Evidence for Design?

[inocente]

Focus on the argument, not the person.

Oh, by the way - this is a house of Jesus’ time.

What argument? That we should do our homework and have ethics about what we put into our heads?

Btw, not sure about the idea of comparing Abel with Christ.

 

[reggieM]

Before getting onto your apparent indifference about whether someone is sincere but in error compared with a fraudster, lets just look at the references in that paper.

As Catholics, we are taught not to judge someone’s personal integrity unless we have very substantial reasons and knowledge to do so. In this case, we don’t have that.

Abel lists himself as: Program Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Drive Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610, USA.

In the U.S., people are free to establish non-profit organizations to support an interest or a project of any kind. There is nothing fraudulent about that. We also should have a healthy distrust of anybody who calls himself an “authority” just because he is wealthy or he works for a big university. We don’t have an aristocratic class or nobility, so perhaps that’s why we don’t look at a person’s title or his home as a measure of his intellectual quality.

No, hang on, it’s a corporate headquarters - “The Gene Emergence Project is one of the programs of The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)3 science and education foundation with corporate headquarters near NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center just off the Washington, D. C. Beltway in Greenbelt, MD. 113 Hedgewood Drive.” which is “offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate that life could indeed evolve spontaneously”.

Abel collaborates with a board of directors. It’s an independent agency - something like the Catholic League for Civil Rights would be.

Tell me, how exactly does defending this guy help your cause and bring lost souls into your Church?

Wherever the truth can be found, it helps the Church. We defend the writings of pagans like Aristotle, for example – for that same reason. Even Protestants can offer some great insights that help the Catholic Faith.

Or do you think defending him might be stopping lost souls getting to your Church because they are laughing so hard they keep falling over?

We hope that lost souls will look at the arguments and not judge someone because of his house or the organization he works for.

So if you want me to waste time discussing the garbage he writes, first, seriously, why are you defending such an obvious Walter Mitty?

Done. Now you can talk about what he writes.

 

[inocente]

As Catholics, we are taught not to judge someone’s personal integrity unless we have very substantial reasons and knowledge to do so. In this case, we don’t have that.

That’s very charitable of you, but I somehow doubt that if he was peddling atheism you’d be quite as understanding. Incidentally, how do you know he’s not an atheist playing games, do you have substantial reasons and knowledge?

*In the U.S., people are free to establish non-profit organizations to support an interest or a project of any kind. There is nothing fraudulent about that. We also should have a healthy distrust of anybody who calls himself an “authority” just because he is wealthy or he works for a big university. We don’t have an aristocratic class or nobility, so perhaps that’s why we don’t look at a person’s title or his home as a measure of his intellectual quality.

Abel collaborates with a board of directors. It’s an independent agency - something like the Catholic League for Civil Rights would be.*

I see. Could you point me at references to the other members of the Gene Emergence Project and of the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics in the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.? You can omit his cat.

Wherever the truth can be found, it helps the Church. We defend the writings of pagans like Aristotle, for example – for that same reason. Even Protestants can offer some great insights that help the Catholic Faith.

The truth appears to be off-topic currently.

We hope that lost souls will look at the arguments and not judge someone because of his house or the organization he works for.

And completely ignore his moral character?

Done. Now you can talk about what he writes.

No, you’ve not yet said why you’re defending him. There are thousands of theories on the Internet, everything from world governments and UFOs to curing lung cancer by the power of thought, so why are you defending this particular guy? Can you point me at any well-known Catholics to give him credibility, or are we well outside Catholicism with this stuff?

 

[grannymh]

What argument? That we should do our homework and have ethics about what we put into our heads?

.

A few years back, an atheist respectfully put my feet to the fire over not doing my homework regarding research papers. That was the best lesson ever learned.

That lesson of doing one’s homework can help demonstrate off line that the possibility of a real Adam and Eve exists right in the middle of contemporary genetic research.

 

[inocente]

I can see the humor. Which is sad because I have now found an ID scientist, in addition to Dr. Behe, whom I can trust.

That makes two misguided souls.

I’ve often wondered, but never been able to work out the numbers, how many scientists are there in the world, and how many are Catholics? I mean you very roughly, 7 billion people on the planet, assume 2 billion are too young, so if one in a thousand of the remainder is a scientist that makes 5 million of them. Which would mean your trustworthy two ID scientists make up 0.0000004% of all scientists, which either says something about the trustworthiness of scientists or about how convincing ID is.

 

[buffalo]

Over and over challengers are asked about peer reviewed publications.

Here we have a guy who has published over 50 peer reviewed paper and he is trashed because the house he lives in? :banghead:

So this presents a problem - either peer review does its job or it doesn’t. What say you innocente?

 

[inocente]

Over and over challengers are asked about peer reviewed publications.

Here we have a guy who has published over 50 peer reviewed paper and he is trashed because the house he lives in? :banghead:

So this presents a problem - either peer review does its job or it doesn’t. What say you innocente?

Not because of the house he lives in but because he pretends it is the corporate headquarters of the Gene Emergence Project and of the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics of the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.

How can I be sure his work is peer reviewed, when the supposed reviewers don’t even bother to check his references? It seems he could have given his address as the Planet Venus and would still have been published.

But it’s fun to see how one minute science is the depth of depravity (for instance post #1271) and the next it is sweetness and light, depending on, well, I don’t know, whether it’s an odd or even day of the month?

 

[buffalo]

Not because of the house he lives in but because he pretends it is the corporate headquarters of the Gene Emergence Project and of the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics of the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.

How can I be sure his work is peer reviewed, when the supposed reviewers don’t even bother to check his references? It seems he could have given his address as the Planet Venus and would still have been published.

But it’s fun to see how one minute science is the depth of depravity (for instance post #1271) and the next it is sweetness and light, depending on, well, I don’t know, whether it’s an odd or even day of the month?

Where is the corporate headquarters? Do you know?

That question then applies to each and every paper that claims to be peer-reviewed, not only his. Share with me your criteria as to what you accept as legitimate peer review.

 

[grannymh]

Abel collaborates with a board of directors. It’s an independent agency - something like the Catholic League for Civil Rights would be.

May I respectfully suggest that you personally check out the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (correct name) before making comparisons.

Website is catholicleague.org/our-mission/
catholicleague.org/

You may also write to their office at
450 Seventh Avenue, 34th Floor,
New York, NY 10123

— and request their monthly journal “Catalyst” so that you may read about their position and activities.

No need for an apology. The League has been called worse names than an “independent agency.”

Note: I have been having trouble with the links; however, I am sure you can locate the website via other means.

 

[inocente]

Where is the corporate headquarters? Do you know?

Did you forget that in post #1283 you quoted the whole of my post where I gave that information direct from horses’ mouths?

That question them applies to each and every paper that claims to be peer-reviewed. Share with me your criteria as to what you accept as legitimate peer review.

Evidence that it has actually been reviewed by responsible and competent peers.

I’m now done for the day, it’s dog walking time and anyway I sorely need a rest from laughing.

 

[buffalo]

Did you forget that in post #1283 you quoted the whole of my post where I gave that information direct from horses’ mouths?

Evidence that it has actually been reviewed by responsible and competent peers.

Yeah, I still do not get it. He claims the corporate headquarters at that address. Corporations in America can be located in homes.

I am not sure you want to open this can can of worms.

I am willing to withdraw my original post referencing him because the case is already very strong.

We can use the peer reviewed resources here instead: IDvolution.org

 

[reggieM]

That’s very charitable of you, but I somehow doubt that if he was peddling atheism you’d be quite as understanding. Incidentally, how do you know he’s not an atheist playing games, do you have substantial reasons and knowledge?

If you’re saying that all atheists are disqualified from science because of their immoral character … then that doesn’t leave much left for Darwinian science to work with, does it?

I see. Could you point me at references to the other members of the Gene Emergence Project and of the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics in the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.?

It’s on the page – he has a board of directors and it’s a legally established non-profit grouip.

And completely ignore his moral character?

No, we shouldn’t ignore a person’s moral character. But again, atheism is a very serious sin. Would you be willing to accept criticism of atheists in science on that basis alone? If so, which evolutionists do you defend? Which ones have the moral character that Catholics can approve of? Dawkins? PZ Myers (who committed public sacrilege against the Sacred Host)? Oh yes – you directed me to his website as an authority.

Can I now point out the hypocrisy in that? You’ve got a double-standard. Is the blasphemer Meyrs an “honest scientist with Catholic moral character”? If not, then why do you direct me to his page which is hostile to Christianity?

Can you point me at any well-known Catholics to give him credibility, or are we well outside Catholicism with this stuff?

I’m sure there are Catholics who give his research credibility, but my interest is in convincing you on the design argument, not in getting your support for an individual.

Would it help your credibility in this topic if I direct you to some well-known Catholics who support the belief that we can observe evidence of design in nature?

 

[reggieM]

Yeah, I still do not get it. He claims the corporate headquarters at that address. Corporations in America can be located in homes.

I am not sure you want to open this can can of worms.

I am willing to withdraw my original post referencing him because the case is already very strong.

We can use the peer reviewed resources here instead: IDvolution.org

I could agree with that.

If Inocente believes that David Abel is immoral and therefore his writings should not be given credibility, I would gladly get rid of Abel as a topic in the discussion. If the person is an obstacle to embracing the truth, then we could move on to the arguments themselves.

I don’t think it’s reasonable, however, to claim that there are no peer-reviewed papers from scientists who support intelligent design.

But that’s also a different topic regarding the politics of science and not the argument from design itself.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a difference between the Prime Mover and prime movers. Don’t you believe God created us in His image?

"357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of **freely **giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead."

The only evidence that exists independently of our perceptions is to be found in our thoughts, feelings and decisions. Perceptions are** always**

subjective because they occur in the mind.
Perhaps you could give me an exact example per se of evidence of design…

The present issue is the nature of evidence. The evidence of Design includes the existence of persons.

 

[grannymh]

Where is the corporate headquarters? Do you know?

That question them applies to each and every paper that claims to be peer-reviewed. Share with me your criteria as to what you accept as legitimate peer review.

Yes, the question of “location” does apply to reputable research. Please refer to post 1280.

One’s personal criteria for legitimate peer review may be interesting, but that is not the way top journals, including the philosophical ones, work.

Those of us who are preparing papers on Catholicism and contemporary science for publication off line do the obvious which is to inquire about specific policies for each publication we are considering.

 

[reggieM]

Anything and everything is not an appropriate answer to my direct question. Anything could be my goldfish, for example.

That is correct.

Please explain why people support science in regard to design in nature and yet abuse science in the material world?

Explaining why anything is not an easier question.

 

[tonyrey]

So if you were Pope, you would make it an offense for all Catholic scientists to ever refer to God? Is that as well as promulgating the lies of fraudsters? Interesting.

“… **on the doors **of all scientific establishments, all laboratories and all classrooms where science is taught.”

 

[tonyrey]

I think it’s time you turned your attention to the topic…It was you who introduced him to the topic by lauding the fraudster (quote below), but I understand your embarrassment.
Another argumentum ad hominem.

The majority of your posts are off the topic.…

It remains highly significant **no one **has refuted the points that were listed.

 

[reggieM]

Irrelevant nonsense. The majority of your posts are off the topic.…
It remains highly significant **no one **has refuted the points that were listed.

Exactly.

Some of the points …

Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation?

Yes or no? Explain.

Science must acknowledge the reality and validity … of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible.

True or false?

… a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:

*High levels of prescriptive information -
*Programming -
*Symbol systems and language -
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information -
*Formal function -
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life.

True or false?

 

[grannymh]

"357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of **freely **giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead."

This is a reasonable example of quote mining. I asked for an answer in Catholic detail regarding the Catholic explanation of the Catholic truth that we are in the image of God.

Yes. Paragraph 357 is a very, very important part of the Catholic explanation of human nature. Would it be possible to give the rest of the explanation? Quite often, I present the other parts in posts so I am pretty sure you may have seen them.

The present issue is the nature of evidence. The evidence of Design includes the existence of persons.

I am retracting my original request. “Perhaps you could give me an exact example per se of evidence of design.” It seems that I have a more objective scientific background which is why we are not on the same page.

Note: My scientific background does not include academic credentials. I could say that my short experience in investigative journalism taught me a lot about objectivity which occurs in science.