Evidence for Design?

[inocente]

You linked to a site from a man who has a lot of hatred for the Catholic Faith:

There’s nothing about Catholicism on the page I linked, and searching the site I only found one reference to Catholicism, about Ireland closing its Vatican embassy.

And as I said, I know nothing of Myers, just as I assume you know nothing about Abel, since you’ve avoided answering on that and other points.

So for all you know Abel has twice the hatred of the Catholic Faith as Myers, but you defended Abel, attacked Myers, and then said I’m the hypocrite with the double standards.

This is a hilarious thread.

 

[inocente]

The Design Argument is not intended to prove the existence of God…

Hallelujah, I’m glad you finally admitted it says nothing about God, although you managed to avoid stating which particular design argument you actually mean.

But if it’s not intended to argue for the existence of God, what on earth is the point of it?

Incidentally, really sorry if this post is off-topic, just as I apologize if it’s ad hominem. The problem is that on this thread their meanings change daily according to some capricious and disorderly “agent”.

 

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by tonyrey View Post
They presuppose that apart from sustaining the universe in existence God has left it to run under its own steam regardless of any dead ends it may encounter or regardless of the amount of suffering caused by misfortunes and human beings. The rarity of miracles is a direct contradiction of the teaching of Jesus…

It is highly significant that no one has questioned the truth of these statements - yet. I’m fascinated to know what objections will be raised…

I haven’t seen any objections either.
Perhaps I can help argue for our opponents and summarize some anti-Design arguments.

Some of the various counter-points we can find are:

1. God did not know what would happen as the result of His laws (and does not know today what will happen tomorrow).
2. Jesus was not speaking literally when He taught about the continuous, supernatural activity of God in nature and in our lives.
3. God could not have created a world with imperfections. Instead, God created the laws, which created the imperfections in the world.
4. As Darwin said, “everything in nature is the result of fixed natural laws” – those laws are infallible, absolute, unchanging and pre-determined. They explain everything. The design argument is therefore refuted.
   5 There is no evidence of intelligent design anywhere in biological nature.
5. There is, however, evidence of intelligent design in the mathematical Fine-tuning of the cosmos.
6. Laws of physics cannot explain the fine-tuning in the cosmos. The same laws of physics along with blind chance created the first living cell and then the 40 million species of living things on earth, so there is no evidence of intelligent design in biology.
7. Evolutionary processes explain the origin, development and destiny of all life forms after the blind-chance beginning of the first living cell. Evolution works without plan or purpose. Whatever is observed in nature today is the result of chance mutations and natural selection which preserves the survivors.
8. Free will, moral conscience, rationality, consciousness, spiritual desire, human purpose … those are either the result of blind, natural processes – or they’re another exception to the claim that “God does not intervene”.
9. The soul is something that God “added to” or “inserted in” some animals to make them human beings.

 

[reggieM]

And as I said, I know nothing of Myers …

Well, you know something now.

So for all you know Abel has twice the hatred of the Catholic Faith as Myers, but you defended Abel, attacked Myers, and then said I’m the hypocrite with the double standards.

I was trying to show you the hypocrisy of your ad hominem approach. You claim that Abel is a liar and a fraud. I merely pointed out that Myers, the man you held up as an authority, publicly attacked the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist. You may not realize it, but Catholics worship the Eucharistic elements as Christ’s true Presence on earth – giving Him the highest possible sacred adoration. What Myers did was quite evil – and it was intended to attack Catholic belief.

However, I’m not interested in attacking various persons. I was hoping to point out that your approach is counter-productive.

If you want to continue to attack the argument from Intelligent Design through personal ridicule of the scientists who offer that proposal (and at the same time not attack atheistic biologists who defend Darwin), then you’re going to continue to run into the same problem.

 

[inocente]

In Catholic usage, monogenism refers to descent from one breeding pair. Polygenism refers to descent from many different breeding pairs over time.

It is the principle of descent from two founders which links all of humanity to the salvific event of Jesus Christ. Catholicism holds that there was one actual original sin of one actual human person. Original sin is a contracted state which is transmitted by propagation to all descendents of the person who committed it. This is what monogenism refers to. (CCC 396 -421)

By the by, does Catholicism really call us “breeding pairs”? It sounds, well, undignified.

Interestingly, we (Baptists) get by without any original sin and such like. As a general point I’m convinced that most CAF posters (maybe all anglo-Catholics?) are given to way too much theory, and all design and other arguments are on the wrong road.

Found another song for you. It’s those Aussie arm-waving Pentecostals again, with two old Martin Smith anthems (if you don’t know him, he sings the verse, “it’s foolishness I know” - 1 Cor 1, the foolishness of those who would theorize about the foolishness of God).

It still surprises me that all those Pentecostals know by instinct what Paul was saying, but I’ve never yet met a single person on CAF who does.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xcl0lE7043Q - say a prayer first to be in the Spirit.

 

[reggieM]

But if it’s not intended to argue for the existence of God, what on earth is the point of it?

You already accept the argument from design, so you should know the answer to that question.

 

[Al_Moritz]

In Catholic usage, monogenism refers to descent from one breeding pair. Polygenism refers to descent from many different breeding pairs over time.

It is the principle of descent from two founders which links all of humanity to the salvific event of Jesus Christ. Catholicism holds that there was one actual original sin of one actual human person. Original sin is a contracted state which is transmitted by propagation to all descendents of the person who committed it. This is what monogenism refers to. (CCC 396 -421)

But that is precisely what the solution that I embrace allows for. Please read again:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8931157&postcount=1327

 

[reggieM]

By the by, does Catholicism really call us “breeding pairs”? It sounds, well, undignified.

I agree. It’s an homage to Darwinism.

Interestingly, we (Baptists) get by without any original sin and such like. As a general point I’m convinced that most CAF posters (maybe all anglo-Catholics?) are given to way too much theory, and all design and other arguments are on the wrong road.

You raise a very interesting point. Protestantism was, to some extent, a reaction against the philosophical arguments that dominated religion at the time. It was looking for a simpler, faith-based approach. But that created a gap between science and religion. Today, some think that religious faith can provide zero information about the world in which we live. Everything is given over to scientific knowledge. Religion is considered a myth that “helps people” – it’s an illusion that keeps them happy. But science is considered “true knowledge” about life and the world.

That’s a major problem that we face today. The design argument offers an important counter-point to scientism.

Side note, your question** … maybe all anglo-Catholics?** is also interesting, because anglo-Catholics have a different outlook based on their historical situation, etc. It’s different from Euro-continental Catholicism.

It still surprises me that all those Pentecostals know by instinct what Paul was saying, but I’ve never yet met a single person on CAF who does.

I would find it surprising that Pentecostals would somehow have that instinct, but nobody on CAF would. What belief that is unique to Pentecostalism would cause that difference?

(I don’t intend a long-off topic argument here, but just curious to help understand).

 

[buffalo]

The original citations are included in the Biologos link. You should be able to get the papers if you want.

Grannymh, pardon me, but you simply do not understand the science. If there are three independent lines of evidence, the probability that the conclusions are wrong is close to zero.

Just accept that biological polygenism is a fact, and move on.

Unless…the underlying assumptions are wrong.

 

[buffalo]

The question I often ask is – Does the presented evidence (independent lines) warrant an extrapolation to an universal exclusion?

Possibly. The lines of evidence because of the lack of focus may be able to get us back to three or four generations after Adam and Eve.

 

[inocente]

IO was trying to show you the hypocrisy of your ad hominem approach. You claim that Abel is a liar and a fraud.

That’s getting silly, how is it hypocrisy or ad hominem to point out intellectual dishonesty and what may well be criminal fraud? He pretends his book is published by a large, yet non-existent company, obtaining money by false pretenses. He also claims to have a one-million dollar prize fund but in eleven years has shown no due process for awarding it (i.e. he could just be pretending, with no intent to ever award it), but I don’t know that US law says about that.

I merely pointed out that Myers, the man you held up as an authority, publicly attacked the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist.

I never held him up as an authority, I posted a photo he had.

If you want to continue to attack the argument from Intelligent Design through personal ridicule of the scientists who offer that proposal (and at the same time not attack atheistic biologists who defend Darwin), then you’re going to continue to run into the same problem.

I’ve not said anything about Darwin and instead have pointed out that discussing evolution is BANNED. When a “scientist” invents pompous titles for himself, he has invited ridicule upon his own head (although, as I’ve said, with or without that his work is just bland assertions, unfalsifiable, not even wrong). But by all means tell me why ID can be proud of accepting anything and everything without any criticism or analysis, unlike any other academic pursuit ever.

I was perfectly happy not to discuss this any further, so by all means stop whenever you like. I was far more interested in what support if any ID receives within the Church, but that line of inquiry has kept dying on me.

 

[buffalo]

actually mean.

But if it’s not intended to argue for the existence of God, what on earth is the point of it?

I submit that biomimicry will have far more benefits for the human race than ********** ever had.

 

[buffalo]

By the by, does Catholicism really call us “breeding pairs”? It sounds, well, undignified.

Interestingly, we (Baptists) get by without any original sin and such like. As a general point I’m convinced that most CAF posters (maybe all anglo-Catholics?) are given to way too much theory, and all design and other arguments are on the wrong road.

Found another song for you. It’s those Aussie arm-waving Pentecostals again, with two old Martin Smith anthems (if you don’t know him, he sings the verse, “it’s foolishness I know” - 1 Cor 1, the foolishness of those who would theorize about the foolishness of God).

It still surprises me that all those Pentecostals know by instinct what Paul was saying, but I’ve never yet met a single person on CAF who does.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xcl0lE7043Q - say a prayer first to be in the Spirit.

I never liked “breeding pairs” either. This is a very sterile description.

Baptists do not get baptized?

 

[grannymh]

The original citations are included in the Biologos link. You should be able to get the papers if you want.

I know I have your links because I forwarded them to a friend. I also printed out a post. I can’t find them. I even checked your public profile to see if I could spot at least one of the posts where you listed them…

I am sure I will come across them eventually. As for Feser, he sounded like a good example of current speculations. I did go over Kemp’s paper. A CAF poster did comment on the “famous” 1995 Ayala paper in my Back Fence nitty-gritty thread which closed because it was over the post limit. I do have a fair knowledge of those “mountains of evidence”.

Grannymh, pardon me, but you simply do not understand the science.

There is a lot I do not understand about science. Nonetheless, as a journalist before Google, I know how to get to the heart of the matter, the real story. Even if it meant hopping a cab and visiting the lab.

Just accept that biological polygenism is a fact, and move on.

Accepting a fact **without **investigation? I would be betraying the people who raised me, educated me, and employed me.

Speaking of investigation. I wonder if anyone figured out the answers to the questions at the bottom of posts 1377, 1384, 1386, plus the mother of all questions in post 1388.

 

[inocente]

You raise a very interesting point. Protestantism was, to some extent, a reaction against the philosophical arguments that dominated religion at the time. It was looking for a simpler, faith-based approach. But that created a gap between science and religion.

I like how Protestants get the blame for everything (except when atheists get the blame of course). Blame it on Paul for writing 1 Cor 1, and on Christ for dying for you. They won’t mind, they have broad shoulders.

That’s a major problem that we face today. The design argument offers an important counter-point to scientism.

Au contraire, ID is scientism, since it argues that truth can only be found in science. (This is perhaps our core disagreement, and why we’ve not been getting on so good recently. )

Side note, your question* … maybe all anglo-Catholics?*** is also interesting, because anglo-Catholics have a different outlook based on their historical situation, etc. It’s different from Euro-continental Catholicism.

You can say that again.

*I would find it surprising that Pentecostals would somehow have that instinct, but nobody on CAF would. What belief that is unique to Pentecostalism would cause that difference?

(I don’t intend a long-off topic argument here, but just curious to help understand).*

When the sun shines and it feels good, it feels good by instinct, not by rational argument. Likewise when we sing to God, it’s in our hearts, we know it is true by instinct. Yes?

*Over the mountains and the sea,
Your river runs with love for me,
and I will open up my heart
and let the Healer set me free.
I’m happy to be in the truth,
and I will daily lift my hands:
for I will always sing of when
Your love came down.

I could sing of Your love forever,
I could sing of Your love forever,
I could sing of Your love forever,
I could sing of Your love forever.

Oh, I feel like dancing -
it’s foolishness I know;
but, when the world has seen the light,
they will dance with joy,
like we’re dancing now.

Martin Smith ©1994 Curious? Music UK*

 

[grannymh]

By the by, does Catholicism really call us “breeding pairs”? It sounds, well, undignified.

“breeding pairs” is a scientific term usually in reference to ancient effective populations, including non-humans. It has to do with random mating which scientists include in certain human origin research.

Subhuman is another term which I objected to when editing an article off line. However, I lost that argument because subhuman is a descriptive term in some areas.

By the by, from day one, Catholicism recognized our dignity of person. (CCC 357)

 

[buffalo]

Au contraire, ID is scientism, since it argues that truth can only be found in science. (This is perhaps our core disagreement, and why we’ve not been getting on so good recently. )

ID does not argue truth only can be found in science.

IDvolution though shows the different paths:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

 

[inocente]

Baptists do not get baptized?

Twice, first by fire (the Spirit), then in water (to formally join our church).

But we believe in original innocence, not original sin, and perhaps as a result I don’t remember ever once hearing a sermon on Adam and Eve, they’re just not that important to us.

 

[grannymh]

I never liked “breeding pairs” either. This is a very sterile description.

In a broad spiritual sense, sterile is appropriate because beings in archaic times, before the advent of Adam, did not have a spiritual principle, i.e., soul.

Al,

Is it o.k. if I remove my “science” hat? I much prefer metaphysical poetry for its beautiful descriptions.

 

[inocente]

ID does not argue truth only can be found in science.

IDvolution though shows the different paths:

On your diagram, most would put ID bottom right (although it really needs its own circle as it isn’t science ), as far as it can get from revelation in the top left, and your diagram shows no union between those two sets. In addition, as ID certainly can’t claim to encompass all the sets (for otherwise your idvolution would have no purpose, and according to the diagram ID would be God), thanks for proving my point for me.