Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
reggieM said:
Ok, this is an interesting topic to discuss and we can all learn something from it. 🙂
Click to expand...
One thing to learn from post 1850
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8968450&postcount=1850
is the position of Catholicism when it comes to natural science.

The Catholic Church recognizes the existence of both the material world and the spiritual world. An example is that when it comes to a benefit for humanity, the Catholic Church respects and supports natural science. Nonetheless, and this is important, even though individual Catholics, including high ranking clergy, make statements about natural science per se, and give their opinions, pro and con, this is not the same as what is known as Catholic doctrines.

The Catholic Church also recognizes the benefits of scientific knowledge about the human person. In short, Catholicism respects scientists and their work.

On the other hand, Catholicism has the responsibility to impart knowledge about the spiritual world since this is crucial for a being whose own nature is an unique unification of the material and spiritual, body and soul.

The human person is where science and Divine Revelation intersect. Since the spiritual life lasts eternally which is considerably longer than that of a decomposing anatomy, the Catholic Church is obligated to continually preach the truth about God as in John 3: 16 &17.

Divine Revelation Trumps!
 
grannymh said:
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.🙂
Click to expand...
I think you’re stretching the analogy beyond breaking point. It may be a long day before any design fanatic admits that HIV was designed by the same agent that designed pretty little ponies.

Apparently there are two design agents, one for the nice stuff and another to blame for the bad stuff, or else something like HIV or gonorrhea develops all on its own and doesn’t need a designer. Which begs the question why anything else would, but there you go.
 
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 don’t know where to get a reliable answer, but it seems that many scientists tend not to be theists. Imho the issue is that they learn early on to avoid certainty, because once we think we’re certain of something we stop learning, and that’s at odds with the certainty (often at all costs) of religiosity.
 
inocente said:
I think you’re stretching the analogy beyond breaking point. It may be a long day before any design fanatic admits that HIV was designed by the same agent that designed pretty little ponies.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you missed the point that I don’t deal with any kind of a creating agent.
Apparently there are two design agents, one for the nice stuff and another to blame for the bad stuff, or else something like HIV or gonorrhea develops all on its own and doesn’t need a designer. Which begs the question why anything else would, but there you go.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you missed the point of the post where I offered the real issue in life which is not concerned with the presence of evil.

By the way, two agent types goes back to Manichaeism which we talked about briefly many moons ago. I see that now, with the idea of two design agents, you understand what I was referring to. (I knew that ID was good for something.;))

Found referenced post. check out Post 1837

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8968274&postcount=1837
 
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...
Sorry - forgot that I need to explain things in very simple terms to avoid your straw man arguments. Let me rephrase.

The study of “Intelligent Design” - the pseudo-scientific wrapper around the stone-age supersition of religious Creationism - is not a scientific pursuit. No scientific evidence for ID exists.
 
tonyrey said:
  1. To live without recognising any higher authority or source of knowledge is hubris and belief in one’s own infallibility.
Click to expand...
I don’t live like that. Plenty of people know plenty more than I do about plenty of things. I submit to the authority of the law of the land.

What I don’t submit to, is the made-up authority of a made-up deity. Why? Because it’s not arrogance to defer to an imaginary phenomenen, it’s stupidity.

Prove that your God exists, and I’ll recognise and submit to its authority.
  1. An appeal to science is absurd because even in science there are divergences of opinion - particularly regarding development in the universe.
Click to expand...
Well it wasn’t even an appeal to science - it was a recognition of the fact that Catholic-sponsored evolution is not the generally-accepted scientific theory. If Catholicism had invented evolution, then science had hijacked it to exclude God, then it would be the other way around. But what’s actually happened is that the Catholic church has realised that denying the facts is futile, so has adopted a hybrid version that still allows them to retain their mythical deity.

So it’s more of an “appeal to historical fact.”
  1. Your invective is a flagrant breach of the forum rule that there should be respect for the beliefs of Catholics.
Click to expand...
I can’t see how. I just stated the truth. The Catholic version of evolution differs from the established scientific theory, by adding a supernatural element. This adversely effects the power, beauty and simplicity of the original.
 
grannymh said:
Perhaps you missed the point that I don’t deal with any kind of a creating agent.
Click to expand...
Nope, on we that are at one, just blatantly using your post to make a point. 🙂
By the way, two agent types goes back to Manichaeism which we talked about briefly many moons ago. I see that now, with the idea of two design agents, you understand what I was referring to. (I knew that ID was good for something.;))
Click to expand...
I’m sure I saw a post about Manichaeism a couple of days back but couldn’t remember the word, still it reminded me of when you referred to it many moons ago on another thread. Happy days.
 
inocente said:
I don’t know where to get a reliable answer, but it seems that many scientists tend not to be theists. Imho the issue is that they learn early on to avoid certainty, because once we think we’re certain of something we stop learning, and that’s at odds with the certainty (often at all costs) of religiosity.
Click to expand...
One has to factor in all the scientific areas which may use a model and are not actively proving a theory. And there are areas which do not use the theory at all. For example, the scientific area of “brain mapping” used in awake brain surgery. How about physics and aerodynamics?

When I post that scientists deserve our respect, I mean all scientists.
 
grannymh said:
However, there is a real “design” in natural science.
Click to expand...
It’s good you have this answer to the question: “Does design exist anywhere”? You affirm that not only does design exist – but there is design in natural science.
This is what research regarding HIV is about.
Click to expand...
Scientific research can contribute to the design inference.
Researchers are looking at the “design” of hosts’ cells from monkeys which do not contract Aids.
Click to expand...
Science has observed evidence that indicates that design is present in cellular function.
The hope is that understanding how the “design” works in these animals will lead to more information necessary for the human battle.
Click to expand...
Design, by definition, requires purpose, plan, foresight, intention, intelligence and meaning (design is synonymous with such terms).
It’s very interesting that science has found the products of design within animals. Studying that design can provide a lot of useful information about life.
The model being used for this type of research comes from a major theory in natural science.🙂
Click to expand...
There is a theory which studies evidence for design to be found in natural science – or, in this case especially, biology.

Is there design to be found elsewhere in the universe – for example – in the cosmos?
 
grannymh said:
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.🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, you wisely enclose the word in quotes, because of course the “design” of these natural phenomena is merely the appearance of such. There is no intelligence, no purpose, no intent behind the structure of these things. Or at least, none that has ever been proven.
 
grannymh said:
One has to factor in all the scientific areas which may use a model and are not actively proving a theory. And there are areas which do not use the theory at all. For example the scientific area of “brain mapping” used in awake brain surgery. How about physics and aerodynamics?
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand. My references about most scientists tending to lose faith in theism are mainly famous physicists. Richard Feynman in particular tried to puzzle it out and gave some very honest lectures (still in print, which is how I know them) about how the discipline of science is at odds with certainty. He felt that this might even kill existing religions in time, or at least existing theologies, and fretted on how they might be replaced. I think he was wrong about most people though, the need for some kind of faith seems built into us.
 
grannymh said:
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.
Click to expand...
If a Catholic makes an honest attempt to answer them they will quickly find the difficulty with the TE position.
 
wanstronian said:
Sorry - forgot that I need to explain things in very simple terms to avoid your straw man arguments. Let me rephrase.

The study of “Intelligent Design” - the pseudo-scientific wrapper around the stone-age supersition of religious Creationism - is not a scientific pursuit. No scientific evidence for ID exists.
Click to expand...
What is your position on the universal probability bound?
 
buffalo said:
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?

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
Click to expand...
Only 3,226 participants in the survey???

Only 6 participants listed their nationality as “Japan”. 56 participants listed Germany as country of primary affiliation. 533 surveys do not have country due to incomplete data on institutions. Speaking of data, check out the list of countries of where the Ph.D. was granted. Why would less than half of the respondents specify their Ph.D. institution? Could it be that there are many, many working scientists who do not have a formal Ph.D.?

Pick the right 3,226 people and you could have 100% atheists.

I suppose all the people are dead who remember the advertisement “four out of five dentists like such and such toothpaste” which became an urban myth in my old neighborhood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top