Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
reggieM said:
What kinds of observations in nature give evidence of methodologies? Where can they be found in the universe?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but I don’t understand your question.
Where did this “system” come from? Where, in nature, does it exist? What kinds of instruments can be used to observe a “system of study” – what shape does it have? How much space does it take up? How much does it weigh? What kinds of scientific experiments can be performed on it?
Click to expand...
The system came from the minds of scientists. It does not exist in nature as it is an artificial construct. It cannot be studied using instruments unless one considers neurons, neurotransmitters, etc. to be instruments. It takes up no space and has no weight (actually I would say that it has no mass, which is more precise (there is a pun in there about how science carries weight but I’m going to leave it alone)). No scientific experiment can be performed on it. It can be studied using philosophy because philosophy offers the ability to do so.
Through the use of philosophy we create meaning. Through philosophy we created the scientific method. The scientific method is not a necessary part of reality – it is not observable. It is a construct – built with philosophy, for a reason, and to serve a purpose.
The reason and purpose come from philosophy – not from molecules in nature (unless you think like Richard Dawkins).
Click to expand...
Scientific method was developed by people who were looking for a clear, universal method which could be used to study what is studied in the realm of science. These people were not philosophers but scientists or perhaps they were philosophers and scientists or philosophers acting like scientists. Like all people, scientists are trying to figure out why things are the way they are. In order to do that there must be rules that all scientists use - hence, scientific method. Scientific method is simply a means of defining the parameters of study so that one research study can be understood by all researchers. Without it there would be even more confusion than there is. The reason and purpose come from the thinking of scientists. Philosophers do not hold a monopoly on thought or on developing methods of study.

:eek: I do not think like Richard Dawkins. (That’s weird - my spell check picked up “Dawkins” when I entered it but not when you did.)
Philosophical constructs are governed by axioms (first principles) and logic which flows from them.
Click to expand...
Philosophy seems to have a certain freedom that science does not allow and IMHO that is why philosophy and science work well together.

I think perhaps we are talking past each other and that we may be a bit tangled up in semantics. At any rate it doesn’t really matter. We now have scientific method and all decent scientists hold fast to its rules. I’ve studied science to some extent but have only had one class in philosophy (ethics; I should have studied logic instead; in fact, I believe that logic should be a required class for all college students).
 
wanstronian said:
I think you’ll find that biologists have considered this as settled science since before Dawkins was even born. The only ones that didn’t are the ones that, like you, would prefer to believe in the fairy-tale of creationism (or the oft-debunked “intelligent design” as it’s currently called) rather than having the intellectual honesty and/or courage to follow the evidence where it leads. This former demographic is now tiny amongst biologists and other scientists, as rejecting the evidence is tantamount to declaring oneself an idiot - or at least, an incompetent scientist.

You’re crediting Dawkins with far too much by implying that he has led the charge in establishing humans as part of the animal kingdom; I can only think that this is an attempt to persuade yourself that the reality of animal taxonomy is nothing more than a recent atheist subterfuge, rather than the well-established, immensely-evidenced scientific fact that it actually is.

Really, do you honestly believe what you’re saying when you publicly reject the facts? I find it hard to imagine that anybody can be so obtuse as to ignore the overwhelming groundswell of scientific evidence that supports the fact of evolution - including human development. Or do you just not allow yourself to really think about it, because you know the consequences if you did? Maybe you think that it’ll go away if you shout loudly and frequently enough?
Click to expand...
Please don’t discuss evolution. It is a banned topic and it is difficult to respond to a poster who has discussed it anyway without discussing it, too. Yet without discussing it it may appear that others have no valid argument against what has been posted.

It is true that human beings are classified in the Kingdom Animalia. That, in itself, is rather meaningless because scientists are the ones who placed human beings into that Kingdom and did so in an attempt to classify all organisms. It says nothing about whether human beings have souls or whether other organisms have souls and it says nothing about God. It’s just a way to look at things - nothing more.

If I’m not making a great deal of sense here, please excuse me. I’m taking a huge amount of pain meds and they make me rather stupid sometimes. I apologize for that. I know what I’m trying to say but I may not be succeeding in saying it correctly.
 
tonyrey said:
Once again Reggie has stepped into the breach! I’m becoming redundant (assuming that I wasn’t already…:bighanky:
Click to expand...
If I’m making you redundant then I will be more quiet! 🙂 I would much rather see your replies than mine. I have to get out of the breech for a while anyway, so please don’t go away. 😉
 
JDaniel said:
Soldier:

Question: What does a scientific proposal/construct become when it gets accepted? We can’t say that it is a “proposal” or “construct” anymore. Just inquiring.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
It becomes a theory.
 
grannymh said:
Seems to me from reading CAF posts, that the people who refer to a talking snake per se are not familiar with the Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin. Now, the Pope does know the Catholic Doctrine so of course he wouldn’t refer to a talking snake per se. Unless maybe he winked.;)😉
Click to expand...
Of course the snake talked! It just had a problem with its “esses.” Sssssee?

It was a sibilant snake. 😃
 
wanstronian said:
And what do you consider to be “the Dawkins version” and how does it differ from the scientific concensus?

Its common - but it’s not a mistake. If you’re a proponent of ID, you should at least be aware of its history. Read the Wedge document.

Well, I disagree. You can see rationality on a broad continuum across the animal kingdom. Many “higher” animals have a clear ability to communicate and act on that communication. Many great apes have shown evidence of the “theory of mind” and exhibit rational behaviours as a result This is good evidence for rationality. The fact that humans are the most rational does not demand a special explanation.

There are many disingenuous interpretations of evolution, but the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection first espoused by Darwin & Wallace, and refined and confirmed by scientific investigation ever since, is pretty settled and robust. Of course it’s incomplete, as is any scientific theory; but not to the point where it’s in any doubt. But guided evolution or ID, for example, simply takes this theory, adds an unnecessary, unverifiable and unknowable supernatural element, and claims, without evidence, that this supernatural element is the only thing that can make it “rational.”. But it’s NOT rational, and it’s not science. It’s bunk.
Click to expand...
Guys, please stop discussing this banned topic! It’s not fair to those of us who wish to discuss it but can’t because we don’t want to run the risk of receiving an infraction.
 
grannymh said:
We humans are “designed” to have an eternal love-filled relationship with our Creator.
We have a spiritual soul which gives us the ability to share in God’s life through knowledge and love.

And how do I know this? Children know this in a song. “Jesus loves us this we know. For the Bible tells us so.”
Click to expand...
👍 I firmly accept that version of “design.” 🙂
 
reggieM said:
If I’m making you redundant then I will be more quiet! 🙂 I would much rather see your replies than mine. I have to get out of the breech for a while anyway, so please don’t go away. 😉
Click to expand...
If you do that I shall feel guilty of interrupting your relentless refutation of the relegation of God to the role of Sustainer and Observer! I’m sure there is plenty of room for all of us. 🙂 Marx wasn’t entirely mistaken in his view that that there is a dialectical process - but it applies to thought rather than matter…
 
tonyrey said:
A groan can express a variety of feelings - from pain to ecstasy! Although I don’t think it’s worth pursuing this in the context of Design… 😉
Click to expand...
“Pun groans” are those which are made specifically after (and understanding) a pun. The pun groan consists of an expression of pain while also showing a grudging acceptance of the intelligence that is required to make said pun (and also a bit of “why didn’t I think of that?”) 😉

True punsters (I have had the unfortunate experience of knowing a few) are disappointed if their puns are not met with groans.
 
LittleSoldier said:
“Pun groans” are those which are made specifically after (and understanding) a pun. The pun groan consists of an expression of pain while also showing a grudging acceptance of the intelligence that is required to make said pun (and also a bit of “why didn’t I think of that?”) 😉

True punsters (I have had the unfortunate experience of knowing a few) are disappointed if their puns are not met with groans.
Click to expand...
Then there’s hope for me yet!:dancing: Phew!
 
LittleSoldier said:
Guys, please stop discussing this banned topic! It’s not fair to those of us who wish to discuss it but can’t because we don’t want to run the risk of receiving an infraction.
Click to expand...
Bravo! A warning in time saves - the thread. :tiphat:
 
Design is what may be described as “intelligent causality” as opposed to mechanistic causality. It entails:
  1. A concept of the end (result)
  2. A concept of the means
  3. The realization of the means
  4. The realization of the end (result)
Mechanistic causality is inferior to intelligent causality because it omits #1 and #2 - as if they are less significant than #3 and #4.

Yet reasoning presupposes #1 and #2.

Mechanistic causality is purposeless whereas reasoning is essentially purposeful.

To reduce reasoning to a purposeless process is to undermine its validity!
 
tonyrey said:
Design is what may be described as “intelligent causality” as opposed to mechanistic causality. It entails:
  1. A concept of the end (result)
  2. A concept of the means
  3. The realization of the means
  4. The realization of the end (result)
Mechanistic causality is inferior to intelligent causality because it omits #1 and #2 - as if they are less significant than #3 and #4.

Yet reasoning presupposes #1 and #2.

Mechanistic causality is purposeless whereas reasoning is essentially purposeful.

To reduce reasoning to a purposeless process is to undermine its validity!
Click to expand...
And here I thought that “design” meant something put together correctly with an added touch that it is often lovely to look at and enjoy.😃 Like the universe. And especially us as God looks at us with love.
 
grannymh said:
And here I thought that “design” meant something put together correctly with an added touch that it is often lovely to look at and enjoy.😃 Like the universe. And especially us as God looks at us with love.
Click to expand...
Loveliness is often superficial. A skeleton is not beautiful but it is essential for a beautiful body. We have to get down to basics before we can scale the heights.

The suffering of Jesus was not beautiful to behold but it is more beautiful in its significance than all the beauty in the universe… and based on His concept of the** means** by which He could achieve the end of saving us with the power of His love…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top