Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

I like how Protestants get the blame for everything (except when atheists get the blame of course).

I didn’t say that, my friend.

Au contraire, ID is scientism, since it argues that truth can only be found in science.

If that’s what you mean by ID, then I am totally opposed to ID. I will do my best to fight against ID and the Design Argument (if that’s what it means).

(This is perhaps our core disagreement, and why we’ve not been getting on so good recently. )

Now that I realize that you’re denouncing ID-scientism-atheism then we’re in full agreement after all! It was all just a misunderstanding on my part. I thought you were talking about a different thing.

You can say that again.

That’s what surprises me about your embrace of arguments that have a decidedly anglo origin and cultural development.

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?

Yes, certainly. But I would not say “instinct alone”. God did give us the power to engage in rational understanding and use of logic for arguments. He gave us mysteries that humans will never solve, but He makes our lives interesting because we can explore those mysteries forever and always learn more – without ever wearing out the truth.

Scientism rejects that worldview by claiming that everything in nature is comprehensible through natural laws alone.

 

[grannymh]

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.

I’m sorry but that is not what the question is referring to.

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

 

[grannymh]

Unless…the underlying assumptions are wrong.

This is a better approach to my question --Does the presented evidence (independent lines) warrant an extrapolation to an universal exclusion? Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

I agree of course.

This thread should be in the back fence. You know where this will lead.

Evolution discussion is banned in Back Fence.

 

[reggieM]

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.

What I could do, if you’re interested, is show you quite a lot of statements from Catholic theologians and philosophers who have supported the ID viewpoint (as I understand it) since the time of the Fathers of the Church.

I already showed the argument from a Catholic college textbook written in 1928.

St. Thomas argues against the claim that all things happened by chance (e.g. evolutionary theory) in his Summa Theologica (On the Government of Things in General (q 103, article 1):

** Certain ancient philosophers denied the government of the world, saying that all things happened by chance**. But such an opinion can be refuted as impossible in two ways.

First, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. Wherefore **the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed**; for instance, **if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order**, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle [Cleanthes].

So, when we enter a well-ordered house, we observe the intention (design) of him that put it in order.

We can find the same thing in the Catholic physicist, Stephen Barr’s book “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith”:

This idea of God as cosmic lawgiver was from very early times central to Jewish and Christian thinking. It is the basis of the so-called Argument from Design for the existence of God. An early statement of this argument can be found, for example, in the works of the Latin Christian writer Minucius Felix near the beginning of the third century:

”If upon entering some home you saw that everything there was well-tended, neat, and decorative, you would believe that some master was in charge of it, and that he himself was superior to those good things. So too in the home of this world, when you see providence, order, and law in the heavens and on earth, believe there is a Lord and Author of the universe, more beautiful than the stars themselves and the various parts of the whole world.”
… The old Argument from Design is based on the commonsense idea that if something is arranged then somebody arranged it. The reasonableness of this idea can be seen from an everyday example. If one were to enter a hall and find hundreds of folding chairs neatly set up in evenly spaced ranks and files, one would feel quite justified in inferring that someone had arranged the chairs that way.
​

The argument opposed to biological ID is that evolution explains everything in nature that appears to have been ordered by design.

 

[reggieM]

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.

How do you explain your own support for the argument from design?

 

[buffalo]

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.

Correct, ID the science would be bottom right. There is no union between those two sets.

Faith and correct human reasoning is the area of intersect. The weakness to finding truth is in human reasoning.

God though, put it all in the circle. ID is not God, it is a manifestation of God.

 

[buffalo]

I’m sorry but that is not what the question is referring to.

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

I think it does. The point I am making is the data has to be extrapolated to rule out Adam and Eve. In addition, the amount of diversity in the original paper did not take into account epigenetic effects.

 

[buffalo]

I still have an issue with one who supports the cosmological design argument but believes that somehow God withdrew design from biology.

 

[reggieM]

I still have an issue with one who supports the cosmological design argument but believes that somehow God withdrew design from biology.

I do also. It’s especially worse if someone accepts abiogenesis. The very same forces – matter, gravity, energy – working in the cosmos – would be the cause of all biological life.

Then there’s another apparent contradiction for Christian Darwinists because they claim that free-will, consciousness, rationality, immortal soul and the moral sense are “exceptions” to Darwinian theory.

What is very wrong, in my opinion, is the Frankenstein version of God’s creation, where God supposedly took animals and implanted human souls in them.

This is what happens when materialist reductionism rules, as it does in science today.

People will imagine that the human soul is merely an “add on”. It’s just a “feature” that can be inserted to an animal, without the need for enormous physionomic and biological changes.

More importantly, it’s reductionism of the human person from an integrated, complete formal entity – into merely a “sum of parts”.

 

[buffalo]

I do also. It’s especially worse if someone accepts abiogenesis. The very same forces – matter, gravity, energy – working in the cosmos – would be the cause of all biological life.

Then there’s another apparent contradiction for Christian Darwinists because they claim that free-will, consciousness, rationality, immortal soul and the moral sense are “exceptions” to Darwinian theory.

What is very wrong, in my opinion, is the Frankenstein version of God’s creation, where God supposedly took animals and implanted human souls in them.

This is what happens when materialist reductionism rules, as it does in science today.

People will imagine that the human soul is merely an “add on”. It’s just a “feature” that can be inserted to an animal, without the need for enormous physionomic and biological changes.

More importantly, it’s reductionism of the human person from an integrated, complete formal entity – into merely a “sum of parts”.

Perhaps they thought they could destroy those from the inside out. Too bad over time, the evidence has strengthened leaving materialist biologists the “odd men out”.

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps they thought they could destroy those from the inside out. Too bad over time, the evidence has strengthened leaving materialist biologists the “odd men out”.

True! :clapping:

 

[inocente]

I didn’t say that, my friend.

I know, just joshing.

*If that’s what you mean by ID, then I am totally opposed to ID. I will do my best to fight against ID and the Design Argument (if that’s what it means).

Now that I realize that you’re denouncing ID-scientism-atheism then we’re in full agreement after all! It was all just a misunderstanding on my part. I thought you were talking about a different thing.*

The Lord knows I’ve done my share of misunderstanding.

That’s what surprises me about your embrace of arguments that have a decidedly anglo origin and cultural development.

Agreed, I’m not Spanish by birth and must try harder to escape the shackles of anglo imperialism.

 

[inocente]

What I could do, if you’re interested, is show you quite a lot of statements from Catholic theologians and philosophers who have supported the ID viewpoint (as I understand it) since the time of the Fathers of the Church.

Thanks for the quotes, I like them while maybe not totally agreeing.

We have different understandings of ID, which to me has a purely US origin in trying to get round your constitution to teach creationism as if it were science. After several years ID has still not managed to get beyond the stage of mere speculation, so on those grounds alone it couldn’t be taught in high school (as it would invite the teaching of every other speculation ever made), but there are more basic reasons for attacking ID, and if you’ve never seen it, reading the transcript of Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is entertaining.

Whereas the traditional design arguments you quoted argue for the existence of God, in the trial Michael Behe stated that for him ID doesn’t:

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. No, it doesn’t.

So, for its most famous proponent, ID is secular and has nothing to do with God. Judge Jones, in his summing up, agreed:

With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies .

Judge Jones also found that ID is not science:

*First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to ‘change the ground rules’ of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology . Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.

…] What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] and admit that ID is at best ‘fringe science’ which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.*

 

[buffalo]

Thanks for the quotes, I like them while maybe not totally agreeing.

We have different understandings of ID, which to me has a purely US origin in trying to get round your constitution to teach creationism as if it were science. After several years ID has still not managed to get beyond the stage of mere speculation, so on those grounds alone it couldn’t be taught in high school (as it would invite the teaching of every other speculation ever made), but there are more basic reasons for attacking ID, and if you’ve never seen it, reading the transcript of Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is entertaining.

Whereas the traditional design arguments you quoted argue for the existence of God, in the trial Michael Behe stated that for him ID doesn’t:

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. No, it doesn’t.

So, for its most famous proponent, ID is secular and has nothing to do with God. Judge Jones, in his summing up, agreed:

With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies .

Judge Jones also found that ID is not science:

*First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to ‘change the ground rules’ of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology . Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.

…] What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] and admit that ID is at best ‘fringe science’ which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.*

The problem with this is a amateur Judge trying to grasp the arguments. In any case, a court case does not make the truth.

Whether Intelligent Design is Science - A Response to the Opinion of the Court in
Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District

 

[reggieM]

Whereas the traditional design arguments you quoted argue for the existence of God, in the trial Michael Behe stated that for him ID doesn’t:

*Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design **requires ***the action of a supernatural creator?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. No, it doesn’t.

I agree with Professor Behe here. Notice the highlighted word. The ID argument is scientific and so cannot offer necessary conclusions. It argues for a proposal – that there is intelligence involved in the development of the universe (cosmological or biological).

This is true of the teleological argument also.

1. In the universe we observe that actions are directed to purposeful ends
2. Only an intelligent agent can direct actions to ends
3. Therefore … (multiple choice)

a. Allah is the True God?
b. God is Three Divine Persons?
c. An intelligent super-alien being created this universe?

None of those conclusions **necessarily **follow from the Design argument. However, each one of those conclusions is consistent with the Design argument (except for b, actually).

The Design Argument proves that some kind of designer (agent, being, intelligence) was necessary. Other arguments are required to prove that this is the God that we know of classical Christian theology.

So, for its most famous proponent, ID is secular and has nothing to do with God.

That is too extreme. ID gives support for the proposal that a creator God exists. It provides evidence – not a proof.

1. Show that creative intelligence requires choice – and cannot be reduced to matter and blind laws.
2. When intelligence is found, it therefore cannot be caused by nature.
3. Therefore, there is something beyond nature at work.

This does not prove that God exists – but it proves that a supernatural realm exists.

With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies .

The inference works in SETI research.

… ID is at best ‘fringe science’ which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.

This argument concedes that ID is science. It also falsely claims that it has no acceptance.

To argue that, you have to claim that the scientists who do support ID are not scientists?
Or that scientists have to agree on every thing?

 

[inocente]

How do you explain your own support for the argument from design?

Traditional design arguments are along the lines that the world is complex, the complexity comes from an underlying perfect order, the order implies a perfect purpose, and a perfect purpose implies a perfect designer, God. QED.

No arguments are perfect, and one issue is that we can’t determine the purpose by logic, and although we might by revelation, it means the argument as a whole then can’t be proved or falsified, just taken on faith. So personally, I don’t find it that convincing compared with Christ dying for us.

But ID has far more philosophical failings. It attempts a kiddies’ cheese-burger version of the argument from design by trying to find purpose in individual things, not realizing that the parts can have no individual perfect purpose but only serve the purpose of the whole. Another failing is that unless they conjure up an itsy bitsy purpose for something, they assume it has none, so relegating 99.9999999% of creation to pointless flotsam.

They really didn’t think things through.

 

[buffalo]

not realizing that the parts can have no individual perfect purpose but only serve the purpose of the whole.

Would this be Irreducibly Complex?

 

[inocente]

The problem with this is a amateur Judge trying to grasp the arguments. In any case, a court case does not make the truth.

Whether Intelligent Design is Science - A Response to the Opinion of the Court in
Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District

In what sense was Judge Jones an amateur? You cast aside his training in the law because you don’t agree with his decision? Because he saw that the law would not allow the bland inanities? ID prefers to support obvious fraudsters over the rule of law?

There’s something seriously wrong in a society when religionists attempt to subvert the rule of law and undermine judges rather than take a case to a higher court.

The problem is somewhat more obvious for all those who have eyes to see - that even though ID had loads of money, it threw in the towel because it knew then, knows now, and will know for all time, that without trashing the US Constitution and driving tanks into Congress it would lose before any court in the land.

 

[buffalo]

In what sense was Judge Jones an amateur? You cast aside his training in the law because you don’t agree with his decision? Because he saw that the law would not allow the bland inanities? ID prefers to support obvious fraudsters over the rule of law?

There’s something seriously wrong in a society when religionists attempt to subvert the rule of law and undermine judges rather than take a case to a higher court.

The problem is somewhat more obvious for all those who have eyes to see - that even though ID had loads of money, it threw in the towel because the fraudsters knew then, know now, and will know for all time, that without trashing the US Constitution and driving tanks into Congress they would lose before any court in the land.

In case you don’t know the US is rife with activist judges. It is a real problem right now.