Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

I had to look up “dysteleological” which led me to look up other words and terms. I’ve forgotten an awful lot of what I learned during my college years (and much of what I learned is no longer taught).

Thank you (and others) for using terms which may appear to be abstruse on the surface. I’m learning a lot here (and remembering some of what I already learned but then forgot) and I am grateful for that.

I don’t usually use technical terms but there isn’t an adequate alternative as far as I know. Perhaps “anti-purposeful” would do the trick.
Or “unintentionally diabolical” :frighten:!

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think the moderators would take that into consideration, although they should.

Say a little prayer… and be brave like someone marching into battle…

 

[LittleSoldier]

Say a little prayer… and be brave like someone marching into battle…

Thank you. You are correct. I picked my user name without knowing that it is a euphemism for part of the male anatomy. I’d change it but then I’d lose my post count and I’ve already lost it once. I do take my user name very seriously because I know that I am a member of the Church Militant and it is my responsibility (and every Catholic’s responsibility) to defend the Faith.

I’m not very good at it. But I’m learning. Saying a prayer (even a **little **one ) is a wise thing to do before posting. I read somewhere that all apologists should pray to the Holy Spirit for wisdom, charity, and humility before they even begin their work.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Your disagreement with my view does not justify the use of unseemly language with reference to the Creator.

Of course it does not, but in my opinion your views come dangerously close to imply unseemly things with respect to creation and the way God operates.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The fact that God is a loving Father who constantly intervenes** in every way possible** to care for all His creatures and minimise their suffering.

In every way possible? And the Japanese Tsunami then?

Look, whichever way you want to twist and turn things, your position just does not make sense when observed facts are properly thought through.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course it does not, but in my opinion your views come dangerously close to imply unseemly things with respect to creation and the way God operates.

Please explain what you mean.

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that God is a loving Father who constantly intervenes** in every way possible**

In every way possible and consistent with the purposes of creating an orderly universe in which rational beings are free to choose what to believe and how to live.

And the Japanese Tsunami then?

If God prevented **every **natural disaster it would be blatantly obvious that a benevolent Power is protecting us…

 

[buffalo]

So you think God cannot think ahead far enough to see all the consequences of the laws of nature that He created, and all the coincidences to which they lead? God is impotent to get it right in the first ‘try’? He needs to accept and repair His screw-ups?

I believe we should start considering the effects of humans. We already know that corruption started because of two humans. Every time Our Lady appears she exhorts us to pray.

Perhaps the interplay between humans and God in act and prayer have some effect on the laws of nature. This would not be so much God intervening but humans having and effect as when Moses raised his arms and the battle positive, but when he dropped them it went bad.

We also know the quantum effects of the observer.

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you. You are correct. I picked my user name without knowing that it is a euphemism for part of the male anatomy. I’d change it but then I’d lose my post count and I’ve already lost it once. I do take my user name very seriously because I know that I am a member of the Church Militant and it is my responsibility (and every Catholic’s responsibility) to defend the Faith.

We live and learn! It must be a euphemism in certain circles…

I’m not very good at it. But I’m learning. Saying a prayer (even a **little **one ) is a wise thing to do before posting. I read somewhere that all apologists should pray to the Holy Spirit for wisdom, charity, and humility before they even begin their work.

Most of us certainly need more… :blushing:

 

[tonyrey]

I believe we should start considering the effects of humans. We already know that corruption started because of two humans. Every time Our Lady appears she exhorts us to pray.

Perhaps the interplay between humans and God in act and prayer have some effect on the laws of nature. This would not be so much God intervening but humans having and effect as when Moses raised his arms and the battle positive, but when he dropped them it went bad.

We also know the quantum effects of the observer.

It is inevitable that there is interaction between man and nature - but that doesn’t account for the diseases, disasters and deformities which occurred before man existed. The only reasonable explanation is that natural evils have natural causes!

 

[buffalo]

It is inevitable that there is interaction between man and nature - but that doesn’t account for the diseases, disasters and deformities which occurred before man existed. The only reasonable explanation is that natural evils have natural causes!

Revelation tell us there was harmony before the fall.

 

[tonyrey]

It is inevitable that there is interaction between man and nature - but that doesn’t account for the diseases, disasters and deformities which occurred before man existed. The only reasonable explanation is that natural evils have natural causes!

I don’t believe Revelation tells us that there was harmony in nature to the extent that there were no earthquakes, diseases or deformities before man was created. It would be inconsistent with the Church’s recognition that science tells us much about the history of the universe with its cataclysms and catastrophes. A more likely explanation is that man was in harmony with nature - and above all with God and with himself…

 

[buffalo]

I don’t believe Revelation tells us that there was harmony in nature to the extent that there were no earthquakes, diseases or deformities before man was created. It would be inconsistent with the Church’s recognition that science tells us much about the history of the universe with its cataclysms and catastrophes. A more likely explanation is that man was in harmony with nature - and above all with God and with himself…

**400 **The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. **Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.**Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.

 

[reggieM]

The problem with telling another poster what he believes is you’ll likely get it wrong .

Let’s try it again with some questions:

Do you believe that “the grace of God” is a product of nature?

Do believe that grace affects biological creatures (humans) and gives them Pentecostal gifts?

 

[tonyrey]

**400 **The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. **Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.**Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.

**In my opinion **“hostile” is a figure of speech because it doesn’t apply to inanimate objects literally nor would beasts of prey be unnaturally hostile! It is my view that the garden of Eden is symbolic because physical death is an essential part of the biocycle and it was spiritual death that made its entrance into human history - consistent with the precept of Jesus that we should not fear those who kill the body but those who kill the soul. It is impossible to reconcile an earthly paradise with geological and palaeontological evidence…

 

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by reggieM
What are the characteristics of something that has the appearance of design – versus something that does not have the appearance of design? Can you refer to some scientific literature that defines and distinguishes between the two things (true design and appearance of design)?

No…

I asked two questions and I’ll have to assume that “No” means that you don’t know what the characteristics of something that has the appearance of design are – and you can’t tell the difference between that and something that does not have the appearance of design.

Additionally, there is nowhere in scientific literature that provides information on what design means. So, you can’t offer any knowledge on the topic. You don’t know how to distinguish what design is.

If and when any evidence for this intelligent entity is discovered - that is the time to start discussing the activities it might have been involved in.

As above, you don’t know what design is or how to determine that it exists – so, you’re not able to evaluate anything in a discussion about design at all.

Has science been able to determine what purpose and intent are?

You mean - is there a formula? No …

I meant what I asked – has science been able to determine what these things are that you’re making claims about. You answer “No”. Science has not been able to determine what purpose and intent are – so you have no means of recognizing where and when and how these things exist. You can’t validate or falsify any claims about purpose and intent because you don’t know what they are. They could exist, but you are not capable of knowing it because you do not have any reference points. Science cannot help you because it provides no knowledge – no definition of the subject-area.

The discussion should be about evidence

This is what I’m asking about. In order to search for evidence, you need to know what you’re looking for. You have now stated that science offers nothing to help you understand what you’d be looking for – evidence comes after you defined the target area of the search. You can’t propose a hypothesis such as: “I will show that some undefined thing is a factor in this process”.

Clearly, since it is undefined, any claims you make about it are meaningless.

To claim, as you do (apparently), that design is not present anywhere – is meaningless if you can’t even define what you’re talking about.

• that’s what’s science is all about.

And you’ve asserted that science is incapable of providing information to support your claims about design, purpose and intent.

If ID is considered to be a science, then it should provide some credible evidence.

This is irrelevant to the questions I asked so again you’re changing the topic. I said nothing about ID, but you decided to introduce that instead of deal with the questions I posed.

I think it’s sufficient for me to know that if you rely on science as your source for understanding, then you cannot offer any knowledge on a topic about design, purpose and intent. You need to be able to define those things first. I asked you to provide scientific data on this and you stated that there is none.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

**In my opinion **“hostile” is a figure of speech because it doesn’t apply to inanimate objects literally nor would beasts of prey be unnaturally hostile! It is my view that the garden of Eden is symbolic because physical death is an essential part of the biocycle and it was spiritual death that made its entrance into human history - consistent with the precept of Jesus that we should not fear those who kill the body but those who kill the soul. It is impossible to reconcile an earthly paradise with geological and palaeontological evidence…

I agree with your symbolic interpretation. But why go this far, and yet deny natural evolution as science depicts it?

 

[reggieM]

Yes, I saw that the paper was by Seth Lloyd, but his theories are about treating the universe as a computer, with the physical law as its program …

That’s how science and probability works. You have to look at the search-space and calculate various probabilities.

…only someone with no understanding of basic math would believe in probabilistic limits?

Interesting. When you calculate the odds on a coin flip you don’t place any limits on what the results could be? Yes, I think it’s good to believe in miracles, but anyone with understanding of basic math realizes that probability is dependent on factors like time and possible outcomes.

Errrr… let’s say it again. Natural selection is not a once and for all process, it takes place over long periods of time in discrete steps.

As I said before, I think you’re changing the topic because you don’t want to discuss your claim that research on probabilistic limits is “irrelevant”. I said nothing about natural selection and the paper was not written by Dembski.

There are more possible shapes of snowflake than atoms in the known universe …

How many possible shapes of a snowflake are there?

 

[buffalo]

**In my opinion **“hostile” is a figure of speech because it doesn’t apply to inanimate objects literally nor would beasts of prey be unnaturally hostile! It is my view that the garden of Eden is symbolic because physical death is an essential part of the biocycle and it was spiritual death that made its entrance into human history - consistent with the precept of Jesus that we should not fear those who kill the body but those who kill the soul. It is impossible to reconcile an earthly paradise with geological and palaeontological evidence…

It may be - but for a different thread.

 

[tonyrey]

I asked two questions and I’ll have to assume that “No” means that you don’t know what the characteristics of something that has the appearance of design are – and you can’t tell the difference between that and something that does not have the appearance of design.

Additionally, there is nowhere in scientific literature that provides information on what design means. So, you can’t offer any knowledge on the topic. You don’t know how to distinguish what design is.

As above, you don’t know what design is or how to determine that it exists – so, you’re not able to evaluate anything in a discussion about design at all.

Has science been able to determine what purpose and intent are?

I meant what I asked – has science been able to determine what these things are that you’re making claims about. You answer “No”. Science has not been able to determine what purpose and intent are – so you have no means of recognizing where and when and how these things exist. You can’t validate or falsify any claims about purpose and intent because you don’t know what they are. They could exist, but you are not capable of knowing it because you do not have any reference points. Science cannot help you because it provides no knowledge – no definition of the subject-area.

This is what I’m asking about. In order to search for evidence, you need to know what you’re looking for. You have now stated that science offers nothing to help you understand what you’d be looking for – evidence comes after you defined the target area of the search. You can’t propose a hypothesis such as: “I will show that some undefined thing is a factor in this process”.

Clearly, since it is undefined, any claims you make about it are meaningless.

To claim, as you do (apparently), that design is not present anywhere – is meaningless if you can’t even define what you’re talking about.

And you’ve asserted that science is incapable of providing information to support your claims about design, purpose and intent.

This is irrelevant to the questions I asked so again you’re changing the topic. I said nothing about ID, but you decided to introduce that instead of deal with the questions I posed.

I think it’s sufficient for me to know that if you rely on science as your source for understanding, then you cannot offer any knowledge on a topic about design, purpose and intent. You need to be able to define those things first. I asked you to provide scientific data on this and you stated that there is none.

Inexorable logic that is impossible to refute! The rest is silence because the limitations of science are like a boa constrictor crushing the life out of a physicalist’s argument! Once he ventures into metaphysics he is doomed to self-destruction because science not only fails to recognise purpose it explains it away in terms of purposeless events, the classic example being that of neuroscience which claims to be capable in principle of locating **all thoughts and decisions **in the brain and reducing them to neural impulses over which a person has no control whatsoever…