Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Yes, genetic monogenism is excluded for certain. Three independent lines of genetic evidence show that the genetic bottleneck was never less than a few thousand people:

biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-to-a-single-primal-couple/

As Inocente once pointed out, genetic monogenism would also imply inbreeding and incest, with all the messy genetic consequences of this.

However, given the metaphysics of human nature, theological monogenism, a real Adam and Eve (though not a genetic Adam and Eve) is still possible.

Here is Edward Feser’s excellent take on this (inspired by others that he cites):

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

Here is a summary of that position:

Scientific evidence strongly indicates that the genetic bottleneck for Homo sapiens was never smaller than a few thousand individuals, making untenable the idea of genetic monogenism (a literal biological Adam and Eve from whom every human being exclusively descended, also in biological terms). Feser suggests that God gave a soul to two humanoid creatures out of this population, making them human. Here you would have theological monogenism just like the Church teaches. Yet these first humans, or their descendants, then – according to continuing natural biological attraction – mated with other humanoid creatures without spiritual souls, and their offspring also received souls from God (just like now offspring from two ensouled parents receives a soul from God). That would explain biological polygenism, conferred to humans from natural interbreeding with surrounding humanoid creatures, even though only two people had souls originally. Having a rational soul, allowing for a true intellect, then gave a selective advantage, and within a few centuries all merely humanoid creatures were out-selected in favor of ensouled humans (as discussed in the second of the three web links). The human race (in the metaphysical sense, with all individuals having souls) was born.

---

Previously I had defended the idea that the Catholic Church might still settle on theological polygenism, given certain remarks in the Church document Communion and Stewardship, but given above elegant solution I have given up on that idea, since it simply has become unnecessary. Again, both theological monogenism and biological polygenism are possible at the same time, given the metaphysics of human nature.

A far simpler solution is that all living beings have souls and God alone decides which are in His image…

 

[inocente]

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?

No, I said how do you know Abel isn’t an atheist playing games, meaning playing mind-games with credulous Christians. As an example of the games they play, there’s a website pretending to be a huge Baptist church, but it’s run entirely by atheists and is completely outrageous. Even so credulous Christians post on its forum somehow thinking it’s real. (PM me if you want the url, I’ll not give it here as some will find the site very offensive).

Since the ID fans now say Abel is off-topic, after they introduced his work on this thread, this is my last post about him to avoid them further embarrassment.

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

Oh dear. Try a bit of science and follow the evidence instead.

Find the websites of: the Gene Emergence Project at the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. (which Abel says he manages), the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics at the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. (which Abel also says he manages), and the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. itself. Note there’s only one site, that its design is amateurish, that it was last updated eleven years ago in 2001, and of course the “corporate headquarters” is a private house. Note the only email address is at a web hosting company, prices from $19.95, yet the “foundation” says it has a prize fund of one million dollars. Smell any rats yet?

On his (absolutely free) blogger site, Abel says the “Gene Emergence Project is an international consortium of scientists”. Find the names of the members of this “international consortium”. I couldn’t, except perhaps his cat.

Now find the website of the Biological Research Division of LongView Press (his supposed publisher), or LongView Press itself. I couldn’t find it, the company doesn’t exist.

*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? *

You really can’t see any difference between sincerely held views, whether right or wrong, and someone who lies through their teeth?

I linked Meyrs’ site for the picture he has of the corporate headquarters of the Gene Emergence Project and Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics at the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. (i.e. that private house). I know nothing of Myers except Wikipedia says he’s published numerous papers in Nature and other real-world science journals, that his blog is top-ranked, that he’s won the Humanist of the Year and the International Humanist Award, and has an asteroid named in his honor.

Please direct me to Abel’s wiki entry, or indeed any independent information about him.

 

[inocente]

No, we shouldn’t ignore a person’s moral character. But again, atheism is a very serious sin.

I don’t know if the following wiki comments are correct, but do believe that the deceitful origin and fraudulent nature of much of ID probably creates more atheists than Christians.

*While the Catechism of the Catholic Church identifies atheism as a violation of the First Commandment, calling it “a sin against the virtue of religion”, it is careful to acknowledge that atheism may be motivated by virtuous or moral considerations, and admonishes Catholic Christians to focus on their own role in encouraging atheism by their religious or moral shortcomings:

(2125) …] The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism*

*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?*

My credibility is whatever people make it, I’ve nothing to hide and will not be browbeaten. I know of Catholics who endorse the teleological argument, but no credible well-known Catholics who endorse ID (“credible” meaning endorsed by the Church rather than an embarrassment to the Church).

 

[inocente]

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

Ah, I see. However, very few doors speak of God anyway.

 

[inocente]

Inocente was looking for some Catholic support of the Intelligent Design argument:

Presentations from the 2012 Science and Faith Conference: "Can Science Inform Our Understanding of God?"

If you fast-forward through Behe and listen instead to Daniel Kuebler’s response (video link below), Kuebler argues against ID, on lines compatible with Thomas Aquinas. Kuebler is a professor at the (Catholic) Franciscan University of Steubenville. I can’t see how that provides Catholic support for ID.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hZqVhXJzMXU#t=2820s

 

[inocente]

Exactly.

Exactly, as in not.

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

Yes or no? Explain.

Note I don’t pretend to be a biologist, and having not seen the word chemoton before could only find it as a reference to an (obsolete?) abstract model. If by “formal instructions, controls and regulation” you mean the physical law then yes, obviously life depends on an underlying order. But if you mean outside the physical law, with God having to run around bringing every cell individually to life then no, that be very silly indeed.

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?

False, that would destroy the scientific endeavor. Science works because it doesn’t get hung-up on metaphysics.

… 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?

Bland assertions, pathetically and emphatically not even wrong.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If you fast-forward through Behe and listen instead to Daniel Kuebler’s response (video link below), Kuebler argues against ID, on lines compatible with Thomas Aquinas. Kuebler is a professor at the (Catholic) Franciscan University of Steubenville. I can’t see how that provides Catholic support for ID.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hZqVhXJzMXU#t=2820s

Well, another nice little detail is that L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, published an anti-ID article in 2006. And a few years ago there was a conference in the Vatican to study the historical and cultural roots of biological ID – but not the ‘science’, as which it is not taken seriously by the Vatican.

 

[Bobber90]

‘[earlier part of elegant solution omitted] …Having a rational soul, allowing for a true intellect, then gave a selective advantage, and within a few centuries all merely humanoid creatures were out-selected in favor of ensouled humans (as discussed in the second of the three web links). The human race (in the metaphysical sense, with all individuals having souls) was born.’

---

Previously I had defended the idea that the Catholic Church might still settle on theological polygenism, given certain remarks in the Church document Communion and Stewardship, but given above elegant solution I have given up on that idea, since it simply has become unnecessary. Again, both theological monogenism and biological polygenism are possible at the same time, given the metaphysics of human nature.

If having a soul allows for a ‘true intellect’, what kind of intellect would humans have had pre-soul? Is this the point when humans suddenly understand morality and gain free will, for example? Presumably it commits you to a cartesian dualism of mind/body too?

 

[grannymh]

You’ve just admitted that you haven’t done your homework since there isn’t any such possibility, since it is completely inconceivable that any ‘contemporary genetic research’ would suggest we all descend from just one pair of first parents.
.

Please.
It is important to read my lips.

It is obvious to those who are familiar with published research that I did not say that “contemporary genetic research would suggest we all descend from just one pair of first parents.”
Also, it is important to understand what exactly contemporary genetic research is researching. In addition, the Human Genome Project has changed the landscape of research from that of the 1990’s. Contemporary papers refine earlier conclusions.

“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.”

Those familiar with the induction method often used in anthropology research understand the meaning of the word “possibility”. It is also obvious to those who are familiar with published research that there is a difference between the real conclusion based on the actual evidence and extrapolations or universal interpretations.

For those still baffled by “middle of contemporary genetic research” – this refers to the technology of genetic research which goes straight to the heart which in this decade is an exact area in the midst of three billion chemical base pairs which make up human DNA. ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

The structure of genetic research does not have to be denied. It is the countless possibilities of genetic understanding which can include Adam and Eve side by side with other ancient beings.

Note: to those who are considering purchasing an analysis of their own personal genome. Not all companies use the same research methods. Also, people should be aware that they can opt out of receiving certain kinds of genetic information related to certain diseases.

 

[inocente]

Well, another nice little detail is that L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, published an anti-ID article in 2006. And a few years ago there was a conference in the Vatican to study the historical and cultural roots of biological ID – but not the ‘science’, as which it is not taken seriously by the Vatican.

I went hunting but could only find the article in Italian, here, and Google wouldn’t translate it (the page has frames, and frames are anathema). But if interested (and if you don’t speak Italian), scroll down to the actual text (light blue background) and paste into Google Translate.

On the way I found the following from L’Osservatore Romano on what you and granny were discussing, which may interest both of you.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/SINEVOL.HTM

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Exactly. Science is believed to be the only source of true knowledge.

That is a belief about scientific knowledge. It is called scientism.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I went hunting but could only find the article in Italian, here, and Google wouldn’t translate it (the page has frames, and frames are anathema). But if interested (and if you don’t speak Italian), scroll down to the actual text (light blue background) and paste into Google Translate

See:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm

 

[Al_Moritz]

If having a soul allows for a ‘true intellect’, what kind of intellect would humans have had pre-soul?

One of associative thinking, like all animals have (including my dogs), not one of rational thinking.

Is this the point when humans suddenly understand morality and gain free will, for example?

That too, yes.

Presumably it commits you to a cartesian dualism of mind/body too?

No, see:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/against-neurobabble.html

 

[buffalo]

Yes, genetic monogenism is excluded for certain. Three independent lines of genetic evidence show that the genetic bottleneck was never less than a few thousand people:

Scientific evidence strongly indicates that the genetic bottleneck for Homo sapiens was never smaller than a few thousand individuals, making untenable the idea of genetic monogenism (a literal biological Adam and Eve from whom every human being exclusively descended, also in biological terms). Feser suggests that God gave a soul to two humanoid creatures out of this population, making them human. Here you would have theological monogenism just like the Church teaches. Yet these first humans, or their descendants, then – according to continuing natural biological attraction – mated with other humanoid creatures without spiritual souls, and their offspring also received souls from God (just like now offspring from two ensouled parents receives a soul from God). That would explain biological polygenism, conferred to humans from natural interbreeding with surrounding humanoid creatures, even though only two people had souls originally. Having a rational soul, allowing for a true intellect, then gave a selective advantage, and within a few centuries all merely humanoid creatures were out-selected in favor of ensouled humans (as discussed in the second of the three web links). The human race (in the metaphysical sense, with all individuals having souls) was born.

---

Previously I had defended the idea that the Catholic Church might still settle on theological polygenism, given certain remarks in the Church document Communion and Stewardship, but given above elegant solution I have given up on that idea, since it simply has become unnecessary. Again, both theological monogenism and biological polygenism are possible at the same time, given the metaphysics of human nature.

That can only get you back to within several generations of Adam and Eve.

There are several other options.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If you believe that it is possible for evolution to occur by chance, then what scientific grounds do you have for saying that ID science provides a better model for how biological organisms and species came to be?

 

[grannymh]

Actually, by that I meant the probability of ‘current genetic research’ implying the existence of an actual Adam & Eve to be zero.

This is a reasonable example of how the majority of CAF posters (on both sides of the issue) do not comprehend “possibility” in actual science research.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Feser suggests that God gave a soul to two humanoid creatures out of this population, making them human. Here you would have theological monogenism just like the Church teaches. Yet these first humans, or their descendants, then – according to continuing natural biological attraction – mated with other humanoid creatures without spiritual souls, and their offspring also received souls from God (just like now offspring from two ensouled parents receives a soul from God). That would explain biological polygenism, conferred to humans from natural interbreeding with surrounding humanoid creatures, even though only two people had souls originally. Having a rational soul, allowing for a true intellect, then gave a selective advantage, and within a few centuries all merely humanoid creatures were out-selected in favor of ensouled humans (as discussed in the second of the three web links). The human race (in the metaphysical sense, with all individuals having souls) was born.

This is correct. This is precisely what happened. Surprisingly this is exactly the same idea that i was developing. Seems somebody has already beat me to it.

Of course, if we understand that a living person is a combination of both body and soul, then it really does not matter how many genetically related humanoids existed at anyone time. One can still say that the human race had two parents in so far as we are the product of two beings that were a combination of both humanoid and soul. Also this scenario is infinitely more desirable than saying that the human race is ultimately the product of incest!

 

[grannymh]

Yes, genetic monogenism is excluded for certain. Three independent lines of genetic evidence show that the genetic bottleneck was never less than a few thousand people:

This is a reasonable example of some of the misunderstandings of both “possible” coalescence and some of the retrospective calculations used to estimate the “possible” effective population size of ancient beings which may not have been true human persons.

 

[Bobber90]

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/against-neurobabble.html

hylemorphic dualism

‘hylemorphic dualism is non-reductionist, and regards human beings, like all material substances, as composites of form and matter.’

‘The relationship between soul and body is therefore not like that of two billiard balls, one of them ghostly, which have to find a way somehow to knock into one another. It is more like the relationship between the shape of a triangle drawn on paper and the ink which has taken on the shape – two aspects of one thing, rather than two things. (an ink triangle is real, a triangle is a logical concept, here represented) Or it is like the relationship between the meaning of a word and the letters that make up the word (the mind is simply there by convention, like a symbol?), or the relationship between the pictorial content of a painting and the splotches of color that make up the painting.’ (the mind is imagined?)

This is simple enough to follow, but I don’t think a material substance (eg a human) is a composite of form (mind) and matter (brain), because I don’t think ‘form’ is objectively real. Yes the matter is real, but isn’t the ‘form’ of something just a subjective opinion? The argument is this: ‘it is false to say that a tree is “nothing but” a collection of roots, trunk, leaves, sap’. But I don’t think it is false to say that.

How on earth does a form change a material substance, in the way that the mind is supposed to move the body? Does changing the meaning of a word change the letters? Does calling a tree a bush make it not a tree? It seems like this sort of hylemorphic dualism gets us nowhere. As this is a tangential matter, I’m happy to leave it as a mystery.

 

[tonyrey]

Ah, I see. However, very few doors speak of God anyway.

Everything speaks of God to the true believer…