Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From paragraph 69 of Communion and Stewardship:

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
“infallibly” as opposed to this:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)"

The biology textbook is biased, and there are other, similar examples in biology texts. To what conclusion does this lead the average student?

Peace,
Ed
 
Thank you sincerely for this explanation of inference. It is straight to the point.

If I am understanding right, the induction method used within science research leaves open the possibility of two founders of humanity. This is based on one of the dictionary’s definitions for induction. "inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances. Source: Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.

Particular instances would be the evidence gathered by the researchers. Obviously, there is an hypothesis. The researchers would choose which evidence supports the hypothesis or in some case’s the researcher’s personal theory. In any case, it should be objective evidence which stands on its own regardless of how it is interpreted.

What follows is complicated but it should be understandable. Suppose the underlying thesis is that Adam and Eve could not have existed. The evidence chosen is a particular gene and its variants or alleles. The researcher looks at the current population, examines the genetic make-up of representatives, and discovers hundreds of alleles of the chosen gene. There are mathematical formulas which can be used to discover how many people would be needed to produce all these variants in today’s populations. . To cut to the chase, the researcher discovers mathematically that there had to be 1,000 to 10,000 original people to account for the multiplication of variants in today’s population. It is a mountain of evidence.😉

The fly in the soup is the evidence currently gathered. What does current evidence really infer? Obviously, it infers that there is a variety of people living today and that there is a reasonable conclusion that if life continues in today’s pattern, there will be most likely thousands of alleles in future populations.

The real question is how can evidence currently gathered infer what happened millions of years going backwards into the recesses of history. Mathematical formulas can be used but they have to be based on data which is no longer current. Thus assumptions need to be made. Assumptions may be valid or not so valid.

Usually assumptions cannot cover every day, every place. Assumptions of the past do not track all environmental changes. Accurate assumptions regarding the actions of two people at an indefinite point of time in an unverified location are impossible without recorded data. Assumptions regarding the evidence can come close but they cannot absolutely exclude every possibility.

In the example of a current particular gene, a reasonable conclusion regarding the current and future status of the gene’s alleles can be inferred. But this inference cannot be expanded backwards to universally exclude the possibility of two founders of humanity. This is because the evidence influenced by necessary assumptions does not warrant an extrapolation which covers all of past history at every point of the earth.

Therefore the possibility of Adam and Eve’s existence remains.👍
Yes indeed - a claim I made in other threads and hundreds of posts ago - the claim that there was no less than x breeding pairs is based on assumptions. As time goes on I predict Adam and Eve will survive and flourish.
 
“infallibly” as opposed to this:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)"

The biology textbook is biased, and there are other, similar examples in biology texts. To what conclusion does this lead the average student?

Peace,
Ed
Why can’t you read things in context?
 
What follows is complicated but it should be understandable. Suppose the underlying thesis is that Adam and Eve could not have existed. The evidence chosen is a particular gene and its variants or alleles. The researcher looks at the current population, examines the genetic make-up of representatives, and discovers hundreds of alleles of the chosen gene. There are mathematical formulas which can be used to discover how many people would be needed to produce all these variants in today’s populations. . To cut to the chase, the researcher discovers mathematically that there had to be 1,000 to 10,000 original people to account for the multiplication of variants in today’s population. It is a mountain of evidence.😉

The fly in the soup is the evidence currently gathered. What does current evidence really infer? Obviously, it infers that there is a variety of people living today and that there is a reasonable conclusion that if life continues in today’s pattern, there will be most likely thousands of alleles in future populations.

The real question is how can evidence currently gathered infer what happened millions of years going backwards into the recesses of history. Mathematical formulas can be used but they have to be based on data which is no longer current. Thus assumptions need to be made. Assumptions may be valid or not so valid. Note: in this type of research going backwards, a variety of assumptions are necessary.

Usually assumptions cannot cover every day, every place. Assumptions of the past do not track all environmental changes. Accurate assumptions regarding the actions of two people at an indefinite point of time in an unverified location are impossible without recorded data. Assumptions regarding the evidence can come close but they cannot absolutely exclude every possibility.

In the example of a current particular gene, a reasonable conclusion regarding the current and future status of the gene’s alleles can be inferred. But this inference cannot be expanded backwards to universally exclude the possibility of two founders of humanity. This is because the evidence influenced by necessary assumptions does not warrant an extrapolation which covers all of unrecorded pre-history.

Therefore the possibility of Adam and Eve’s existence remains.👍
Yes - that was very good. 👍

The more you study claims about Origins, the more you’ll recognize that inferences are built upon unprovable assumptions – for all the reasons you gave. Many of those assumptions are simply guesswork – speculations with little evidential support. Mathematical models are not observed evidence.
 
“infallibly” as opposed to this:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)"

The biology textbook is biased, and there are other, similar examples in biology texts. To what conclusion does this lead the average student?

Peace,
Ed
True. Imagine if the textbook stated: “God has a plan and a purpose for mankind, and we can recognize that, as the Bible says, in the things He has made”.

Instead, atheism was taught to the students.
 
Yes indeed - a claim I made in other threads and hundreds of posts ago - the claim that there was no less than x breeding pairs is based on assumptions. As time goes on I predict Adam and Eve will survive and flourish.
What I have added is to name the category of the actual battlefield of evidence [genetic diversity] used by current research. I have demonstrated what inferences are possible in the scientific domain. It is time to meet the scientist on her or his court.

This does not imply that the scientist herself or himself is automatically in error. It is with respect that we should talk with scientists about inferences and other people’s interpretations.

The conclusions about the ancestry of a particular gene can be on target in reference to the current population. What is being implied is that the available evidence does not warrant (infer) an universal conclusion about pre-history

At most, there can be a general conclusion of improbable while the possibility remains. Please refer to post 1148 for demonstration.

Catholic apologetics has to go further into the nitty-gritty methods and materials in order to effectively counter anti-Catholic doctrine claims. Declaring Intelligent Design is not adequate especially since many Christians do not believe that literal two-person founders are necessary. This is a Catholic issue which goes to the heart of Catholicism – an area which ID does not reach.

Blessings,
the nitty-gritty granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
 
That kind of argument comes from mechanism and scientism – which is the worship of natural laws. It’s also an anthropomorphic view of God – as if His actions are not instantaneous and planned from eternity.
I can see the modern ID argument, not the Thomistic ID argument mind you, working here. That which is acted at particular points in time in certain processes, like evolution, is a temporal effect of the eternal will. Though, it’s simpler to hold that all secondary causes are not directing themselves (not saying modern ID’ers are arguing that) but rather being directed by the natural laws God created to their last ends.

“God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.” (ST 1, 83, a1, r3)
A mechanistic view of the universe and life would claim that human beings are not the products of great intelligence because they do not function like machines.
Yes but that sort of view always runs aground when faced with the problem of consciousness rising from unconsciousness.
Since nature is a contingent, and therefore imperfect entity, anything that is created by nature shares that imperfection.
Whereas, anything created directly by God more greatly shares His perfection.
“In the natural order, perfection comes before imperfection, as act precedes potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality is made actual only by something actual.” (ST 1, 94, a3)
That is the glory of the human soul – created directly by God, and thus more perfect than anything created by natural laws.
We agree, see second quote.
 
True. St. Thomas points out that God does act immediately in nature. God is not bound by nature – God does not act through necessity (based on natural laws) but by His divine Will, which is rational and free. He does work independent of natural causes.

The Deistic notion that god is a law maker who is bound by natural laws is thus refuted.
In his Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia Dei (Disputed Questions on the Power of God) Q. VI article I, Aquinas asks: can God do anything in creatures that is beyond Nature, against Nature, or contrary to the course of Nature? Here is how he responds:
Code:
I answer that, **without any doubt God can work in creatures independently of created causes, just as he works in all created causes, as shown elsewhere: and by working independently of created causes he can produce the same effects and in the same order as he produces them by their means: or even other effects and in a different order: so that he is able to do something contrary to the common and customary course of nature**.
In his Summa Contra Gentiles Book III chapter 99 (paragraphs 1, 2 and 9) (That God Can Work Apart From The Order Implanted In Things, By Producing Effects Without Proximate Causes):
Code:
[1] It remains to show now that **He can act apart from the order implanted by Him in things**.

[2] Indeed, there is an order divinely instituted in things to the effect that lower things are moved through higher ones by God, as we said above. Now, **God can act apart from this order**; for instance, He may Himself produce an effect in lower things, with nothing being done, in this case, by a higher agent. In fact, **there is a difference on this point between an agent that acts by natural necessity and one that acts according to will**; an effect cannot result from one that acts by natural necessity except according to the mode of the active power - so, an agent that has very great power cannot directly produce a small effect, but it produces an effect in proportion to its power. But, in this effect, there is sometimes less power than in the cause, and so, by means of many intermediaries, there finally comes to be a small effect from the highest cause. However, the situation is not the same in the case of an agent working through will. For one who acts through will is able at once to produce without an intermediary any effect that does not exceed its power. For instance, the very perfect artisan can produce any kind of work that the less perfect artisan could make. Now, God operates through will, and not through natural necessity, as we showed above. Therefore, **He can produce immediately, without special causes**, the smaller effects that are produced by lower causes....

[9] Now, if someone says that, since God did implant this order in things, the production in things of an effect independently of its proper causes, and apart from the order established by Him, could not be done without a change in this order, this objection can be refuted by the very nature of things. **For the order imposed on things by God is based on what** **usually** occurs, in most cases, in things, **but not on what is always so**. In fact, many natural causes produce their effects in the same way, but not always.... But the order of providence does not fail, or suffer change, because of such an event. Indeed, the very fact that the natural order, which is based on things that happen in most cases, does fail at times is subject to divine providence. So, if by means of a created power it can happen that the natural order is changed from what is usually so to what occurs rarely - without any change of divine providence - then it is more certain** that divine power can sometimes produce an effect, without prejudice to its providence, apart from the order implanted in natural things by God**. In fact, **He does this at times to manifest His power**. For it can be manifested in no better way, that the whole of nature is subject to the divine will, than by the fact that **sometimes He does something outside the order of nature**. Indeed, this makes it evident that the order of things has proceeded from Him, **not by natural necessity, but by free will**.
Notice, he does things outside the order of nature – to manifest His power.

How could His power be manifest if His actions were not observable?
A superb post, Reggie, which puts paid to the relegation of God to the sidelines as far as St Thomas is concerned! I believe miracles occur constantly in accordance with the fact that we have a loving Father who answers prayers and prevents accidents whenever He chooses. It is not below His dignity to suspend the laws of nature on the pretext that His original plan was defective! How could they possibly allow for every contingency out of the countless billions of coincidences which occur at every moment throughout the universe? How could they arrange for no one never to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when falling objects are a constant occurrence? :confused:

**The greatest miracle would be for the laws of nature to be universal and infallible safeguards against every form of failure, conflict, ****accident, ****disaster and interference throughout the universe! **Unwanted coincidences are a fact of life and have to be taken into account in even the most perfectly designed system. Omnipotence does not entail absurdity… 😉
 
**The greatest miracle would be for the laws of nature to be universal and infallible safeguards against every form of failure, conflict, ****accident, ****disaster and interference throughout the universe! **Unwanted coincidences are a fact of life and have to be taken into account in even the most perfectly designed system. Omnipotence does not entail absurdity… 😉
“If every thing in the universe be conducted by general laws, and if animals be rendered susceptible of pain, it scarcely seems possible but some ill must arise in the various shocks of matter, and the various concurrence and opposition of general laws…”
  • David Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

"To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? "
  • William Shakespeare: Hamlet
 
The greatest miracle would be for the laws of nature to be universal and infallible safeguards against every form of failure, conflict, accident, disaster and interference throughout the universe! Unwanted coincidences are a fact of life and have to be taken into account in even the most perfectly designed system. Omnipotence does not entail absurdity…

“If every thing in the universe be conducted by general laws, and if animals be rendered susceptible of pain, it scarcely seems possible but some ill must arise in the various shocks of matter, and the various concurrence and opposition of general laws…”
  • David Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

"To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? "
  • William Shakespeare: Hamlet
The trouble is that some people argue that this world is perfect in order to suppose design, some presuppose design to account for the perceived imperfections.

Given that here you do the latter, and try to sweep away the thousand natural shocks, on what grounds can you say that the arrangement of general laws that gives rise to these shocks is actually the most perfect set-up?

You start with one possible alternative answer: ‘The greatest miracle would be for the laws of nature to be universal and infallible safeguards against every form of failure, conflict, accident, disaster and interference throughout the universe!’

I agree 100%! But aren’t you the one who believes in miracles?😃 Why would God not have skipped this current earthly life and simply created bodily heaven on earth, or is heaven also not possible, given that you say it would be absurd to ask for more than this conflicted and troubled existence?
 
It almost sounds like that the direct intervention of tweaking such a process is saying God was not intelligent enough to design the process to do such naturally from the beginning OR that He was restricted in some way to not arrange the intented process to be natural from the beginning. I can see an atheist going to town on that stance, very open for attack.
Never happened to me.

The only retort that I got is that God does intevene which I then explain (miracles etc.).

I am only putting one and one together in both faith and science. This is quite unproblematic, in my view.

By the way, yes, biological ID sounds like saying God was not intelligent enough to design the process to do such naturally from the beginning. It gives a diminished picture of God.

God creating by special creation entirely outside a process is great, and happens in the spiritual domain all the time. God creating through a perfect process is great as well, and this is what we see in the material domain.

The idea of God creating through a not so great process that is simply not good enough to accomplish everything intended by Almighty Divine Providence, God creating through an imperfect process that needs some help from time to time – that is problematic.
 
I
Yes but that sort of view always runs aground when faced with the problem of consciousness rising from unconsciousness.
May I respectfully suggest that the problem of consciousness rising from unconsciousness (post 1157) can be solved in five minutes by checking the protocol of the Catholic Church in matters regarding scholastic philosophy.
 
**The greatest miracle would be for the laws of nature to be universal and infallible safeguards against every form of failure, conflict, ****accident, ****disaster and interference throughout the universe! **Unwanted coincidences are a fact of life and have to be taken into account in even the most perfectly designed system. Omnipotence does not entail absurdity… 😉
My apology. I may be misunderstanding you.
 
And we exist only insofar as we love! 🙂 That is why God is All in All: Alpha and Omega…
Emphasis mine.

I must be in a different world. In the world I walk around in, human existence does not depend on the person’s love. This is because human existence which we see when we use the power of our natural senses is an objective fact. Looking at human nature as an objective fact is why I find Catholicism logical.
 
The trouble is that some people argue that this world is perfect in order to suppose design, some presuppose design to account for the perceived imperfections.

Given that here you do the latter, and try to sweep away the thousand natural shocks, on what grounds can you say that the arrangement of general laws that gives rise to these shocks is actually the most perfect set-up?

You start with one possible alternative answer: ‘The greatest miracle would be for the laws of nature to be universal and infallible safeguards against every form of failure, conflict, accident, disaster and interference throughout the universe!’

I agree 100%! But aren’t you the one who believes in miracles?😃 Why would God not have skipped this current earthly life and simply created bodily heaven on earth, or is heaven also not possible, given that you say it would be absurd to ask for more than this conflicted and troubled existence?
The little known teaching of Catholicism is that God did create a world of harmony and the first human in harmony within himself. The catch is that there is only one Creator. Since the first human was the creature and not the Creator, the only logical way to maintain harmony was for the first human to live in submission to his Creator Who created harmony in the first place.
 
Never happened to me.

The only retort that I got is that God does intevene which I then explain (miracles etc.).

I am only putting one and one together in both faith and science. This is quite unproblematic, in my view.

By the way, yes, biological ID sounds like saying God was not intelligent enough to design the process to do such naturally from the beginning. It gives a diminished picture of God.

God creating by special creation entirely outside a process is great, and happens in the spiritual domain all the time. God creating through a perfect process is great as well, and this is what we see in the material domain.

The idea of God creating through a not so great process that is simply not good enough to accomplish everything intended by Almighty Divine Providence, God creating through an imperfect process that needs some help from time to time – that is problematic.
There is a little known teaching of Catholicism when it comes to problems regarding
“design”. It is the one which explains the different construction factors of both the material world and the spiritual world.
 
I can see the modern ID argument, not the Thomistic ID argument mind you, working here. That which is acted at particular points in time in certain processes, like evolution, is a temporal effect of the eternal will. Though, it’s simpler to hold that all secondary causes are not directing themselves (not saying modern ID’ers are arguing that) but rather being directed by the natural laws God created to their last ends.
Yes, I agree. It’s simpler and more elegant to say that all secondary causes are the product of natural laws. But I think that’s over-simplistic and therefore not an accurate representation of reality. The natural laws (as far as we know what they are and how they work) are not as absolute as it would seem. Even the laws of mathematics encounter paradoxes. God has designed the world with an understandable, but at the same time, paradoxical structure.

Jesus taught us the spiritual laws of the universe – and they are paradoxical. A person who thinks that everything operates by fixed natural laws (as evolutionists do) will not be able to understand the spiritual teachings of Catholicism.

Give and you shall receive. Die and you will live. Love your life and you will lose it. Blessed are those who mourn, who are poor, who are persecuted.

These are just some of the paradoxes that Jesus came to teach us.
“God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.” (ST 1, 83, a1, r3)
That’s a very relevant quote also. By moving natural causes, He does not impede nature.
The false assumption of scientism is that we fully comprehend the natural laws, and therefore reality.

The Darwinian idea is reductionist. Everything is reduced to the molecular level. Beings in their wholeness are really just the sum of their parts.
Yes but that sort of view always runs aground when faced with the problem of consciousness rising from unconsciousness.
Yes, exactly. And among many other evidences in nature in my opinion.
“In the natural order, perfection comes before imperfection, as act precedes potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality is made actual only by something actual.” (ST 1, 94, a3)
True, but agents have varying degrees of perfection (actuality). So, while an unintelligent agent is still governed by the perfection of divine providence, the effects that it causes (secondarily) are far less perfect than those of an intelligent agent like a human being.

For example, tfiring of spark plugs and the movement of pistons are a secondary cause. The intelligence which comes before those physical actions has more actuality – more perfection. The intelligence which created the engine acted with purpose and intention – and created the wholeness of the engine. The spark-plugs can only do what an unintelligent agent does. Yes, it is moved from potentiality to act through a greater perfection, but its act is less perfect.

The human mind is an expression of God’s perfection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top