Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

And this does not follow. Sustaining, continually preserving, the laws of nature to do their job as intended is not the same as constantly intervening in the sense of meddling in nature.

Here is where you insert your metaphysical conclusions (as I notice you did in your paper on origin of life).

You’re using a loaded, non-scientific, non-philosophical term “meddling”. What, precisely does that term mean? Where in literature (ID, Catholic theology, philosophy) is that term defined? Who, precisely, defends this notion of “God meddling” in things?

From what I’ve seen, that term and concept have never been used.
That is, unless you’re willing to claim that Christ’s resurrection was “meddling” with nature, and therefore was somehow proof of the “insufficiency” of natural laws and evidence of God’s “botched” designs.

That’s the kind of errorthat easily follows from imprecise accusations like that.

After all, what are natural laws for if they cannot act naturally?

If you’re asking why God created natural laws and gave them certain limits - I think I answered that already. The laws were created to show order. They were given limits to show that “they do not rule the universe”.

That is why God reveals Himself as a power greater than what natural laws produce.

Again, as redeemed human beings, we are required to transcend nature. If we do not, then we will die in the flesh. To live in the spirit is to die to the lesser powers of nature.

And biological ID claims meddling in nature.

It would help me if you referenced something in ID literature that supports this claim.

But since you continually refuse to recognize this distinction between sustaining of and meddling in creation, further discussion is not worthwhile.

Again, this is not a helpful distinction. It’s not just “sustaining”, but God is the cause of all being. He created being, and then preserves it by his continual power.

He cannot “meddle” in His own creation since He is the force and power by which it came into existence.

If you’re trying to say that natural laws alone are sufficient to explain all of the created world, then we’ve already proven that false.

Natural laws do not explain how God answers prayer. What effect on the natural, biological world does God’s direct power have? Natural laws do not explain the presence and power of human consciousness (will, reasoning) in the world (and effect on the world). Natural laws do not explain the existence of beauty.

You know these things.

You have even, correctly, admitted that natural laws cannot explain the fine-tuning that we see in the cosmos.

As I said, that is cosmological ID. That position does not “diminish” God. It doesn’t mean that God did something “bad” like “meddling”.

It does mean, however, that natural laws are not sufficient to explain the universe.

The same is true in biological fine-tuning that we see in the world. The same is true in the biological fine-tuning that we see in human beings.

 

[reggieM]

I am not assuming anything, I know that God would not directly create a virus or a brain cancer; these things are errors that arise naturally within a system of secondary causes.

Again, you’re judging reality as if you know the final purpose of all things.

Are you really that desperate? God does not directly create species …

Clearly, you don’t like my questions about the supposed transition from ape to human. That’s something you should think about more before giving Mr. Darwin so much support.

God is not surprised in the sense of gaining new temporal knowledge, but neither is he the direct cause of suffering and physical disease in general. We are not Pagans.

You’re claiming that natural laws are the cause of suffering. The natural laws don’t work very well and they cause “errors”, supposedly. These “errors” (as judged by you) cause suffering and disease.

So, all of the suffering comes from the natural laws.

Who created the natural laws again?

Interesting. Supposedly, this kind of god didn’t realize that the laws He created were going to cause some errors, and thus suffering – right? So, this god was ignorant and powerless.

You didn’t like my question about sin either.

What effect does sin have on biological nature? Does all creation “groan” because of “botched design” in natural laws? Or does it have something to do with sin instead?

Before you was telling us that you can detect Gods design and plan in nature by the scientific method! have you now detracted that statement?

I’m glad to help you understand things better.
Notice what I said again:

Philosophy does not tell us **how **God created things.
You have badly confused that with what intelligent design theory shows.

If you’d like to explain how God creates anything, I would be very interested in learning that (and how you discovered those truths).

How did God create the natural laws?
How does God create the human soul? What method does He use?

See? - this is a lot different from the study of design in nature.

Its a waste of time having a discussion with you.

You should not have introduced the topic of evolution. That is banned here on CAF.

If you want to talk about origin of life, the fine-tuning in the universe or in biology, or other evidence of design in nature – please do so.

Thus far, it appears that you’re saying that there is no evidence of the existence of intelligent design anywhere in the universe.

As I already pointed out, biology is the study of things that appear to be designed for a purpose, according to the most prominent biologist in the U.K.

So, in order to study biology you have to be able to recognize what design really is.

 

[reggieM]

Unless He is impotent rather than omnipotent, i.e. controlled by what He has created!

Yes! That’s the dangerous error that follows from the idea that natural laws are absolute and function independent of the power of God.

 

[reggieM]

Atheists think that they have refuted theism when they **correctly **point to the fact that nature works “all by itself”…

It seems you think that nature is able to work “all by itself”. That’s where you agree with atheism.

… while incorrectly dismissing the rare theistic miracles…

How rare are miracles in your view? For example, in the life of St. Pio (Padre Pio)? Do you think any miracles occurred in his life? Or do you think his life was governed entirely by “nature working by itself”?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Yes! That’s the dangerous error that follows from the idea that natural laws are absolute and function independent of the power of God.

No theist here has promulgated this idea. Again, you, like Tonyrey, are deliberately obfuscating the issues. That is why discussion with you guys has become senseless. I am only replying now to the most fundamental errors here; a detailed refutation of your posts is not worth the while.

 

[reggieM]

This is evident in that we see non-sentient things produce design all the time. You might say these things themselves are designed by us; but, that’s irrelevant to the point.

I think that is relevant because you can falsify the claim that a thing was designed by a non-sentient thing by pointing to a conscious, intentional design which comes first (our design of things which produce design).

What we don’t see are non-sentient things producing highly complex fine-tuned functions through chance or natural laws. Rocks rolling down a hillside create a random assortment at the bottom. That is obviously a lot different from the sculpture of Mt. Rushmore, for example.

So, to cast doubt on whether design is evidence of a conscious designer as opposed to a non-conscious designer; I’d say the burden is upon the theist (in this case) to show us what aspect of the mind is required for a thing to be a designer.

I think you’re asking too much from this one argument. If the fine-tuning we see in the universe or in the structure of DNA in the cell, can be explained by non-sentient processes, then we still have the question of how those processes were created – but the fine-tuned thing itself is explained by nature.

What we do not see, however, is chance producing highly complex, fine-tuned functional systems. Those show evidence of design – intention and plan.

We do not see non-sentient things creating the order in the universe, for example.
We see nothing that creates the natural laws that create the order – when a reasonable expectation would be that there should be no order at all, and no laws governing anything.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It seems you think that nature is able to work “all by itself”. That’s where you agree with atheism.

And you deliberately left out my careful qualifier “in the sense of it not being meddled with” (and further above I had agreed that God sustains the laws of nature, which differs from the atheist position; and obviously, if nature works “work all by itself” then only because God in His providence made it so).

You, like all biological ID people, engage in dishonest quote mining.

 

[reggieM]

No theist here has promulgated this idea. Again, you, Like Tonyrey, are deliberately obfuscating the issues. That is why discussion with you guys has become senseless. I am only replying now to the most fundamental errors here; a detailed refutation of your posts is not worth the while.

Maybe you could define what “meddling” means and show us where the idea has been supported in this discussion.

Atheists think that they have refuted theism when they correctly point to the fact that nature works “all by itself” in the sense of it not being meddled with (while incorrectly dismissing the rare theistic miracles).

 

[reggieM]

And you deliberately left out my careful qualifier “in the sense of it not being meddled with” (and further above I had agreed that God sustains the laws of nature, which differs from the atheist position; and obviously, if nature works “work all by itself” then only because God in His providence made it so).

You, like all biological ID people, engage in dishonest quote mining.

Please define what “meddling” means. How does nature work “all by itself” in creating human beings? How does it work all by itself in creating cosmological fine-tuning?

 

[reggieM]

You, like all biological ID people, engage in dishonest quote mining.

That’s quite a rash judgement about a large group of people. Should we condemn “all” people who support biological ID based on your judgement of them?

Or are you merely making an unjust comment here?

notice also … I asked you already about that term in post 777.
You neatly avoided it.

Here is where you insert your metaphysical conclusions (as I notice you did in your paper on origin of life).

You’re using a loaded, non-scientific, non-philosophical term “meddling”. What, precisely does that term mean? Where in literature (ID, Catholic theology, philosophy) is that term defined? Who, precisely, defends this notion of “God meddling” in things?

From what I’ve seen, that term and concept have never been used.
That is, unless you’re willing to claim that Christ’s resurrection was “meddling” with nature, and therefore was somehow proof of the “insufficiency” of natural laws and evidence of God’s “botched” designs.

Since you didn’t bother even defining the term, could I be justified in acting like it was meaningless?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Again, you’re judging reality as if you know the final purpose of all things.

I don’t need to know the final purpose of all things in-order realise that God does not directly manifest evil; that is a heresy! Whether you like it or not.

Clearly, you don’t like my questions about the supposed transition from ape to human. That’s something you should think about more before giving Mr. Darwin so much support.

If I give Darwin support, it is because ID science does not reflect the moral nature of God, and neither does it make sense of the nature or the self evident errors that can occur in biological organisms.

You’re claiming that natural laws are the cause of suffering.

Nature is one of the potential causes of suffering

The natural laws don’t work very well and they cause “errors”, supposedly. These “errors” (as judged by you) cause suffering and disease.

Straw-man! I never said “natural laws” don’t work properly, or at least that was not my intention. I said that errors can occur in biological forms and mechanisms because of chance. There is a clear difference. Obviously; any honest person that hasn’t been living in a cave can point that out.

So, all of the suffering comes from the natural laws.

I never said that. In the context of secondary causes, potential suffering, such as viruses and diseases can occur because of chance; not design.

Who created the natural laws again?

God did. And you fallacious point is…

Interesting. Supposedly, this kind of god didn’t realize that the laws He created were going to cause some errors, and thus suffering – right? So, this god was ignorant and powerless.

…I clearly never said that. God knew there was a potential for evil in nature; but in-order for that to occur there has to be “secondary causes” (natural causes) and factors of chance. Again God does not directly create natural evil.

You didn’t like my question about sin either.

The sins that people commit is not a relevant question, unless you can rationally demonstrate how millions of years of biological errors and chance is the result of human sin. I don’t think original sin is going to help you, accept perhaps make a circular argument.

What effect does sin have on biological nature? Does all creation “groan” because of “botched design” in natural laws? Or does it have something to do with sin instead?

You tell me, unless of course you believe the world began ten thousand years ago and the natural world fell into dysfunction because of Adam and eve’s sin. If you are determined to have faith in that folk tale, nothing I say is going to sway you.

I’m glad to help you understand things better.

Everything you say is a misdirection and a straw-man of what me and Moritz has said. I am not going to hold my breath.

Philosophy does not tell us **how **God created things.
You have badly confused that with what intelligent design theory shows.

What method does He use?

The question of what method he uses is a question that can be partially answered via negation. God being “directly” responsible for natural error, diseases, and disasters does not reflect Gods nature; it reflects the behaviour of pagan Gods. As a Christian I cannot accept that. Therefore the idea that the physical universe evolves in to different forms via secondary causes is something that I have to accept as a “Christian”, since it explains the problem of natural suffering; something that you continuously ignore. God does not create potential evil, he permits potential evil. If God permits potential evil, then secondary causes are necessary and includes chance and the natural evolution of viruses.

Natural evolution makes the best sense in respect of my “Catholic Faith”. ID does not. My adopted Granny on this thread (a person I like winding up) made a good point. The Theology and Metaphysics of Gods nature supports this conclusion.

You should not have introduced the topic of evolution. That is banned here on CAF.

You were the one that was saying that ID science produces a better theory than natural evolution. every post to the contrary after that was a reaction to your flawed and dangerous ideology.

If you want to talk about origin of life, the fine-tuning in the universe or in biology, or other evidence of design in nature – please do so.

I thought that’s what we were doing. Its seems to me that you are making up a desperate excuse to avoid the reality of my superior argument, by trying to label my argument as a banned topic. This thread necessarily includes a discussion on the merits of evolution; otherwise, how do I know that ID Science gives the best explanation about the origins of life? That’s not how Science or Philosophy works.

Thus far, it appears that you’re saying that there is no evidence of the existence of intelligent design anywhere in the universe.

There is evidence of design. I just don’t accept the idea that there is scientific evidence of design, just like I don’t accept that is scientific evidence of metaphysical naturalism.

As I already pointed out, biology is the study of things that appear to be designed for a purpose, according to the most prominent biologist in the U.K.

No. That is not what Biology is. That statement is not a scientific statement.

So, in order to study biology you have to be able to recognize what design really is.

Fallacious reasoning based on a flawed premise.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Please define what “meddling” means.

You have been ignoring the explanation in-order to build strawmen, remember?

 

[Perplexity]

I think that is relevant because you can falsify the claim that a thing was designed by a non-sentient thing by pointing to a conscious, intentional design which comes first (our design of things which produce design).

How does a conscious, intentional design which comes first, falsify the claim that a thing was designed by a non-sentient thing?

What we don’t see are non-sentient things producing highly complex fine-tuned functions through chance or natural laws. Rocks rolling down a hillside create a random assortment at the bottom. That is obviously a lot different from the sculpture of Mt. Rushmore, for example.

Remember, I’m simply saying that until the theist shows us why a mind (or something relevantly similar) is needed to explain design, she doesn’t really have a case for God, as opposed to some designer (whether conscious or non-conscious).

The only way I can read your above response as relevant to that claim is if it means something like this:

1. If non-sentient beings produced design, then they’d produce “highly complex fine-tuned functions.”
2. They don’t produce “highly complex fine-tuned functions.”
3. Therefore, non-sentient beings don’t produce design.

Is this what you had in mind?

I think you’re asking too much from this one argument. If the fine-tuning we see in the universe or in the structure of DNA in the cell, can be explained by non-sentient processes, then we still have the question of how those processes were created – but the fine-tuned thing itself is explained by nature.

I just don’t see why the designer has to be conscious. Call it God or whatever you like; but, there doesn’t seem to be anything about the mind needed to explain design.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Just to be clear - is your claim that life is not front-loaded?

 

[buffalo]

True, but if you agree that it has happened at least once, then isn’t it more reasonable to think that if God is going to make a system of secondary causes with specific natures then surely he would allow these natures to express themselves without restriction or intervention? Otherwise what is the point of creating physical laws, quarks, atoms, and all the other complex natures that comprise the physical if he is going to interfere with their natural ends? Why not just design the whole thing top to bottom immediately instead of farting about over millions of years? The design model doesn’t make sense of the data. It seems to me that God created a system that he intended to evolve naturally according to its nature.

This ID evolution thing seems that it might be heading in the direction of a heresy.

Life is marvelously designed to adapt to changing conditions.

So I would like this “It seems to me that God created a system that he intended to evolve naturally according to its nature.” - to be “It seems to me that God created (front -loaded) a system intended to flourish and adapt fulfilling its purpose”.

I like God as an artist who thought up “at once” (simul) His creation.

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.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Just to be clear - is your claim that life is not front-loaded?

If you mean by “front-loaded” that DNA information or similar information was injected beforehand *) – no, life is not front-loaded.

Chemical and biological evolution worked just nicely without such front-loading.

*) as you suggest, “God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act”

 

[buffalo]

I think at some point you are going to have to accept that there is a difference between God answering a prayer and God doing a botched job of creation. There are many flaws in physical things and there are many things that can go wrong. This makes sense if we live in a naturally evolving system. There are many things about organisms that only makes sense (especially in respect of Gods moral intentions) in a naturally evolving reality. But it brings Gods moral competency into question if God directly designed the universe by fiat to be that way, and even worse, over millions of years!!! The existence of things such as disease and viruses does not make sense in terms of direct benevolent design, but it does make sense in terms of natural evolution, a process in which viruses and errors are potential or unavoidable by-products. This makes sense if for some reason God deemed it more fruitful and a greater good that the universe should naturally evolve. God does not create the virus directly as a species; but rather it evolves by chance.

Give me a break…give me kit-kat.

Sorry, the kit-kat company said that they would pay me if I advertised for them!! I have to please my sponsors.

Let us examine what the universe might be like had the fall not occurred.

 

[Al_Moritz]

That’s quite a rash judgement about a large group of people. Should we condemn “all” people who support biological ID based on your judgement of them?

Or are you merely making an unjust comment here?

It reflects my experience and that of many, many others of at least (most of) those people who are vocal about biological ID – there are too countless examples where this mindset of dishonest quote-mining shows up again and again.

I wish it were not the case, but unfortunately it is.

So no, I don’t think I made an unjust comment here.

 

[reggieM]

… biological errors …

It seems to me that you’re saying that the laws governing biology were “botched” and “flawed” and therefore “errors” occurred. Since you state that God created the laws, you’re blaming God for a botched design – at least, that’s the way the logic looks to me.

You tell me, unless of course you believe [that] … the natural world fell into dysfunction because of Adam and eve’s sin. If you are determined to have faith in that folk tale, nothing I say is going to sway you.

I prefer to put my faith in Catholic teaching rather than in the Darwinian fairy-tale.
I wonder if all of the other Catholics on this thread will support your view that the Church teaching on original sin is a “folk tale”? That would be interesting.

There is evidence of design.

I’d be interested in hearing about that. What is the evidence and how do you observe it?

I just don’t accept the idea that there is scientific evidence of design …

Have you investigated various claims about the scientific evidence for design?

No. That is not what Biology is. That statement is not a scientific statement.

You’re going in circles now. Here you’re making a claim about “what Biology is” and then requiring that to be a “scientific statement”.

Where in science does it show “what biology is”? What lab tests offer evidence to support your case?

 

[buffalo]

You’re violating the ontological structure of reality with that. “Those natures” cannot express themselves by “becoming other natures”. It’s completely illogical.

Chance is not a process. It is not a natural law. You’re actually damaging your own position by claiming that development of natures by chance actually reveals a “system”. Chance is not a system. It’s luck. That’s what you’re defending. Bring it to specifics – what are the odds that a mammal turned into a whale? Or an ape-like animal, by lucky mutations, became a human being? It’s philosophically impossible.

For the same reason that laws that govern nature are not absolute. Those laws were created by God for a reason, and they have limits for a reason. They were created to reveal order. They have limits to reveal that there is a greater power at work in the universe than what physical laws can produce.

That’s why God works so many miracles. Physical healings, manifestations in physical nature, the countless examples of mystical phenomena. He is showing that nature does not rule the universe. Nor do natural laws.

Most importantly, the human person is not a slave to natural laws either. We transcend nature – we must rise above nature or we will die in our sins.

Again, that’s a direct contradiction of Darwinian claims. As I pointed out above, evolutionary theory claims that one nature, through chance mutations, actually becomes another nature.

There is no “system” of evolution. Appeals to luck are not different than saying that God just created all things from nothing.

You’ve mentioned that before but you didn’t provide any detail. ID is scientific research. It doesn’t make any theological claims. It cannot, by its nature, be a heresy.

The quantum effects of prayer may be relevant here. Remember Moses - as he held up his arms the battle went favorably, when he dropped them it went bad. I submit the value of individual prayer multiplied by the number of people praying to God changes the course of events.