to produce a perfect than an imperfect thing.

Why are more conditions required to produce perfect animals? As we have seen, Aquinas held that these animals have more complex body parts, partly due to their possession of several senses, but also because of the demands of their active lifestyle (they live on the land and often hunt other creatures). In other words, what Aquinas is doing here is sketching an Intelligent Design argument: the complexity of perfect animals’ body parts and the high degree of specificity required to produce them preclude them from having a non-biological origin. According to Aquinas, the only way they can be naturally generated is from “seed.” From this it follows that the first perfect animals must have been produced by God alone.​

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

I think that’s an axiom that is necessary to accept in order to have a worthwhile discussion on this topic … but some do not accept it, so that’s where the topic needs to shift to the impossibility of chance serving as the mechanism for change.

God has not pre-thought out Creation.

I think I’ve heard that theory before. Some claim that God was “surprised” by what nature produced, because He didn’t know what would happen.

But that conflicts with what we know about the nature of God. There is no “pre-thought” in God because God’s thoughts do not progress over time. If they did, the God would have potentialities which are presently unfulfilled. But God is pure Act. His thought is complete – he knows the beginning, middle and end of all creation all at one moment.

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.

We see evidence of design in nature because God willed to reveal the work of his intelligence in the things he created.

 

[tonyrey]

We see evidence of design in nature because God willed to reveal the work of his intelligence in the things he created.

Why would He deliberately conceal the evidence of His wisdom and love?

 

[reggieM]

All these propositions are irrefutable.

Thanks, Tony. I hope our good Catholic friend will see it that way also.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course, that is the easy part.

Did Adam look as God planned?

Exactly! But His knowledge does not imply that He gives the precise specifications for every detail of Adam’s anatomy and physiology - any more than He gives the precise specifications for every disease, defomity and disaster!

 

[reggieM]

Why would He deliberately conceal the evidence of His wisdom and love?

Great point. That would not make any sense.

 

[reggieM]

It is a mistake to think there is a intraversible gulf between philosophy and science.

Agreed. That is the problem that keeps surfacing.

How do establish the border line? Is it impossible for a proposition to be both philosophical and scientific?

For example, the science of linguistics. Is language a “thing”? Or is it an immaterial essence? So you have to approach the topic with both science and philosophy.

The same is very much true of “information science”. There is no way to divide the philosophical from scientific in that study – and there’s really no good reason to need to make that division.

 

[tonyrey]

Agreed. That is the problem that keeps surfacing.

For example, the science of linguistics. Is language a “thing”? Or is it an immaterial essence? So you have to approach the topic with both science and philosophy.

The same is very much true of “information science”. There is no way to divide the philosophical from scientific in that study – and there’s really no good reason to need to make that division.

Indeed. Even the proposition “The universe exists” is both philosophical and scientific.
Even though they approach it from different angles there is a definite overlap. It is the same with homo sapiens…

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks, Tony. I hope our good Catholic friend will see it that way also.

We are all entitled to our own opinion - but this issue has important implications for the teaching of science because at present it gives an unbalanced explanation of our existence which leads many people to become atheists or agnostics - as some members of this forum have pointed out. Science is a blessing but it can also be a curse when misused.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Forensics is seeking evidence of design (plan, intention, purpose) in observable matter.

First there is an intention to seek a mind; Minds are known to exist outside of the scientific data. Its pre-scientfic knowledge; its not an inference of science. Such minds also have a physical body which leaves behind evidence; and thats where science comes in to it, and has nothing to do with the inference of intelligent design. It an applied science.

This refutes your claim that science cannot observe design.

It depends on what you mean by “observing design”.

Lets suppose i am wrong; science still cannot infer the existence of a non-physical God; just like science cannot be used to infer that the mind is non-physical; since its measurements and thus its inferences are bound to physical dimensions. We have no scientific evidence of the non-physical. Its impossible to measure its existence. Design cannot tell us anything about the nature of a designer beyond physical terms. Therefore you cannot scientifically observe the kind of design that you are looking for as a Catholic. Thus even if you found evidence of design, scientifically speaking we are not talking about the Catholic God.

Also, another problem arises. Since science is intrinsically concerned with inferring physical models of the universe (intelligently designed or not) the only legitimate models that can be made of a designer would have to be in some sense physical. Therefore we are talking about an extremely complex physical intelligence that just happens to be there. But since the designer is necessarily made up of parts, it would be subject to physical law, and thus we are left with the question of how do we explain the complexity of the designer? Thats a very poor scientific model. And like a fool you have fallen into Richard Dawkins trap. Since it follows naturally to think that such an object would have to be apart of the natural development of the universe, and thus apart of its natural evolution. Therefore Richard can say that the likelihood of such a being existing anywhere near the beginning of the universe is highly improbable as to be ridiculous.

But none of that matters since it is not the Catholic God. Thats Greylorns God.

If you want to infer that the universe is designed, you are going to have to settle for a physical designer; which makes for a very weak scientific theory. The more plausible, physically speaking, is natural evolution.

SETI infers the existence of other minds. So science does that.

Life may have evolved elsewhere in the universe and some of that life may be intelligent enough to utilize electromagnetic radiation as a form of communication (according to Moldwin). Thus so long as we are speaking about an intelligence that is a part of the evolutionary model of the universe i see no issue with calling SETI a science.

What scientific evidence do we have for thinking there are intelligent beings outside the physical space-time continuum?

Yes, it would be. Just as the claim “there is no scientific evidence of design” would be a conclusion from scientism (and a claim easily falsified as we saw here).

What i saw was a very subtle form of pseudo-science.

 

[reggieM]

First there is an intention to seek a mind; Minds are known to exist outside of the scientific data.

The scientific data is evidence that a mind was at work. The scientific data gives evidence that there was intelligence involved. That’s how science determined that the Rosetta Stone had a function. Science can distinguish a work of design (Stonehenge, the Pyramids of Egypt) from the results of natural laws (a pile of rocks at the bottom of a hill after a rock-slide).

Its pre-scientfic knowledge; its not an inference of science.

If it was pre-scientific, then the scientific data would be irrelevant. But, in fact, it is knowledge informed by empirical science. The evidence you gain from forensics comes from scientific facts about the crime scene.

Such minds also have a physical body which leaves behind evidence; and thats where science comes in to it, and has nothing to do with the inference of intelligent design. It an applied science.

That’s a non-sequitur. The science gives evidence that a mind was involved – that’s what we call intelligent design. That’s the basic inference. You can find some coded symbols. Science can analyze it and determine that it was the product of intelligence – that’s the inference to intelligence. Science does not need to evaluate the immaterial mind directly, but only to recognize that intention-design-purpose comes only from rationality.

Lets suppose i am wrong;

More than that - - you are wrong. You claimed that science cannot observe design, but science does that commonly.

science still cannot infer the existence of a non-physical God;

You’re bringing up an entirely different argument. ID does not claim to give evidence of the Triune God, for example – but merely that some intelligence had to be involved.

just like science cannot be used to infer that the mind is non-physical; since its measurements and thus its inferences are bound to physical dimensions.

Science certainly can provide evidence supporting the existence of non-physical entities. When all chance and known human laws are eliminated, we are left with the non-physical.

We have no scientific evidence of the non-physical.

Lack of evidence actually is evidence. There are no known natural processes that can create a rational mind. But rationality, free-will and moral sense are observable traits in human life. Since nature cannot explain the origin of those traits, a non-physical origin it is reasonable to conclude that they came from a non-physical source.

Its impossible to measure its existence.

It’s also impossible to know if anything actually evolved from anything one billion years ago. None of us was around then. There are no photographs. You can’t actually measure anything from that time period. But science makes inferences based on what we know.

We know that intelligence, and only intelligence produces design. We observe features of nature that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Nature cannot have produced them – therefore, the inference that they came from a non-physical source is very reasonable. In fact, human beings have made that inference since the beginning of recorded history. We find the same inference in the Gospel, the works of Aristotle and from among many scientists today.

Design cannot tell us anything about the nature of a designer beyond physical terms.

Design tells us that rationality was at work. This is what St. Thomas Aquinas argues. The presence of purpose in nature points to a purposeful cause. We infer the cause by observing the effects.

Therefore you cannot scientifically observe the kind of design that you are looking for as a Catholic.

Another St. Thomas, this time the Apostle by that name, will prove you wrong. He empirically discovered that kind of supernatural design by placing his hands “in the wounds”.

Thus even if you found evidence of design, scientifically speaking we are not talking about the Catholic God.

Here you’re changing the argument – actually, you’re running away from one point and headlong into more problems.

Are St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God offered as descriptions of the Catholic God? Or are they equally applicable to the Jewish and Moslem or even plain-Theist Gods? Think about it. What you criticize in ID, you’re criticizing in philosophical studies in general.

Therefore we are talking about an extremely complex physical intelligence that just happens to be there.

You’re making an inference that does not follow from the data. The designer does not need to be complex. You’re actually making exactly the same error that Richard Dawkins makes. He assumes that complex effects require a complex cause. That’s the materialist vision of philosophy.

 

[reggieM]

We are all entitled to our own opinion - but this issue has important implications for the teaching of science because at present it gives an unbalanced explanation of our existence which leads many people to become atheists or agnostics - as some members of this forum have pointed out. Science is a blessing but it can also be a curse when misused.

Absolutely!

 

[buffalo]

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

Again, because something can happen doesn’t mean it will.

Do a targeted search for that particular order. You example is a misuse.

 

[buffalo]

Exactly! But His knowledge does not imply that He gives the precise specifications for every detail of Adam’s anatomy and physiology - any more than He gives the precise specifications for every disease, defomity and disaster!

The next question - If creation happened again would Adam look the same way?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.”

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly! But His knowledge does not imply that He gives the precise specifications for every detail of Adam’s anatomy and physiology - any more than He gives the precise specifications for every disease, defomity and disaster!

Not necessarily. There is an element of chance, plasticity and creativity in the way events unfold. Neither we nor animals are biological robots nor is the universe a machine composed of cogs which are turned inexorably in the iron grip of determinism!