Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Al

One thing though, science works by methodological naturalism. As such, it cannot detect design (no, you naysayers out there, I am not talking about the applied science of forensics). Design is an issue that plays out in the domain of philosophy.

You mean science cannot detect design when it designs an experiment?
:confused:

You cannot both believe in design and not believe in design. That is schizoid.

If you believe God designed the universe, you cannot say there is no design either in abiogenesis or in evolution.

Siger of Brabant, who taught the existence of opposite truths, was handily defeated in this by Thomas Aquinas.

Either science is right, and there was no design anywhere in the universe; all is random.

Or Genesis is right, and God designed the universe, including planet Earth and everything on it.

You can’t have it both ways. 😉
 
Al

One thing though, science works by methodological naturalism. As such, it cannot detect design (no, you naysayers out there, I am not talking about the applied science of forensics). Design is an issue that plays out in the domain of philosophy.

You mean science cannot detect design when it designs an experiment?
:confused:

You cannot both believe in design and not believe in design. That is schizoid.

If you believe God designed the universe, you cannot say there is no design either in abiogenesis or in evolution.

Siger of Brabant, who taught the existence of opposite truths, was handily defeated in this by Thomas Aquinas.

Either science is right, and there was no design anywhere in the universe; all is random.

Or Genesis is right, and God designed the universe, including planet Earth and everything on it.

You can’t have it both ways. 😉
Huh? :confused:

You are confusing science and philosophy, that’s the problem. None of the above makes sense.
 
And inconsistant. [sic]
Either ID was there before 1987 or it was not.
You are claiming both.
So-called “Intelligent Design” theory is a pseudo-scientific “research program” invented in 1987 when Young Earth Creationism was outlawed. It has been championed by such people as Philip Johnson, Mike Behe, and Bill Dembski. To date it has produced no results in 25 years.
 
Anastasia

**So-called “Intelligent Design” theory is a pseudo-scientific “research program” invented in 1987 when Young Earth Creationism was outlawed. It has been championed by such people as Philip Johnson, Mike Behe, and Bill Dembski. To date it has produced no results in 25 years. **

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

In “A Short Scheme of the True Religion,” Newton drew more vigorously on a biological illustration to support a God who exercises intelligent design. “Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juices with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therefore to be feared."

All this from only one scientist long before 1987. 😃
 
Al

**You are confusing science and philosophy, that’s the problem. None of the above makes sense. **

Huh?

It would make sense if you had any training in logic, which you obviously don’t. 😉
 
Al

**You are confusing science and philosophy, that’s the problem. None of the above makes sense. **

Huh?

It would make sense if you had any training in logic, which you obviously don’t. 😉
Ad hominems don’t solve the problem here. I differentiated science and philosophy in my post that you replied to in # 994. You confused them. If you cannot see that, everyone else who does not confuse science and philosophy will.
 
“Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations **always have & ever will prevail with mankind **to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therefore to be feared.”

All this from only one scientist long before 1987. 😃
Are you sure the Discovery Institute didn’t invent that quote as part of their conspiracy for world domination? 🙂 In fact, Isaac Newton probably didn’t exist, they just made that up also. 😉
 
So-called “Intelligent Design” theory is a pseudo-scientific “research program” invented in 1987 when Young Earth Creationism was outlawed. It has been championed by such people as Philip Johnson, Mike Behe, and Bill Dembski. To date it has produced no results in 25 years.
Bold statements.
Too bad you cannot produce proof.
 
Bold statements.
Too bad you cannot produce proof.
I have proof, in the fact that ID has produced nothing but hot air for a quarter centuryr, and the fact that the idea is completely ignored by working scientists. If ID had a shred of credibility, it would be making waves in professional scientific journals. But it has no more credibility than "New Age’ crystal healing, or “psychoanalyzing past lives,” or the theory that space aliens constructed the Egyptian pyramids.

StAnastasai
 
reggie
**
Are you sure the Discovery Institute didn’t invent that quote as part of their conspiracy for world domination? In fact, Isaac Newton probably didn’t exist, they just made that up also.**

👍

Generally when these “random” evolutionists attack intelligent design they just say it doesn’t make sense. That’s an ad hominem. Attacking the reasoning ability of the opponent.

The theists among them will concede that God designed the universe and everything in it, then turn right around and say it was all random.

Silly-putty logic. :rolleyes:

Do you wonder why so many evolutionists like Richard Dawkins are atheists? If everything is random, who needs God?
 
I have proof, in the fact that ID has produced nothing but hot air for a quarter centuryr,
An opinion.
and the fact that the idea is completely ignored by working scientists.
Another opinion.
If ID had a shred of credibility, it would be making waves in professional scientific journals.
Another opinion.
But it has no more credibility than "New Age’ crystal healing, or “psychoanalyzing past lives,” or the theory that space aliens constructed the Egyptian pyramids.
And another opinion.

You promised proof.
I see plenty of statements of opinion, prefaced with the statement that you have proof.

So where is the proof?
And while you are at it, perhaps you could come up with the proof that ID was ‘invented’ in 1987…

I am waiting. (But not holding my breath.)
 
Bold statements.
Too bad you cannot produce proof.
Here’s a book from 1928 – a text used in Catholic colleges: Cosmology, Fr. James McWilliams, S.J.

Structural Order. Teleology is order in activity, and is therefore called dynamic order. But there is also the order of structure. Structural order ; is the harmonious arrangement of diverse integral parts in one pattern or configuration. Thus the frond of a fern or palm has leaflets or blades, arranged along the stern in a recognizable pattern. Structural order is characterized by symmetry and proportion. Symmetry is the repetition of some feature, as in the similarity of two leaflets on opposite sides of the stem, or the two eyes of an animal. Proportion is the gradation of a feature or character according to a more or less fixed ratio; thus in the frond the row of leaflets on either side of the stem is arranged in gradually diminishing sizes from the base to the tip. Structural order is observable in the wings of a bird, in a snowflake, in a frost- flower on a window-pane. In fact, a most interesting study is the examination of natural objects, even with a microscope, to discover their intricate and amazing structures. Moreover, X-rays disclose a structure in the very atoms themselves.
It is true that structure is often suitable for useful activity, still it can be recognized without our knowing its utility. Hence, structural order, apart from dynamic order, furnishes independent evidence for intelligence. But since the formation of the arguments the same in both cases, we combine the evidence from both sources to one set of proofs. And although we recognize purposive activity from its useful results, which we contend could not be attained unless intended, structural order is recognized by merely noting its symmetry and proportion, without our being required to know its purpose. It must not be thought, however, that structural order is necessarily immobile and unchangeable. The structure of an organism changes in its progress from the germ state to that of maturity; and when the organism dies, the same matter is taken up by ether organisms to be formed into other structures. Included under structure are the arrangement and shading of colors, as in flowers, butterflies and practically all animals. We may even extend the term to graceful motion; and, on the authority of musicians, to the very** bird songs, which, to be truly musical, must have harmonious “structure.”**
Many things, when taken on a large scale, as mountains and the stars, have no symmetry or proportion. By reason of their immensity and their inherent mystery, they can only be denominated as sublime and as transcending the status of mere patterns. Nevertheless, on a small scale, the very crystals of granite and the atoms which are known to exist in the stars, have a minute and intricate structural order. Order cannot be explained by_chance much less can its repetition and continuance be so explained. The only alternative is intelligence. And whether that Intelligence created the world, or merely arranged and operates it, to reject His existence is to dethrone reason.

Thesis 2. The material universe displays purposive finality and structural order, for which the ultimate reason must be sought in a supramundane intelligent cause.

Part 1. Intelligence is required

All grant that there is marvelous order in nature, that countless specimens of natural objects exhibit an in an intricate structure, and act and interact in such a way as to preserve and develop a highly ordered universe. But such order can be explained only on the ground that some intelligence intended it.
The minor. a) There is no other sufficient cause, as is acknowledged by the conviction of all mankind in much simpler effects. Let a man but discover on some lone island a crude tomahawk or a sundial, and no amount of argument will persuade him that these things were the product of unreasoning nature. The human mind recognizes an
essential connection between fitness and intention.
Our experience also warrants the conviction that a highly complicated order cannot result
otherwise than from intelligent selection and arrangement of the parts. We cannot so much as lay a tile floor in a simple pattern of alternate colors unless we be allowed to see the color of each tile, and thus recognize its fitness for its particular place. The same is true of the construction of the simplest implement or machine. One may construct a photographic camera which with proper adjustment will focus an object before it, but he cannot secure this effect without intelligent selection and arrangement of the materials to that end. Yet every eye regularly represents what is before it, even the most shifting scenes. And if the ordered performances of the eye are worthy of years of study, what shall we say of the order throughout the universe from atom to solar system?
(c) Moreover, the order in the universe does not happen just once,—as might be said of a still picture.
There is constant change in every instant of time, and always there is order preserved in all the mutations and developments. To attempt to explain such progressive results, achieved by astounding coordination and cooperation of the constituent elements, without having recourse to an intelligent cause is to stultify the human mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top