Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

What a sad post. Do not search for the truth for it will turn off seekers? Design deniers can do better than this argument.

I do not believe that anyone is denying obvious design in the universe. From my position, the big push to prove design in an already designed material world has taken on a life of its own. This “push” is ignoring the spiritual world which was suppose to be the intended goal of Intelligent Design. Or am I wrong about the “intended goal” bit?

Catholic ID advocates should be re-looking at the biological evidence and inferring a personal God, not some kind of a non-specific agent. I am sure that was what was happening when I first landed on CAF. But somehow the emphasis has shifted to all kinds of philosophical, scientific debates around the word “Design”.

It is time for Catholic ID advocates to step out in faith and go beyond the present type of “Design” discussion.

Catholic ID advocates need to re-think the choice of non-human biological organisms over an organism which is an unique unification of *both *the material and spiritual worlds. If the goal of Catholic ID advocates is to find a personal Creator, then they need to look at the one living organism made in the image of a personal Creator. They need to affirm human nature in all its glory.

 

[tonyrey]

Biological ID people appear to have a deistic view of God – they disregard the view of classical theology of God as the sustainer of everything, and as the creator of natural causes which they treat as the Enemy rather than as beautifully singing the glory of God. Instead they believe that God is only active when He demonstrably “intervenes”. Therefore, to escape the putative consequences of their false theology which stands outside classical Catholic tradition, they need to show for themselves that God “intervenes as much as possible”.

Your assertions are demonstrably erroneous:

1. In reality every moment of existence is a miracle

1. God not only sustains but constantly cares for His creatures as individuals

1. It is impossible for the laws of nature to minimise suffering **on an individual basis **

1. Therefore God constantly minimises suffering **by suspending the laws of nature
   **
2. To deny that God does so is to reject the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father

1. “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?”

1. **The belief that the Christian God is a remote, unmoved spectator of events is absurd
   **

It is those who believe that God rarely intervenes who are bordering on deism - and overlooking Christ’s teaching that God is a loving Father who does His utmost to protect His creatures, answer their prayers of His family and work miracles to heal the sick. He would not have told us that our prayers would be answered - or to pray for our daily bread - if He intervened only on rare occasions. There is no valid reason to believe God is powerless to intervene or that the laws of nature can cater for every contingency without His intervention.

 

[tonyrey]

And any science-informed non-believer will giggle and laugh at biological ID. Instead of getting non-believers interested in God, it is bound to turn them off. It is the perfect anti-apologetics.

Thank you for alienating non-believers even further from God.

It is those who claim God is powerless or unwilling to intervene who are the ones who alienate non-believers from religion. They replace the loving Father with a remote deity who leaves its creatures to their own devices regardless of how much suffering they have to endure - in other words a heartless monster that only set the universe in motion, couldn’t care less and does nothing to help the “utterly insignificant little pimples” on this planet (the description used by one who shares your opinion about divine non-intervention).
Religion is well and truly relegated to the recycle bin!

 

[tonyrey]

… As for point 8, I thought it was a given that people who have a Christian faith can believe in Design.

As I have just pointed out in another post some are reducing Design to an apology for divine intervention of any description and implying that petitionary prayer is a waste of time because miracles ended with the Apostles. .

 

[grannymh]

Your assertions are demonstrably erroneous:

It is those who believe that God rarely intervenes who are bordering on deism - and overlooking Christ’s teaching that God is a loving Father who does His utmost to protect His creatures, answer their prayers of His family and work miracles to heal the sick. He would not have told us that our prayers would be answered - or to pray for our daily bread - if He intervened only on rare occasions. There is no valid reason to believe God is powerless to intervene or that the laws of nature can cater for every contingency without His intervention.

Tonyrey,

What I am hearing in this post is not Intelligent Design as it is currently known. What you have written about God as a loving Father is not dependent on proving “design”.

You are describing God as a loving Creator completely interested in His greatest creation, the human person. You are describing God Who calls each of us to share in His life through knowledge and love. We are in the image of God, because our own nature unites the spiritual and material worlds.

While design can point to an intelligent designer, it is Jesus Christ Who points us to God in all His glory. It is Jesus Christ Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Blessings,
granny

God offers His friendship to us.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is those who claim God is powerless or unwilling to intervene who are the ones who alienate non-believers from religion. They replace the loving Father with a remote deity who leaves its creatures to their own devices regardless of how much suffering they have to endure - in other words a heartless monster that only set the universe in motion, couldn’t care less and does nothing to help the “utterly insignificant little pimples” on this planet (the description used by one who shares your opinion about divine non-intervention).
Religion is well and truly relegated to the recycle bin!

In order to make yourself feel better about your own views, you choose to be in complete denial about my actual position, and instead feel the need to present a shameless caricature of it.

What a sad display.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey,

What I am hearing in this post is not Intelligent Design as it is currently known. What you have written about God as a loving Father is not dependent on proving “design”.

You are describing God as a loving Creator completely interested in His greatest creation, the human person. You are describing God Who calls each of us to share in His life through knowledge and love. We are in the image of God, because our own nature unites the spiritual and material worlds.

While design can point to an intelligent designer, it is Jesus Christ Who points us to God in all His glory. It is Jesus Christ Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Blessings,
granny

God offers His friendship to us.

I have already explained the difference between Intelligent Design and Design as** a comprehensive explanation of reality** used by philosophers since the Presocratics.

 

[tonyrey]

It is those who claim God is powerless or unwilling to intervene who are the ones who alienate non-believers from religion. They replace the loving Father with a remote deity who leaves its creatures to their own devices regardless of how much suffering they have to endure - in other words a heartless monster that only set the universe in motion, couldn’t care less and does nothing to help the “utterly insignificant little pimples” on this planet (the description used by one who shares your opinion about divine non-intervention).Religion is well and truly relegated to the recycle bin!

Another argumentum ad hominem which fails to refute the points I have made.

How often do you believe God intervenes to alleviate suffering and answer prayers for our physical needs?

 

[razredge]

On the contrary, it is the only natural solution that makes sense. If God gave a soul to two persons, would you not think that their offspring would naturally, by continued biological attraction, mate with the humanoids around them? (And yes, Adam and Eve might well have mated just with each other, while their offspring did not.)

The only alternative is that God miraculously removed them from their humanoid brethren after ensoulment, and miraculously had the descendents overcome the natural inclination against inbreeding and incest, and miraculously prevented the spread of genetic defects from inbreeding.

Now that sounds unnatural and ad hoc to me.

In such a scenario that would make sense, but by what I actually found ‘ad hoc’ was the belief that the ‘two first humans’ part of the creation account is a historical fact but the rest is allegory.

 

[Al_Moritz]

In such a scenario that would make sense, but by what I actually found ‘ad hoc’ was the belief that the ‘two first humans’ part of the creation account is a historical fact but the rest is allegory.

I see. Yes, the apple (or fruit) story is allegory, but the theology of original sin seems to demand, or at least is traditionally seen as requiring, two first parents.

It is like allegory and theological truth in the creation story. The story is allegory, but there can be no compromise about the theological truth conveyed, which is that the world was created by God.

Again, I personally would have no beef with theological polygenism, but theological monogenism appears to be the requirement of Catholic theological tradition, and since it can be easily accommodated even under biological polygenism, I don’t see a reason in unnecessarily questioning it.

 

[Al_Moritz]

How often do you believe God intervenes to alleviate suffering and answer prayers for our physical needs?

We had discussed this before. I see no need to go over it again.

 

[reggieM]

1. Many beings have hindsight, insight and foresight
2. Inanimate objects lack hindsight, insight and foresight
3. There is no evidence that inanimate objects can produce hindsight, insight and foresight
4. Therefore inanimate objects do not explain the existence of beings who have hindsight, insight and foresight

That’s a very good point.

The concept of design, by definition, requires foresight.

Can something that lacks foresight produce things by design?

 

[reggieM]

What a sad post. Do not search for the truth for it will turn off seekers? Design deniers can do better than this argument.

It is a sad post. I would agree also that design deniers should do much better – especially since there are atheists who support Intelligent Design as science.


Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design
Bradley Monton, a philosopher of science and an atheist, carefully considers the arguments for intelligent design and argues that intelligent design deserves serious consideration as a scientific theory. Monton also gives a lucid account of the debate surrounding the inclusion of intelligent design in public schools and presents reason why students’ science education could benefit from a careful consideration of the arguments for and against it.

Converted-atheists Anthony Flew and A.N. Wilson were also impressed with Intelligent Design arguments which helped them turn away from atheism.

I haven’t seen much of substance at all from the anti-design comments yet.

But the first step for any critic would be to take all of the design arguments seriously – read the literature and then offer a substantial critique.

 

[grannymh]

It is a sad post. I would agree also that design deniers should do much better – especially since there are atheists who support Intelligent Design as science.


Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design
Bradley Monton, a philosopher of science and an atheist, carefully considers the arguments for intelligent design and argues that intelligent design deserves serious consideration as a scientific theory. Monton also gives a lucid account of the debate surrounding the inclusion of intelligent design in public schools and presents reason why students’ science education could benefit from a careful consideration of the arguments for and against it.

Converted-atheists Anthony Flew and A.N. Wilson were also impressed with Intelligent Design arguments which helped them turn away from atheism.

I haven’t seen much of substance at all from the anti-design comments yet.

But the first step for any critic would be to take all of the design arguments seriously – read the literature and then offer a substantial critique.

You might consider studying, yes studying, post 1564

 

[reggieM]

It is those who claim God is powerless or unwilling to intervene who are the ones who alienate non-believers from religion. They replace the loving Father with a remote deity who leaves its creatures to their own devices regardless of how much suffering they have to endure - in other words a heartless monster that only set the universe in motion, couldn’t care less and does nothing to help the “utterly insignificant little pimples” on this planet (the description used by one who shares your opinion about divine non-intervention).
Religion is well and truly relegated to the recycle bin!

That is irrefutable.

The most prominent anti-design arguments have been attacks against the Providence of God. For example, the belief that living organisms are in a constant struggle and competition for resources – selfishly seeking the survival of their own species, at the expense (if necessary) of others, was a way to explain evil that is seen in the world.
Since God is not involved in that struggle, then this supposed constant-warfare would be “part of nature”.
That would justify any similar behavior by humans – since the struggle for survival is the highest (and only ) “moral norm”. Those arguments were born out of the despair that God actually cares about His creation.

With regards to the natural laws themselves – gravity, for example, causes pain, chaos and destruction. Since God cannot intervene, then these evils are triumphant.

If the only evidence supporting God is that He created laws – then God is really unnecessary. That’s exactly what Deism holds. God started things, then the laws work without change or intervention in a determined path.

Here’s a remarkable statement from the Summa Theologica, Q8, Art.3.
Article 3. Whether God is everywhere by essence, presence and power?

St. Thomas gives this answer:

Further, others said that, although all things are subject to God’s providence, still all things are not immediately created by God; but that He immediately created the first creatures, and these created the others. Against these it is necessary to say that He is in all things by His essence.

In the highlighted words we can see that St. Thomas is arguing “against” these “others” who say that God created the first things (laws, atoms) and then those created everything else.

He is arguing against Deism in that passage. He rightly teaches that God is not merely the law maker who got things started, but He is in all things - by His Essence (as the cause of their being), Presence (all things are visible to Him) and Power (all things are subject to His power).

Or, to read from the Angelic Doctor himself …

Therefore, God is in all things by His power, inasmuch as all things are subject to His power; He is by His presence in all things, as all things are bare and open to His eyes; He is in all things by His essence, inasmuch as He is present to all as the cause of their being.

 

[reggieM]

You might consider studying, yes studying, post 1564

I tried to understand what you were saying, but I wasn’t successful. Sorry.

One friendly suggestion – instead of giving the number of the post, you could help people from having to scroll back by including a link to the post that you’re interested in.

Thanks.

 

[reggieM]

Contrast these arguments with that of David Hume:
That the works of Nature bear a great analogy to the productions of art, is evident; and according to all the rules of good reasoning, we ought to infer, if we argue at all concerning them, that their causes have a proportional analogy. But as there are also considerable differences, we have reason to suppose a proportional difference in the causes; and in particular, ought to attribute a much higher degree of power and energy to the supreme cause, than any we have ever observed in mankind. Here then the existence of a DEITY is plainly ascertained by reason: and if we make it a question, whether, on account of these analogies, we can properly call him a mind or intelligence, notwithstanding the vast difference which may reasonably be supposed between him and human minds; what is this but a mere verbal controversy?

Hume gives a good example of the argument of design right there. We can observe, in the works of Nature, an analogy of even greater than human intelligence. Therefore, an inference to the existence of a Deity is “plainly ascertained by reason”.

Through science we observe the same thing – mathematical symmetry and complex specified function which cannot be explained by blind, unintelligent, purposeless laws.

 

[JDaniel]

Biological ID people appear to have a deistic view of God – they disregard the view of classical theology of God as the sustainer of everything, and as the creator of natural causes which they treat as the Enemy rather than as beautifully singing the glory of God. Instead they believe that God is only active when He demonstrably “intervenes”. Therefore, to escape the putative consequences of their false theology which stands outside classical Catholic tradition, they need to show for themselves that God “intervenes as much as possible”.

Al:

I view God as Creator and Sustainer. The question is how? You will recall an exigency called Providence. You will also recall that God’s Wisdom is Supreme.

Now, how can an entity, such as God, with Infinitely Supreme Wisdom create a universe that must be constantly tinkered with, or tweaked? Did He make some mistakes? Did His Supreme Wisdom fail Him? Does He not have Infinitely Supreme Wisdom? Did something else Create the universe? Does something else sustain this frail network of fabric-like reality that is, well, imperfect?

But, what if all that we see is the continuous creational roll-out that God provides? What if all that we see is God’s continuous Providence? What if, instead of causing causes, He really is the First Cause that, like the boy pushing a roundish rock along a sidewalk with a stick, is pushing Creation’s roll-out?

God, according to Catholicism, creates instantaneously. To us, this painting is a work in progress. To God, who has no Time duration, nor any restriction in terms of motion, His Will, backed by Supreme Wisdom, continuously wills Creation. Part and parcel of such continuous creation effort is His continuous sustaining effort. That is, the sheer fabric of real things, instead of shredding to pieces, holds together for at least a duration that is also Willed by God.

Creation is a concept that is within the general genus we know as Causation. It is a cause, but, it is a cause unlike every other kind of cause we have ever been witness to for all these many thousands of years. One could say, Creation is the ultimate cause. Why? Because it is a cause that requires no pre-existing matter, or energy, or fields, or gravity, or (nuclear) forces. It is a creational-fabric that provides pre-existing stuff that is required by causes.

Now, this creational-fabric (perhaps consisting of absolute space) is like a man-made board game, in that it has rules - which are also man-made, but not required for the existence of the game unlike the 20 or so cosmological constants, and an ever-changing environment for the player-piece creatures of our universe, where rules are required.

God, then, does not have to Create then back off so that non-thinking constants and causes can take over - as though they contain their own rationalizing apparatus. Considering the delicateness of this fabric, does it not make more sense that God would stay with it and continuously guide it - especially if God is unalterable? Does it not make more sense that a being that is infinite in every perfection would not start and stop, enter then remove Himself - like a cook fretting about the meal he is cooking? Wouldn’t God, instead, simply stay with that which He loves like an ardent lover wishing to be in constant contact with the object of his love?

An analogy from St. Thomas is of a boy, holding a stick with his hand, that is attached to his arm, pushing a stone down the road with that stick. Similarly, God is the First Mover and First Cause of absolutely everything except sin. You fellows are talking past each other. You are speaking of causes as though they contain their own capacity to intend and propel. Tonyrey, et al, are telling you that the things that occur are not autonomous exigencies, acting like wind-up clocks set loose. Absolutely nothing happens that God does not directly make happen (except sin). It is God’s Prividence guided by His Supreme Wisdom that rolls everything out. Chance is a cause only as a secondary, or tertiary, cause, in the same way that the stick is a cause of moving the aforementioned stone.

God bless,
jd

 

[razredge]

I see. Yes, the apple (or fruit) story is allegory, but the theology of original sin seems to demand, or at least is traditionally seen as requiring, two first parents.

Again, I personally would have no beef with theological polygenism, but theological monogenism appears to be the requirement of Catholic theological tradition, and since it can be easily accommodated even under biological polygenism, I don’t see a reason in unnecessarily questioning it.

Well, even Pope Benedict doesn’t seem to think that the doctrine of original sin requires a literal Adam & Eve
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_ponders_original_sin_speaks_about_modern_desire_for_change/

How was this possible, how did it happen? This remains obscure. Evil is not logical. Only God and the good are logical, are light. Evil remains mysterious. It has been presented in great images, as does chapter 3 of Genesis, with the vision of two trees, of the serpent, of sinful man. A great image that makes us guess, but it cannot explain how much in itself is illogical. We can guess, not explain; nor can we recount it as a fact next to another, because it is a more profound reality. It remains a mystery of darkness, of night. However, a mystery of light is immediately added. Evil comes from a subordinate source. With his light, God is stronger and, because of this, evil can be overcome. Therefore, the creature, man, is curable.; but if evil comes only from a subordinate source, it remains true that man is curable. And the Book of Wisdom says: “the creatures of the world are wholesome” (1:14).

It is like allegory and theological truth in the creation story. The story is allegory, but there can be no compromise about the theological truth conveyed, which is that the world was created by God.

Yes, but why can’t the theological truth be that humanity rebelled and turned away from God without it being bundled up details like it stemming from the actions of two first parents.

How often do you believe God intervenes to alleviate suffering and answer prayers for our physical needs?

It is readily apparent that God doesn’t go around preventing earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and any number of other ills.

Also, i’m sure tonyrey was not an ID proponent when I was on CAF last year … unless i’m confusing you with someone else… if not, how exactly did the IDers manage to brainwash you into accepting their claptrap?

 

[grannymh]

I tried to understand what you were saying, but I wasn’t successful. Sorry.

My mistake. I thought you understood that conclusions are inferred by the “evidence”. If not, what is evidence for design good for? In fact, what is “design” good for if it does not infer the presence of an intelligent designer?

Please, anyone out there, please explain the answers to the above questions.