Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Precisely! Thank you.

You understand the issues.

Between you and me and the lamp post (saying from my old neighborhood) the issues involved in the particular scientific research which is being interpreted presently as leading to an universal negative are being studied off line. This is done with respect to both the evidence being presented and not able to be presented.

One might conclude that what can happen off line is another aspect of understanding “true design” in regard to our ancestors.


Personally, I think that the scope of the general, all-purpose inductive method might be able to be discussed if the operative word was possibility. Unfortunately, when I tried to initiate a CAF conversation regarding “possibility” as supporting the Catholic doctrine of the individual Adam, I was met with loud silence from posters, including Catholics. Of course, I understand why ID and various faith/science groups cannot support all Catholic doctrines (CCC 355- 421) regarding the total person…

As I review the overall picture, perhaps it is a good thing that I am nursing wounds from an argumentum ad hominem on another thread. The incident is over, so be it; end of discussion. However, this is giving me the opportunity to increase my understanding about how other people think… Otherwise, all the great words possible will flow over the head of the listener.

 

[Daedelus76]

atheistgirl;8846058:

Sally chose to exist for herself and she is getting what she wanted. What is unjust about that?

It's not at all clear to me that rejecting the Christian or Catholic faith is at all similar to "choosing to exist for" oneself.

And Christians do not in fact preach that Hell is the result of a choice offered by a "loving" God.  Hell is punishment for the wicked, isn't it?  Regardless, its an ugly belief even to say God "respects" "free will". It is indeed unloving to stand around and allow somebody to hurt themselves- if God allows somebody to choose destruction without intervening, he's no better than a negligent parent.

 

[grannymh]

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

You keep saying that grannymh, but where is the evidence? Why can’t I just eat a human especially if they taste like chicken.

The evidence is in human nature as created (designed) by God. Source: CCC 355- 421.

 

[grannymh]

tonyrey;8846278:

It’s not at all clear to me that rejecting the Christian or Catholic faith is at all similar to “choosing to exist for” oneself.

And Christians do not in fact preach that Hell is the result of a choice offered by a “loving” God. Hell is punishment for the wicked, isn’t it? Regardless, its an ugly belief even to say God “respects” “free will”. It is indeed unloving to stand around and allow somebody to hurt themselves- if God allows somebody to choose destruction without intervening, he’s no better than a negligent parent.

May I point out that there is a great difference between God the Creator and the human creature?

 

[Daedelus76]

then it is deficient because the origin of life throws light on its nature.

I doubt it… the scientific evidence for the origin of life doesn’t contradict Buddhist doctrines. If anything, Dawkins idea that we are merely DNA survival vehicles fits with the Buddhism teachings of the self as consciousness bound up in conditioning. “I was born into the womb-prison through blind lust”, from Shan Tao’s medieval liturgy. The conditioning of our biology limits our freedom and robs us of peace. Only by using the power of our minds can we transcend that. That’s worth more than all the mythology about gods and gardens you can muster.

What constitutes the human condition is a metaphysical issue.

I disagree. The human condition should be plain to scientific understanding. Psychology and sociology can inform us better than religious clerics.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

The evidence is in human nature as created (designed) by God. Source: CCC 355- 421.

Why is the fact of being created by God mean that I am worthy of profound respect grannymh?

 

[grannymh]

Why is the fact of being created by God mean that I am worthy of profound respect grannymh?

Perhaps one should first study the basic facts of human nature. That can be done before one realizes that only a transcendent Pure Spirit could have created the spiritual principle in human nature.

Obviously, one can always start by studying God. That is a given. Either way, diligent study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355 - 421 will affirm that the Human Person Is (designed) Worthy Of Profound Respect.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Perhaps one should first study the basic facts of human nature. That can be done before one realizes that only a transcendent Pure Spirit could have created the spiritual principle in human nature.

Obviously, one can always start by studying God. That is a given. Either way, diligent study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355 - 421 will affirm that the Human Person Is (designed) Worthy Of Profound Respect.

I think you are misunderstanding me granny, and I don’t like the fact that you keep passing the buck. I am fully aware that this is what the Church teaches and I accept it as a theological truth. But this is not Theology, this is Philosophy. What is the logical connection between the fact of being created by God and being worthy of profound respect.

 

[reggieM]

What nonsense. The first self-replicating system would have been incredibly simple, see my article.

Nowhere does that “simple first system” exist except in the imagination of people who like to speculate without evidence.

In my article you can study an overview of what the real cutting edge of origin life research is all about:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

I posted statements from scientists who actually do the research – and they contradict what you wrote.

If against all evidence you want to continue to cling to biological ID please do so. But don’t complain if others do not find it credible.

Some scientists find biological ID to be very consistent with the evidence.

 

[reggieM]

Look, I have repeatedly admitted that I was a (biological) ID guy myself. Until I actually studied things in more detail, and the origin of life in real depth – by exhaustively delving into the primary scientific literature.

I think Signature in the Cell delved into primary literature also.

 

[grannymh]

I think you are misunderstanding me granny, and I don’t like the fact that you keep passing the buck. I am fully aware that this is what the Church teaches and I accept it as a theological truth. But this is not Theology, this is Philosophy. What is the logical connection between the fact of being created by God and being worthy of profound respect.

So sorry that I am annoying by passing the buck to paragraphs 355-421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

I am a granny as in ordinary folk.

Not being as philosophical and theological intellectual as others on CAF, I rely on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-421 for Divine Revelation taught by the Catholic Church with the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Source for reference to Holy Spirit: Chapter fourteen of the Gospel of John.

In my humble opinion, the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 355-421, is an excellent source for understanding human nature.
Obviously, if you have better sources, you should use them to answer your questions.

Paragraphs 355-421 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, is my preferred source for information about some basic Catholic doctrines, and you are certainly free to choose other ways of approaching Catholic doctrines via either or both theology and philosophy.

When you have time, I would be interested in listening to your philosophical approach to the worthiness of human nature–since obviously I have no clue as to the logical connection between the fact of being created by God and being worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So sorry that I am annoying by passing the buck to paragraphs 355-421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

I am a granny as in ordinary folk.

Not being as philosophical and theological intellectual as others on CAF, I rely on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-421 for Divine Revelation taught by the Catholic Church with the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Source for reference to Holy Spirit: Chapter fourteen of the Gospel of John.

In my humble opinion, the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 355-421, is an excellent source for understanding human nature.
Obviously, if you have better sources, you should use them to answer your questions.

Paragraphs 355-421 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, is my preferred source for information about some basic Catholic doctrines, and you are certainly free to choose other ways of approaching Catholic doctrines via either or both theology and philosophy.

When you have time, I would be interested in listening to your philosophical approach to the worthiness of human nature–since obviously I have no clue as to the logical connection between the fact of being created by God and being worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

Why do you like winding me up granny?

I know that you know the answer. Stop pretending. Why do i have to be the one to explain everything?

 

[Al_Moritz]

I posted statements from scientists who actually do the research – and they contradict what you wrote.

Nice try. I have never seen John Walton and Stephen Meyer in all my Pubmed searches on the origin of life and in citations by other origin-of-life researchers, so I doubt they have made significant contributions to the field, compared to the other researchers whose work I review in my article.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I think Signature in the Cell delved into primary literature also.

Yeah right. If it is like all the other phony criticism of origin-of-life research that I have found on creationist websites, it is not worth my time.

Again, if you, like so many fellow Catholics who do not know enough about science, wish to hold on tight to biological ID, that is your choice. Yet anyone with a sufficient level of science background who is interested in serious and un-prejudiced study of the issues will find that biological ID does not hold up to scientific reality.

 

[tonyrey]

In practice the belief that those worthy of profound respect is often restricted to one’s family, friends and pets…

Alas! Your parochial system of complex, highly evolved brains doesn’t seem to be able to extend profound respect to all those you have never met or are never likely to meet. It would sacrifice them in contravention of “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” - UDHR.

 

[reggieM]

Really? How old is this talk anyway? Before 2009? Read my article for new developments.

From your article:

What about the difficult issue of a genome which holds all genes together? It might have been that in the first primitive cells **RNAs were ligated ‘by accident’ **step by step, one by one, into forming a genome precursor and that each such step conferred an advantage in natural selection over competitor cells, since genes would not have been lost anymore during cell division, and replication would have been synchronized.

Sure, but lucky accidents aren’t much of an explanation. You should consider doing the math here – what are the probabilities?

The RNA genome could, bit by bit, have been replaced by a DNA genome, a selectable advantage that primordial cells would have encountered by chance.

Again, you’re appealing to lucky chances. But notice this …

From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world.

If you have to appeal to luck, then that is not an elegant design of the laws of nature. There are no scientific laws you can invoke in the supposed change from RNA to DNA.

So, how do you explain “luck” from a theistic perspective? How is that different from a miraculous intervention from God? How would you know the difference?

much of the origin-of-life scenarios is still hypothesis. Experimental models are needed that are both realistic and of some appreciable complexity. Were it possible, for example, to show that a primitive RNA organism could be built in the laboratory (Szostak et al. 2001), it would be a significant step forward.

What I saw in your paper was wildly speculative. You haven’t addressed the many criticisms of origin of life research either.
Again, through the use of human intelligence and all the power of modern science, nobody can create a primitive RNA organism.
But at the same time, we’re supposed to believe that such an organism emerged by chance?

I don’t find that convincing at all.

 

[reggieM]

Yeah right. If it is like all the other phony criticism of origin-of-life research that I have found on creationist websites, it is not worth my time.

Ok - you haven’t even read it.

Again, if you, like so many fellow Catholics who do not know enough about science, wish to hold on tight to biological ID, that is your choice.

Why do you feel the need to give me approval?

Yet anyone with a sufficient level of science background who is interested in serious and un-prejudiced study of the issues will find that biological ID does not hold up to scientific reality.

Again, I posted pro-ID findings from a scientist who holds two doctorates. Are you claiming that he doesn’t have enough science background?

How do I know that you aren’t prejudiced?

 

[Al_Moritz]

From your article:

What about the difficult issue of a genome which holds all genes together? It might have been that in the first primitive cells **RNAs were ligated ‘by accident’ **step by step, one by one, into forming a genome precursor and that each such step conferred an advantage in natural selection over competitor cells, since genes would not have been lost anymore during cell division, and replication would have been synchronized.

Sure, but lucky accidents aren’t much of an explanation. You should consider doing the math here – what are the probabilities?

The RNA genome could, bit by bit, have been replaced by a DNA genome, a selectable advantage that primordial cells would have encountered by chance.

Again, you’re appealing to lucky chances. But notice this …

From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world.

If you have to appeal to luck, then that is not an elegant design of the laws of nature. There are no scientific laws you can invoke in the supposed change from RNA to DNA.

So, how do you explain “luck” from a theistic perspective? How is that different from a miraculous intervention from God? How would you know the difference?

much of the origin-of-life scenarios is still hypothesis. Experimental models are needed that are both realistic and of some appreciable complexity. Were it possible, for example, to show that a primitive RNA organism could be built in the laboratory (Szostak et al. 2001), it would be a significant step forward.

What I saw in your paper was wildly speculative. You haven’t addressed the many criticisms of origin of life research either.
Again, through the use of human intelligence and all the power of modern science, nobody can create a primitive RNA organism.
But at the same time, we’re supposed to believe that such an organism emerged by chance?

I don’t find that convincing at all.

The issue of chance and divine providence has been discussed extensively by me in this thread and others. I will not re-start that discussion since I have noticed that people like you are not interested in listening. It would be a waste of my time. Have a nice day.

 

[tonyrey]

The sheer amount of time and energy devoted by scientists to research into the origin of life is overwhelming evidence that its immense complexity is not due to a “fortuitous concourse of atoms”. GIGO An information system does not proceed from inanimate objects devoid of insight - unless one is a devout materialist!

I should add that the occupational hazard of scientists is that they extend the domain of science beyond its legitimate bounds because they have scanty knowledge of metaphysics and epistemological principles. They fail to recognise at what stage science becomes unscientific - particularly with regard to the nature of the universe. They adopt a mechanistic approach to that which is teleological - unless one is a materialist (devout or not!). They view the universe not only as a machine without ghosts but an **uncontrolled **machine without souls (which are thought to belong to another dimension of reality - if they exist at all!) Unwittingly they are fostering soul-destroying propaganda by relegating God to the side-lines where He doesn’t even wave a flag! What has become of divine Providence?

 

[reggieM]

The issue of chance and divine providence has been discussed extensively by me in this thread and others.

It’s not just that … it’s that you expect an appeal to chance to be convincing. You haven’t done any probability studies to see if chance is even possible in that situation.

It seems clear to me that you’re not ready to address the serious criticisms of origin of life research. I posted commentary from a scientist who actually does the research – he was an atheist, by the way and not favorable to ID – and he had severe reservations about **any **abiogenesis claims to date.

You just compiled some selective writings which you claimed offer a “feasible” solution to origin of life – at the same time, ignoring some massive problems with every step of the “lucky chance” solution.