Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

Reggie, you have left me speechless - or wordless! But I’m not complaining.

Thanks, Tony. I hope Sair will find it helpful.

There is only one point I can think of in addition to your answers to Sair but even that has been implied in your question as to whether humanity has grown in knowledge and insight over the past 4,000 years. The Jewish concept of God was not as developed as ours because they were unaware of the teaching of Jesus…

Exactly! That’s a great point to remember. The Jewish concept of God was a starting point. The teaching of Jesus advanced our knowledge by building on the original foundation.

Again, for Sair’s interest – analyzing Biblical quotes to understand God’s nature and action is a great thing to do – but it’s a theological activity. You have to approach the topic from the perspective in which the Bible was written.

 

[reggieM]

You are wrong to say that it does not have any relevance. God does not will that anybodies heart is hardened against him. You only think that, because you take those passages in scripture literally and out of context.

That which opposes love or good is naturally hardened against it. Its like if you avoid the pleasure of something, its a matter of necessity that you will not experience the pleasure of it. Its not an artificial process that God could prevent if he wanted to. Its something that naturally arises when human beings freely refuse to accept that they have done wrong when they “know” they have done wrong. In other-words we harden our own hearts against God; but it is always possible that we can repent.

There is no justice in artificially hardening somebodies heart against the truth.
IF God were to do that, he would be directly responsible for them never repenting or changing their minds. Whereas if a person hardens his or her own heart against God this will not mean that he or she will necessarily be ignorant of God forever, because denial is a free act of knowledge. God is always calling us to repentance, and insofar as that is true and that God gives us freewill, it is necessarily false that God hardens peoples hearts directly as an expression of his will. When scripture says that God hardened his heart, it is purely a poetic expression; much like Shakespeare’s style of poetry. Its true in a sense, but also false in the sense that is most important given the context freewill and love.

If its something that necessarily occurs then it is not something that God creates or is directly responsible for except in an indirect and purely ontological sense.

Interesting thoughts. Thanks.

 

[reggieM]

:yup:

I add:

The language of DNA comes from a mind.

True That’s an important add. Feedback loops and repair mechanisms – as you already mentioned – are strong evidence of intelligent design. A blind, unintelligent process cannot plan for future needs.

 

[edwest2]

I have to wonder. I keep reading in scholarly articles that this pathway led to this or that novel organ after numerous steps that took, in some cases, millions of years. The strong implication being that various events occurred in a certain order and information was added over time, gradually. Now, we have this:

“ScienceDaily (July 11, 2011) — Genetic instructions for developing limbs and digits were present in primitive fish millions of years before their descendants first crawled on to land, researchers have discovered.”

The rest of the article is here:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[inocente]

I have to wonder. I keep reading in scholarly articles that this pathway led to this or that novel organ after numerous steps that took, in some cases, millions of years. The strong implication being that various events occurred in a certain order and information was added over time, gradually. Now, we have this:

“ScienceDaily (July 11, 2011) — Genetic instructions for developing limbs and digits were present in primitive fish millions of years before their descendants first crawled on to land, researchers have discovered.”

Your conclusion doesn’t follow, I think the evidence just means that for limbs nature naturally reused the switches for fins.

 

[inocente]

Through the many posts on this thread I conclude that the Argument from Design is irrefutable. There has been no reasonable challenge to it thus far.

I for one gave up challenging, as design fans seem to instantly prejudge any and all objections as unreasonable. I’ll stick with the vanilla Christianity of scripture and tradition, ID is sooooo twentieth century.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I for one gave up challenging, as design fans seem to instantly prejudge any and all objections as unreasonable. .

Welcome to the club. I have concluded that biological ID people live on a different planet and refuse to come down to Earth.

I once was one of them, but since I am a scientist (biochemist) I never took quite off beyond our planet and in the end managed to make a smooth landing.

 

[grannymh]

Welcome to the club. I have concluded that biological ID people live on a different planet and refuse to come down to Earth.

I once was one of them, but since I am a scientist (biochemist) I never took quite off beyond our planet and in the end managed to make a smooth landing.

I am about to challenge Catholics who know a lot about “design”.

I wonder if there is anyone who is able to use “design” as a Catholic apologetic defense of the Catholic doctrines regarding the broad topic of human nature.

Obviously, this means that one has to understand Catholic doctrines not only in themselves but also the protocol of declaring doctrines used by the visible Church on earth. Obviously, this means that the defense has to be based on objective reasoning. Obviously, inference is properly used regarding conclusions from science.
Just as obvious, inference is properly used by those who argue from the OP topic Evidence for Design. What is not obvious is how design inference can be used by Catholic apologetics (not general Christianity) to defend our lovable first parents biblically known as Adam and Eve.

Since the Catholic Church uses objective reasoning, the preferred way of approaching Catholic doctrinal defense is the objective method. Here are two links which are helpful when one is considering the difference between the two words, objective and subjective. In addition, there are a number of ways in which inference can be used. My source is Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition

asdatoz.com/Documents/Website-%20Objective%20vs%20subjective%20ltr.pdf

atheism.about.com/od/philosophyphilosophers/a/ObjectiveSubjective.htm

"The idea for my challenge comes from Post 1. It follows from the well-written first paragraph.

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination."

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[Ambrosian]

I am a newcomer to the thread, but just answering the subject itself:

First, for the elementary: Since there is change in the Universe, and especially atrophy/entropy, we must assume, by logic and simple reason, that something with its own unchanging existence is sustaining the existence of this eminently unnecessary and ephemeral Cosmos. This thing is God.

We need not see a watch, a building, a symphony, or a poem in the sky in order to know that there is designer God. The fact that anything exists at all, besides God, is evidence for design. Were the universe non-existent, it would not have been designed. Were the universe extant but God non-existent, it would be an infinite, eternal, undifferentiated uniformity without any change. Heterogeneity and diversity in the Cosmos is proof that each thing was designed specifically. Complexity or non-complexity, there is design.

The design is in the existence, you see? The existence of anything outside the Creator means that it is designed. God has no obligation to design things according to what we expect “designation” to look like. He designates an order to things that are according to His good pleasure. The human body exists and is not God; therefore, it was designed. The Universe exists and cannot be God; therefore, it was designed.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The design is in the existence, you see? The existence of anything outside the Creator means that it is designed. God has no obligation to design things according to what we expect “designation” to look like. He designates an order to things that are according to His good pleasure. The human body exists and is not God; therefore, it was designed. The Universe exists and cannot be God; therefore, it was designed.

However, this is not a design argument per se, but rather goes back to classical cosmological arguments and the distinction between Esse (being; God) and actus essendi (act of being; creatures) which is derived from Esse (see the metaphysics of Aquinas).

 

[buffalo]

I am about to challenge Catholics who know a lot about “design”.

I wonder if there is anyone who is able to use “design” as a Catholic apologetic defense of the Catholic doctrines regarding the broad topic of human nature.

Obviously, this means that one has to understand Catholic doctrines not only in themselves but also the protocol of declaring doctrines used by the visible Church on earth. Obviously, this means that the defense has to be based on objective reasoning. Obviously, inference is properly used regarding conclusions from science.
Just as obvious, inference is properly used by those who argue from the OP topic Evidence for Design. What is not obvious is how design inference can be used by Catholic apologetics (not general Christianity) to defend our lovable first parents biblically known as Adam and Eve.

Since the Catholic Church uses objective reasoning, the preferred way of approaching Catholic doctrinal defense is the objective method. Here are two links which are helpful when one is considering the difference between the two words, objective and subjective. In addition, there are a number of ways in which inference can be used. My source is Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition

asdatoz.com/Documents/Website-%20Objective%20vs%20subjective%20ltr.pdf

atheism.about.com/od/philosophyphilosophers/a/ObjectiveSubjective.htm

"The idea for my challenge comes from Post 1. It follows from the well-written first paragraph.

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination."

Blessings,
granny

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

The human soul is made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Ambrosian]

However, this is not a design argument per se, but rather goes back to classical cosmological arguments and the distinction between Esse (being; God) and actus essendi (act of being; creatures) which is derived from Esse (see the metaphysics of Aquinas).

Perhaps not technically-speaking, friend, but anything that is created is designed. Even if the designation of a creature’s properties took an immeasurably small amount of time, an infinite moment, it was still a conscious design on the part of the creator. The very essence of God is to exist, yes, and His existence is His essence, but if He is also creator, His proper operation as Creator is to design: whether ‘before’ creation, or during it.

I love philosophy! How pompous a way to say so simple a thing!

 

[Al_Moritz]

The human soul is made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[tonyrey]

I am about to challenge Catholics who know a lot about “design”.

I wonder if there is anyone who is able to use “design” as a Catholic apologetic defense of the Catholic doctrines regarding the broad topic of human nature.

Obviously, this means that one has to understand Catholic doctrines not only in themselves but also the protocol of declaring doctrines used by the visible Church on earth. Obviously, this means that the defense has to be based on objective reasoning. Obviously, inference is properly used regarding conclusions from science.
Just as obvious, inference is properly used by those who argue from the OP topic Evidence for Design. What is not obvious is how design inference can be used by Catholic apologetics (not general Christianity) to defend our lovable first parents biblically known as Adam and Eve.

Since the Catholic Church uses objective reasoning, the preferred way of approaching Catholic doctrinal defense is the objective method. Here are two links which are helpful when one is considering the difference between the two words, objective and subjective. In addition, there are a number of ways in which inference can be used. My source is Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition

asdatoz.com/Documents/Website-%20Objective%20vs%20subjective%20ltr.pdf

atheism.about.com/od/philosophyphilosophers/a/ObjectiveSubjective.htm

"The idea for my challenge comes from Post 1. It follows from the well-written first paragraph.

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination."

Blessings,
granny

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

Thanks for your compliment! Before trying to answer your question it would be useful to know if you believe Catholicism and science are mutually exclusive…

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps not technically-speaking, friend, but anything that is created is designed. Even if the designation of a creature’s properties took an immeasurably small amount of time, an infinite moment, it was still a conscious design on the part of the creator. The very essence of God is to exist, yes, and His existence is His essence, but if He is also creator, His proper operation as Creator is to design: whether ‘before’ creation, or during it.

I love philosophy! How pompous a way to say so simple a thing!

I don’t think it’s pompous but I’m sure it’s true!

 

[tonyrey]

I for one gave up challenging, as design fans seem to instantly prejudge any and all objections as unreasonable. I’ll stick with the vanilla Christianity of scripture and tradition, ID is sooooo twentieth century.

Anaxoragas and Plato are but two of the Greek philosophers who produced arguments in favour of Design and they have had a constant line of successors - which indicates success!

 

[tonyrey]

The Jewish concept of God was a starting point. The teaching of Jesus advanced our knowledge by building on the original foundation.

Again, for Sair’s interest – analyzing Biblical quotes to understand God’s nature and action is a great thing to do – but it’s a theological activity. You have to approach the topic from the perspective in which the Bible was written.

It is impossible to understand the Bible correctly when it is isolated from the Church instituted by Jesus and divorced from His teaching.

 

[grannymh]

The human soul is made in the image and likeness of God.

To Buffalo and the rest of the Readers.

What specific Catholic doctrines are being defended?

How is the evidence for design part of Catholic Apologetics regarding these doctrines?

Blessings,
the nitty-gritty granny

The quest for truth is worth the adventures of the journey.

 

[tonyrey]

The human soul is made in the image and likeness of God.

And the human body is created to be its physical agent by His direct intervention and control of events! Design didn’t stop with the Big Bang…

 

[tonyrey]

What specific Catholic doctrines are being defended?

How is the evidence for design part of Catholic Apologetics regarding these doctrines?

383 “God did not create man a solitary being. From the beginning, “male and female he created them” (*Gen *1:27). This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between persons” (GS 12 § 4).

“THERE’S no way sex could ever be considered a good solution for reproduction among organisms like us- eukaryotes with complex information contained within membraned cells. After all, the exponential growth of a population reproducing asexually seriously outcompetes any sexual strategy: it doubles with each generation, while a sexual population has to bear the cost of males.”

not-reproduction.htmlinteraction-

It is absurd and incompatible with Christianity to attribute the origin of the male and female sexes solely to natural selection! Asexuality does not provide a physical basis for love as intimate, beautiful and fulfilling as human sexuality…