Evidence for Design?

[razredge]

One help would be to read the whole paragraph and additional paragraphs of pertinent information. For example this sentence. “Death makes its entrance into human history.” emphasis mine. And this sentence. “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” Emphasis mine.

Ah, so human beings were immortal before the fall? What was the point of the tree of life then? What would happen if a meteor hit Adam? Were we made of adamantium before the fall?

It is unwise to base all your conclusions on the news? How often do you see news about divine activity?

It is absurd to expect God to prevent all evil - if one is a Christian…

You see a lot of news about the lack of divine activity in preventing natural disasters.

Does God **ever **do so?

Who knows? I’ve not going to say never

From what I’ve seen, it’s very difficult to reconcile that view with Catholic Tradition and Scriptural evidence – and I think the ideas that follow from the view (such as, that miracles are actually a part of the natural order) are not a simple solution to the problem.

But you’re right that some Catholics do hold that position.

Thank you for providing an example of a Catholic’s who hold my position - I was expecting to have to furnish examples myself

Another ‘non-interventionist’ is Fr George Coyne, an astronomer and former director of the Vatican Observatory:
youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

And lots of things are difficult to reconcile with Catholic Tradition and Scriptural evidence, evolution, polygenism, heliocentrism etc and yet eventually they are still reconciled.

And if it’s a miracle when a baby is born healthy, or when someone walks away from a car crash or a disaster, either we’re not thinking it through or a moral statement is being made, that we think God condemned the rest, or at best is capricious.

Well said Inocente,

Dawkins someimes brings this up when talking to believers and he has an excellent point:

Say some natural disaster occurs and thousands of people die and somehow one child survives, to start claiming that God saved that one child, leads to the question of why didn’t God save the others too?

Far, far easier to say God doesn’t intervene at all and interfere in the unfolding of his creation.

 

[razredge]

It is certainly inconsistent with the beliefs of Catholic saints and theologians throughout the last two thousand years:grantjeffrey.com/article/mystery.htm

Augustine wrote about numerous miracles that he had personally witnessed and investigated, including remarkable miraculous healings involving breast cancer, paralysis, blindness, and even people who were resurrected from the dead. He wrote, “For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ”.

Incredible, so I guess there was nothing too special about Jesus then? Resurrections were common even in the 4th century.

Though I do wonder why there has been a marked dropoff in such occurrences more recently?

 

[wanstronian]

Many biologists disagree with Dawkins.
conservapedia.com/Evolution

1. Referencing a creationist religious site does not add weight to your argument.
2. Stop avoiding the question. Please describe “Dawkins’s version” of Evolution by Natural Selection, and how it differs from the scientific consensus.
3. Correcting minor spelling errors exhibits nothing more than smugness. Do I make big thing of pointing out how you consistently screw up your quote formats?

Your concept of rationality is inadequate because there is no evidence that apes have insight into logical principles, universal truths or moral values.

In your opinion my concept of rationality is inadequate*.* But your opinion is just your opinion, and has no objective weight in the discussion. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that rationality demands insight into these things. Like I said, rationality should be considered along a continuum. Your facetious comment about why apes don’t appear in court ignores this, and just constitutes another of your abundant Straw Man arguments. Apes aren’t as advanced as humans, and nobody is claiming that they are. If you consider that rationality is a binary state - you either have it or you don’t - then you’re ignoring large swathes of evidence that prove that levels of rational behaviour vary even in humans.

Your standard appeal to scientific ignorance - as if it’s a virtue rather than a fatal flaw!

I think this is the crux of why we disagree - you seem to think that a firm conviction in something - holding firm to it even in light of contradictory empirical evidence - is the most logical and rational position to have. (Evolution-denial is a good example of how stupid that can make someone look). I, on the other hand, think that following the evidence where it leads, and being prepared to change my mind if new evidence is uncovered, is a far more intellectually honest approach. I think that admitting when you don’t know something is the only way to ever really learn anything. You, on the other hand, appear to think that pretending to know something when you can’t possibly, somehow turns that pretense into reality. I think that your approach is narrow-minded and dishonest, and I think that it leads ineluctably to your very clear MO of avoiding the issues by hurling Straw Men and other fallacies around the room and challenging your opponents to prove you wrong, rather than having the integrity to attempt to prove that you are right. Honestly - I’d hate to have to squirm around the issues like you do, just to avoid admitting I was wrong.

• which reveals your blind faith in the power of physical events to produce absolutely everything (and everyone ) even though the mind is demonstrably our sole certainty and our primary source of knowledge.

Another Straw Man, peppered as usual with puerile smileys. And despite this - utterly wrong, again. The reality is that I currently see no reason to posit anything other than the physical world, as no evidence nor requirement for any non-physical phenomena has ever been presented. Having “no reason” to believe something is not the same as having “blind faith” in something else - and your tedious use of loaded language is noted.

I would be happy to change my mind if evidence of the supernatural were discovered. But I won’t believe in it just because doing so suits my underlying superstitious beliefs.

 

[inocente]

Many biologists disagree with Dawkins.
conservapedia.com/Evolution

After the discredited Dembski and the fraudulent Abel earlier on the thread, now it’s conservapedia, a site that my security software warns me to not even enter? Do ID fans go out of their way to find the most disreputable and nonsensical possible sources?

 

[inocente]

Another Straw Man, peppered as usual with puerile smileys. And despite this - utterly wrong, again. The reality is that I currently see no reason to posit anything other than the physical world, as no evidence nor requirement for any non-physical phenomena has ever been presented. Having “no reason” to believe something is not the same as having “blind faith” in something else - and your tedious use of loaded language is noted.

I would be happy to change my mind if evidence of the supernatural were discovered. But I won’t believe in it just because doing so suits my underlying superstitious beliefs.

All I can say is its only fundamentalists who require us to leave our brain behind when we walk into church.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Referencing a creationist religious site does not add weight to your argument.

 

[wanstronian]

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.

Fair enough - I’m not getting any sensible answers from Tony anyway. To be honest, I’m surprised there’s any room for debate. As PZ Myers says: “…evolution is settled science - any debate on that matter has been resolved for almost a century. This is entirely why the evolution ‘debate’ today is so hot and furious, because it takes remarkable ignorance and fanaticism to disagree with it anymore.”

I do find it ironic that we’re allowed to discuss Creationism (aka “intelligent design”), but not the established scientific theory that shows Creationism to be false. What next - a ban on the discussion of gravity?

It’s like a ban on facts. Well, I suppose it is a religious forum…

 

[tonyrey]

Incredible, so I guess there was nothing too special about Jesus then? Resurrections were common even in the 4th century.

Though I do wonder why there has been a marked dropoff in such occurrences more recently?

How do you **know **that? Your incredulity is understandable in a secular environment…

 

[tonyrey]

Fair enough - I’m not getting any sensible answers from Tony anyway. To be honest, I’m surprised there’s any room for debate. As PZ Myers says: “…evolution is settled science - any debate on that matter has been resolved for almost a century. This is entirely why the evolution ‘debate’ today is so hot and furious, because it takes remarkable ignorance and fanaticism to disagree with it anymore.”

I do find it ironic that we’re allowed to discuss Creationism (aka “intelligent design”), but not the established scientific theory that shows Creationism to be false. What next - a ban on the discussion of gravity?

It’s like a ban on facts. Well, I suppose it is a religious forum…

**Creationism (aka “intelligent design”) = **the customary false equation!

 

[tonyrey]

All I can say is its only fundamentalists who require us to leave our brain behind when we walk into church.

You include scientific fundamentalists of course! As one materialist on this forum pointed out, truth is simply an isomorph of atoms…

 

[inocente]

I do find it ironic that we’re allowed to discuss Creationism (aka “intelligent design”), but not the established scientific theory that shows Creationism to be false. What next - a ban on the discussion of gravity?

My first pastor banned discussing evolution in church because it leads to people falling out big time, while ID just doesn’t invoke the same emotions - it’s only a wannabe dangerous idea.

 

[inocente]

You include scientific fundamentalists of course! As one materialist on this forum pointed out, truth is simply an isomorph of atoms…

Yes, and one form of fundamentalism doesn’t excuse its opposite, extremism is extremism.

However, it’s good to see you finally admitted ID isn’t science.

 

[tonyrey]

However, it’s good to see you finally admitted ID isn’t science.

I specified that Design is based on evidence** from** science - but of course not only science. To omit that fact in the education of children is to present a distorted view of reality…

 

[inocente]

I specified that Design is based on evidence** from** science - but of course not only science. To omit that fact in the education of children is to present a distorted view of reality…

Then by all means list the enlightened countries where ID is taught as if it were science.

 

[tonyrey]

I specified that Design is based on evidence* from*** science - but of course not only science. To omit that fact in the education of children is to present a distorted view of reality…
Then by all means list the enlightened countries where ID is taught as if it were science.

Irrelevant.

The fact that Design is based on evidence** from** science and should be included in the education of children doesn’t imply that it should be taught as if it were science.

 

[inocente]

Irrelevant.

The fact that Design is based on evidence** from** science and should be included in the education of children doesn’t imply that it should be taught as if it were science.

If ID were based on scientific evidence, it would by definition be science, just as if it were based on rational thought it would be philosophy, and if it were based on an understanding of God it would be theology. It is none of these. It is a crock, which is why it is kept out of respectable classrooms.

On my side is the Council of Europe, the AAAS, the Royal Society, etc., references below. And your list? Feel free to include all Catholic authorities, schools and universities which have made statements supporting the teaching of ID.

assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11297.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

 

[wanstronian]

My first pastor banned discussing evolution in church because it leads to people falling out big time, while ID just doesn’t invoke the same emotions - it’s only a wannabe dangerous idea.

Yes - in a forum of people who want to continue to believe in a delusion, a dose of reality is likely to cause friction.

It’s just a shame that the juvenile sensibilities of the ignorant trump the realities of the world. Still, that’s religion for you, I suppose.

 

[wanstronian]

The facts are not refuted by an argumentum ad hominem!

No…? I didn’t make an ad hom… Have you** still** not looked up what it actually is?

I think you want this thread closed down…

No - if I recall my original contribution was merely to point out your error in assuming that humans are intrinsically different from other animals. It was you who introduced this apparently different “Dawkins version” of Evolution - something you still haven’t been able to explain. See what I mean when I accuse you of being unable to substantiate? There’s an example, right there.

Ingratitude!

I think this comment indicates your level of maturity.

Rationality without insight is unattainable - unless you can explain how neural impulses know what they are doing…

This is your opinion. There is clear evidence of animals behaving rationally without having insight into the specific things you mentioned. Please stop misrepresenting me. I know it’s in your nature, but try and be a better person.

A continuum of neural impulses?

Don’t be facetious. Do you deny that some people are more rational than others?

Levels of rationality are distinct from levels of existence. Otherwise a person is necessarily **equated **with a collection of atomic particles - which is hardly self-evident…

What is not self-evident is that there is any other ingredient involved. And you didn’t answer my question - why aren’t I surprised.

What is the empirical evidence that purposeless particles have the power to become rational persons? Where is it located?

Misrepresenting me again! You cherry-pick one aspect of humanity which doesn’t have a full scientific explanation of process, and use it to dismiss a general comment I made which, over the course of many conversations with you, has proved to be invariably true.

“Evolution-denial” is a false assumption.

Really? I thought you believed in “intelligent design?” Belief in this is denial of Evolution. More accurately, it’s hijacking Evolution for creationist purposes. So, I don’t think my assumption is false.

Does evidence exclude your own mental activity?

In isolation - yes. Mental activity is a product of brain activity, and the brain can be damaged. One cannot trust one’s own brain activity in isolation, one has to get affirmation from interaction with one’s environment to validate. Enough affirmation gives one a baseline from which to operate and start to form hypotheses.

You claim to know that everything is derived from purposeless particles - to judge by your outright rejection of religion and spiritual reality…

Another straw man - I claim nothing of the sort. I claim - correctly - that no non-natural ingredient has been shown to exist, or been shown to be necessary.

With equal facility I could apply those disparaging and discourteous comments to you but I prefer to address the issue at stake

I wish you actually would. The irony of your statement is incredible, as you have singularly failed to address any of the issues. A hint: making baseless assertions is NOT the same as “addressing the issues.”

rather than resort to futile invective which is merely a cloak to conceal your inability to explain how purposeless particles have contrived to establish goals for themselves…

I have never concealed my inability to explain this. You’re lying again. What I have said - and PLEASE PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME!!! - is that we have no evidence that any supernatural ingredient has been shown to exist, or indeed be necessary, to explain the rationality of animals - including human animals.

BTW That hypothesis is not evolution but a convolution of a fortuitous concatenation of events!

Gosh, you’re clever - so many complicated words to say so little!

How do you define a “reason”? Is it a molecular pattern?

Wow. Is that sarcasm? Work on it, you might get better.

A fitting conclusion to a post which restricts** all **evidence to “natural” events - without even explaining how “nature” is to be distinguished from “supernature” (or “subnature” for that matter) …

If “supernature” could be demonstrated to exist, a distinction criteria might be formed. But as yet, no luck

 

[inocente]

Yes - in a forum of people who want to continue to believe in a delusion, a dose of reality is likely to cause friction.

It’s just a shame that the juvenile sensibilities of the ignorant trump the realities of the world. Still, that’s religion for you, I suppose.

Nicely done.

The realities of the world are that very large numbers of people profess beliefs without being particularly juvenile or ignorant, beliefs which by their longevity have demonstrated worth on balance of evidence. But if you mean the here-today-and-gone-tomorrow extremes, agreed.

 

[tonyrey]

No…? I didn’t make an ad hom… Have you** still** not looked up what it actually is?

I have highlighted all your extraneous comments to demonstrate the extent to which you are incapable of participating in a courteous, objective discussion…

No - if I recall my original contribution was merely to point out your error in assuming that humans are intrinsically different from other animals. It was you who introduced this apparently different “Dawkins version” of Evolution - something you still haven’t been able to explain.

Read on >>>

See what I mean when I accuse you of being unable to substantiate? There’s an example, right there.

I think this comment indicates your level of maturity.

This is your opinion. There is clear evidence of animals behaving rationally without having insight into the specific things you mentioned.

If animals don’t understand what they are doing they are not rational in the accepted sense of the term:

1. Behavior guided more by conscious reasoning than by experience, and not adversely affected by emotions.
2. Thinking process that employs logical, objective, and systematic methods in reaching a conclusion or solving a problem.
3. Person who is not mentally imbalanced or under the sway of overpowering emotions, can draw logical inferences, and is capable of normal mental process of weighing pros and cons of an action, choice, or decision.

businessdictionary.com/definition/rational.html#ixzz1mT9dqFy5

Please stop misrepresenting me. I know it’s in your nature, but try and be a better person.

Don’t be facetious. Do you deny that some people are more rational than others?

Irrelevant.

What is not self-evident is that there is any other ingredient involved. And you didn’t answer my question - why aren’t I surprised.

In that case rationality is reduced to responses to stimuli.

Misrepresenting me again! You cherry-pick one

aspect of humanity which doesn’t have a full scientific explanation of process, and use it to dismiss a general comment I made which, over the course of many conversations with you, has proved to be invariably true.

Really? I thought you believed in “intelligent design?” Belief in this is denial of Evolution. More accurately, it’s hijacking Evolution for creationist purposes. So, I don’t think my assumption is false.

Unsubstantiated assertions.

In isolation - yes. Mental activity is a product of brain activity…

Unsubstantiated assertion.

, and the brain can be damaged. One cannot trust one’s own brain activity in isolation, one has to get affirmation from interaction with one’s environment to validate. Enough affirmation gives one a baseline from which to operate and start to form hypotheses.

An unsubstantiated assumption that thought is solely the result of brain activity.

Another straw man - I claim nothing of the sort. I claim - correctly - that no non-natural ingredient has been shown to exist, or been shown to be necessary.

Even though you cannot explain reasoning in terms of neural impulses…

I wish you actually would. The irony of your statement is incredible, as you have singularly failed to address any

of the issues. A hint: making baseless assertions is NOT the same as “addressing the issues.”

I have never concealed my inability to explain this. You’re lying again. What I have said - and PLEASE PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME!!! - is that we have no evidence that any supernatural ingredient has been shown to exist, or indeed be necessary, to explain the rationality of animals - including human animals.

Gosh, you’re clever - so many complicated words to say so little!

Evasion.

Wow. Is that sarcasm? Work on it, you might get better.

Evasion.

If “supernature” could be demonstrated to exist, a distinction criteria might be formed. But as yet, no luck.

Without having explained how you determine the limits of “nature”.