Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wanstronian said:
Well, it’s been established countless times by real scientists, that there is no evidence for design; so there’s no discussion to be furthered.
Click to expand...
You are obviously unaware that science doesn’t recognise any type of design - even that of human beings… Does that mean it doesn’t exist?
 
inocente said:
The majority of scientists probably are atheists, but I’ve no idea what you’re arguing anymore and you give every appearance of squirming and wriggling, which will happen when you repeatedly answer a question with a question. I told you before, read the stickies bro.
Click to expand...
I think the point is that you believe in God. You believe that God exists. You believe that Jesus Christ was incarnated on earth – and that he is co-equal to God. You believe that some (or possibly all) of the supernatural activity reported in the New Testament is true.

You believe that “the grace of God” is not a natural, material process – but that it comes, supernaturally from God.

You believe that this supernatural grace actually affects biological creatures (humans) and gives them Pentacostal gifts.

Humans, having received these supernatural gifts (which are not a result of matter and natural laws) – have a different outlook. Perhaps they have some increased powers that are not possible without supernatural grace.

Those are some of the points that you’re starting with.

Perhaps wanstronian would agree that your views are fully compatible with scientific theory, for example. Perhaps you think your views are compatible with his.

Is the Pentacostal experience as result of natural/material/physical processes?

If not, how does the Holy Spirit communicate gifts to believers? Is it immediately and directly, or is it through some process of mutations and natural selection, governed by natural laws?
 
tonyrey said:
You are obviously unaware that science doesn’t recognise any type of design - even that of human beings… Does that mean it doesn’t exist?
Click to expand...
That is a great starting point.

Does design exist at all – anywhere and from any source?
 
wanstronian said:
Your Church “allows” you (and how damning is that verb?) to believe in a hijacked, wishy-washy, God-guided bastardisation of the real theory. Calling it “evolution” is equivalent to breach of trademark.
Click to expand...
  1. To live without recognising any higher authority or source of knowledge is hubris and belief in one’s own infallibility.
  2. An appeal to science is absurd because even in science there are divergences of opinion - particularly regarding development in the universe.
  3. Your invective is a flagrant breach of the forum rule that there should be respect for the beliefs of Catholics.
 
wanstronian said:
Thank you Tony, I think we can safely add “hypocrisy” to your large and still-growing list of fallacious and dishonest “debating” techniques.

What you’ve actually highlighted is my growing frustration with your clear refusal to substantiate a damn thing you say.

Highlighting my comments in red is just childish, and is the mother of all dodges. How you have the gall to accuse me of evasion simply beggars belief.

I have mixed feelings when I engage with you. On the one hand, it’s incredibly frustrating trying to persuade you to actually back up the wild assertions you make. But on the other hand, it’s immensely satisfying to expose you for the fraud that you are (although actually it’s getting a little dull, because it’s so easy - I ask you to substantiate a claim - you can’t - slam-dunk).

It’s clear to me that despite your sometimes eye-wateringly clumsy rhetoric, you actually have nothing of substance to contribute. Watching you endlessly trying to wriggle out of substantiating your claims by a variety of disingenuous methods leaves me in no doubt at all that you have nothing of value to bring to a conversation of this nature.
Click to expand...
Your **sole **motive for posting on this forum is to insult and provoke those who disagree with your views…
 
grannymh said:
A statement that miracles are very rare events is personal. Especially since “miracle” has different applications and different meanings for different people. There is no need to go public.
Click to expand...
There is no point in participating in a philosophical discussion if one picks and chooses which questions to answer. 🤷
 
wanstronian said:
Well, it’s been established countless times by real scientists, that there is no evidence for design; so there’s no discussion to be furthered.
Click to expand...
I am not an ID advocate. However, there is a real “design” in natural science. This is what research regarding HIV is about. There is a simian immunodeficiency virus which affects monkeys. Researchers are looking at the “design” of hosts’ cells from monkeys which do not contract Aids. The hope is that understanding how the “design” works in these animals will lead to more information necessary for the human battle. The model being used for this type of research comes from a major theory in natural science.🙂
 
reggieM said:
A logical contradiction follows from this, though.

You want to avoid having God create suffering, since it would be hard to explain why some suffer and others do not.

To solve that, you find it easier to say that God just created the natural laws. His creation “unfolds” based on those laws.

So, the solution to the problem of suffering is that the laws causes the suffering – not God.

Why did the laws cause suffering?

Because God created the laws that way – it’s part of his creation.

There’s the problem – God created the laws, which cause suffering, destruction, and whatever else we’re trying not to blame on God.

It’s even worse – apparently, He can’t even intervene to lessen the suffering caused by His own laws and creation.

So, he has laws and creation which are out of control, causing entropy, decay, death and suffering – for no other reason than after He created these things He can’t do anything to stop them or lessen their impact.

Fr. Coyne’s answer is much better and easier to understand, actually (as wrong as it is) … and that is (to paraphrase him – you saw the quotes I posted), “God created laws, but didn’t know what would happen after that.”

The Darwinian-apologist, Catholic Ken Miller says exactly the same thing. God was basically surprised by what resulted from evolution. Human beings were not planned, not directly created – they were an accidental result.

God created some evolutionary processes, but supposedly, God didn’t know what would result from them. That’s exactly what Coyne, Miller and other Catholics claim.

Personally – and I’m sorry to sound judgmental, (I guess that’s the way evolution created me :)) – I have to say that the idea is blasphemous and incredibly false regarding the nature of God.

But that’s really what it is – an ignorant god. That’s what Darwinian theory gives us – at the very best, if you want to hold on to the concept of a god at all.
Click to expand...
Two questions that get to the heart of the matter:

Did God know what Adam would look like?

Did Adam look as God planned?
 
LittleSoldier said:
I know. 😦 Please don’t think that there are no Catholics here who firmly believe in what the Church has told us we can believe, even if we can’t discuss it. It’s a shame that a lack of charity has led the largest Catholic forum in the world to take the action of banning such an important topic and as you say, the debate is hot and furious.

I agree with you - except with your closing statement. It is a fact that the Church allows the faithful to believe in *********, even if it is a banned topic here. CAF is a religious forum but I have never believed that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
The reason as I understand it ***** is banned is because the conversation always degrades to disrespect and personal attacks.
 
grannymh said:
Design exists independent of scientific confirmation.
Click to expand...
I believe the anti-design point of view here is asserting that design does not exist at all.

That’s an interesting argument: “Design does not exist. Even if it did exist, we would not be able to detect it either empirically or philosophically.”

Proof? “Science shows no evidence of design”.

The consequences of that view are even more interesting to think about.

If there is no design anywhere at all, then … ?

Also, can science define, test and evaluate things that do not exist?

In order to conclude that there is no evidence for design, how does science know what to look for?
 
reggieM said:
Exactly. Design is based on evidence from science.

Science evaluates observed, empirical data. Science then can apply measurements and tests against whatever has been observed.

When that is done – scientists can draw inferences from the data.

The inferences are philosophical constructs.

The inferences are probabilistic – the evidence is either strong or weak.

Data is observed and measured – science.
Inference drawn from science – philosophical

What philosophical inferences can be drawn from the scientific data?
  1. Chance occurrence
  2. Natural laws
  3. Darwinian process
  4. Intelligent, planned, designed process
In the end, one of those inferences will be judged as “the best explanation we have” of the data.

Teleological design uses as similar process, except with “philosophical data”.

In that case, observations in science are not needed.
It starts with general principles and axioms (the whole is greater than the part, being is different from non-being, every effect has a cause)
Click to expand...
A superb summary of the roles of philosophy and science, Reggie! I believe it is “the best explanation” we have had on this thread. 👍

There are enough facts in your post to dispel any confusion about the nature of evidence for Design - without wishing to detract from all the **evidence **provided by other members. :clapping:
 
wanstronian said:
Your Church “allows” you (and how damning is that verb?) to believe in a hijacked, wishy-washy, God-guided bastardisation of the real theory. Calling it “evolution” is equivalent to breach of trademark.
Click to expand...
That is not a correct description of Catholic teaching regarding science per se.
 
grannymh said:
I do not believe that the majority of scientists are atheists. Just because a person may work in the thousands of scientific fields and endeavors, does not automatically make that person an atheist.
Click to expand...
I gave the survey before - most of them are.

Here is the latest. Many scientists are only interested in materialism and not being interested in philosophy.

Looking at this survey it is no surprise that science reasons some of the conclusions it does. It has too.

God: theism or atheism?
Code: 
     Accept or lean toward: atheism         2136 / 3226 (66.2%)               Accept or lean toward: theism         599 / 3226 (18.5%)               Other         491 / 3226 (15.2%)
In Atheists We Distrust
 
buffalo said:
Two questions that get to the heart of the matter:

Did God know what Adam would look like?

Did Adam look as God planned?
Click to expand...
The more I see these two questions, the more I realize that they are not relevant to the concept of basic “intelligent design”. For one thing, ID refers only to some kind of intelligent agent. ID does not pertain to the amount of intelligence or the kind of intelligence of this “agent”.

The difference between “Intelligent Design” and Catholicism is that Catholicism contains theology.
 
tonyrey said:
One more evasion…

It is quite clear to everyone that you are reluctant to commit yourself to a statement that miracles are very rare events.
Click to expand...
All you can manage is pathetic ad hominem after pathetic ad hominem.

Where was I asked about the frequency of miracles? Give the post number. Are you mixing me up with someone else or lying through your teeth? Which is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top