Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

As typical, even though this has been explained to you numerous times, you refuse to see and admit that these are not views of science, but metaphysical statements of individual scientists that go beyond what science itself has to say.

If you search Pubmed, a prominent database of primary scientific literature, including biological literature,

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed

for the term “purposeless”, you will find just 139 entries out of millions that use the term, mostly in the context of psychology and forensics. Science itself does not say that evolution is purposeless.

That is because science explains purpose in terms of physical causality - most notably in neuroscience which is having its heyday in “accounting for” so many aspects of human behaviour that the public is given the impression that human beings are merely biological organisms…

 

[Al_Moritz]

That is because science explains purpose in terms of physical causality - most notably in neuroscience which is having its heyday in “accounting for” so many aspects of human behaviour that the public is given the impression that human beings are merely biological organisms…

Talking about shifting explanations when one of your explanations is exposed as non-valid. Then you go on shifting a bit more, and more, until a few discussion pages later you arrive again at the beginning and the whole circus starts anew.

And 'round and 'round we go…

 

[tonyrey]

That is because science explains purpose in terms of physical causality - most notably in neuroscience which is having its heyday in “accounting for” so many aspects of human behaviour that the public is given the impression that human beings are merely biological organisms…

Talking about shifting explanations when one of your explanations is exposed as non-valid. Then you go on shifting a bit more, and more, until a few discussion pages later you arrive again at the beginning and the whole circus starts anew.

1. Please explain why the explanation that science explains purpose in terms of physical causality is invalid.
2. Do you deny that neuroscience claims to account for many aspects of human behaviour?

 

[tonyrey]

So when science textbooks say that evolution is purposeless, and the authors of those textbooks say it’s purposeless, that’s NOT science saying it is purposeless?

What belief are the authors trying to instill in the readers?

I can’t speak for the others here, but I don’t really care if “science” says it or not. Science doesn’t have a voice. But the authors do. And most people would say that they’re speaking “for” science. That’s why it’s a science textbook.

BTW - I’ve only speed read this thread lately, so this point has probably been made already. If so…sorry!

It is good to emphasize the point because it is constantly being denied - as in the response to my previous post!

 

[buffalo]

So when science textbooks say that evolution is purposeless, and the authors of those textbooks say it’s purposeless, that’s NOT science saying it is purposeless?

I guess not. :banghead:

Just bow to the god called BUC (blind unguided chance) :bowdown2:

Science does not acknowledge any purpose at all to ***************.

 

[tonyrey]

The facts speak for themselves. The writing was really on the wall when the frequency of God’s direct intervention came into the foreground because then it was a question of rejecting not only the teaching of Jesus that His followers would work miracles in His name but also the evidence provided for the canonisation of saints throughout the history of the Church and the testimony of medical specialists and pilgrims to shrines throughout the world as well as the detailed accounts of scientifically inexplicable cures of members of other religions.

Discourteous ad hominem. Philosophers address the issue rather than make disparaging remarks about the other person.

Miracles and the frequency thereof have nothing to do with interventionist biological ID or the lack of such intervention…

Since miracles are divine interventions which often result in **physical **healing they are directly related to Design. There is no reason why God should not intervene in any way He chooses, biologically or otherwise.

.

…and you never could provide a satisfactory and non-selfcontradictory answer as to the relation between the frequency of God’s intervention and the Japanese tsunami.

You have failed to refute my point that if God prevented every natural disaster we would be aware that a benevolent power was protecting us. How precisely is that unsatisfactory and self-contradictory?

 

[reggieM]

S
I can’t speak for the others here, but I don’t really care if “science” says it or not. Science doesn’t have a voice. But the authors do. And most people would say that they’re speaking “for” science. That’s why it’s a science textbook.

That is a great point – absolutely essential to understand.
Science is a system for measuring observations. It’s a collection of data.
You’re right – science does not have a voice. The scientists who interpret the data and arrive at inferences from science, however – speak for science. They put their conclusions into scientific textbooks. As you said – they’re science textbooks.

To claim that this is “not science” is absurd.

BTW - I’ve only speed read this thread lately, so this point has probably been made already. If so…sorry!

Even after all these posts, that point hasn’t been raised yet – so thank you!

p.s. I should say thanks also for surfacing the quote I posted from Fr. Coyne about how God, supposedly, didn’t know that human beings would evolve. I remember when you found that in a footnote to Cardinal Schoenborn’s book about 4 years ago and I’ve been using it ever since.

 

[reggieM]

I guess not. :banghead:

Just bow to the god called BUC (blind unguided chance) :bowdown2:

Science does not acknowledge any purpose at all to ***************.

It’s incredible really. We see direct quotes from a number of biology textbooks, including from one that is considered the most authoritative source of what evolution means (Futuyma) – along with quotes from a peer-reviewed paper and noted scientists claiming that free-will is a biological function alone … and the response to this is that it’s “not science”.

Some Catholics like to feel safe from the onslaught of unbelief by giving their support to the god of BUC, and then having an escape-clause: “God designed the laws”.

But as Coyne, Dawkins and Dennett (and many other atheists) have pointed out – that’s an ad hoc “explanation” that leaves this god as an unnecessary addition to reality.

Everything has its origin in and is determined by blind, unintelligent processes. So, you can add a Deistic god to the story but it affects nothing at all.

 

[tonyrey]

Your dreaming.

Then please **explain why **God’s direct intervention is **infrequent **when:

1. Jesus told His followers they would work miracles in His name
2. There is the evidence for the canonisation of saints throughout the history of the Church
3. There is the testimony of medical specialists and pilgrims to shrines throughout the world
4. There are the detailed accounts of scientifically inexplicable cures of members of other religions and individuals with no religion.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s incredible really. We see direct quotes from a number of biology textbooks, including from one that is considered the most authoritative source of what evolution means (Futuyma) – along with quotes from a peer-reviewed paper and noted scientists claiming that free-will is a biological function alone … and the response to this is that it’s “not science”.

Some Catholics like to feel safe from the onslaught of unbelief by giving their support to the god of BUC, and then having an escape-clause: “God designed the laws”.

But as Coyne, Dawkins and Dennett (and many other atheists) have pointed out – that’s an ad hoc “explanation” that leaves this god as an unnecessary addition to reality.

Everything has its origin in and is determined by blind, unintelligent processes. So, you can add a Deistic god to the story but it affects nothing at all.

Accurately described as the Deus ex machina universa…

Or the God of the universal gap, i.e. the Creator, Sustainer and Observer…

 

[reggieM]

As typical, even though this has been explained to you numerous times, you refuse to see and admit that these are not views of science, but metaphysical statements of individual scientists that go beyond what science itself has to say.

As I explained before, “science” can say nothing at all.

ALL conclusions, ALL inferences, ALL interpretations taken from data collected from science are metaphysical statements.

The inference to Darwinian process … is a metaphysical conclusion.
The inference to purposelessness – can be made from scientific data, just as the inference to design can be made from the data (forensics).

Science cannot draw inferences from data – only scientists can.

You’re trying to claim that scientific inferences – to chance, darwinian process, natural law – are not metaphysical conclusions. But that’s not correct.

Science itself does not say that evolution is purposeless.

Ricmat has answered this – as have the posts following his.

I quoted directly from several biology textbooks – used in science classes, edited by science experts, intended to teach what science is.

 

[tonyrey]

I should say thanks also for surfacing the quote I posted from Fr. Coyne about how God, supposedly, didn’t know that human beings would evolve. I remember when you found that in a footnote to Cardinal Schoenborn’s book about 4 years ago and I’ve been using it ever since.

Where does that leave the teaching of Jesus about divine Providence?

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t see biological ID throughout the universe, but I see intelligent design throughout the universe just like Newton, in the sense that the laws of nature that bring about the development of the universe are designed by God.

Does God know all the consequences of His Design?

 

[reggieM]

Nonsense. Opponents have left the discussion because their views were constantly and incessantly twisted and deformed by you and Tonyrey, and they simply have given up, realizing that rational discourse has become impossible.

I haven’t seen it that way. Instead, I have seen some very lame attempts to deny the argument from design.

Also, arguments against biological ID are coherent, but you and Tonyrey have deliberately chosen to ignore them,

I have ignored many of your comments because you already accept cosmological ID and you have shown little or no interest in expanding on that. You have had many chances to explain your understanding of design and why you accept not only the teleological/philosophical view but also fine-tuning arguments. After merely stating that there are “many arguments” in support of the fine-tuning of the universe – you said nothing else on the topic.
Instead, you continued with a barrage of attacks against biological ID – and those attacks came with very little content. It was mostly just snide remarks.

If you want to engage in the topic and defend the evidence for design that you find in the universe and in reality – then that would be helpful. You could do it by giving a deeper explanation. You could also attack the idea that “God does not intervene” – since that goes directly against your own belief. You could attack atheism and defend the design that you believe is to be found in the universe also.

Declaring ‘victory’ under such circumstances is all too easy for you guys. But it is a hollow, fake ‘victory’, and everyone who has followed the thread as a neutral observer knows that.

I include you as part of the victory – since you accept teleological design and cosmological design in the universe.

This thread is not limited to biological design. If you can’t see design in biology, that’s just one aspect of the argument.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Then please **explain why **God’s direct intervention is **infrequent **when:

1. Jesus told His followers they would work miracles in His name
2. There is the evidence for the canonisation of saints throughout the history of the Church
3. There is the testimony of medical specialists and pilgrims to shrines throughout the world
4. There are the detailed accounts of scientifically inexplicable cures of members of other religions and individuals with no religion.

Nobody has argued that miracle cures and saving graces, in the context of “human history”, don’t occur. This is something that Al Moritz had said a few times to you.

Perhaps you should stay off the strong stuff for a while

 

[TEPO]

…So, if there is no design, then technically the human body is not the destined temple of the Soul…

In other words, my soul could have ended up in an octopus? How then would I be able to be charitable, because I would have no intelligence.

Perhaps the Truth would have come in the form of a dolphin.

 

[reggieM]

Here’s a scientist who argues that there is evidence of design in the universe:

It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. **All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. ** But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

Sir Isaac Newton’s General Scholium to the Principia

 

[TEPO]

According to Catholic evolutionists, Jesus could have just as easily been a bumble-bee.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

…So, if there is no design, then technically the human body is not the destined temple of the Soul…

In other words, my soul could have ended up in an octopus? How then would I be able to be charitable, because I would have no intelligence.

Perhaps the Truth would have come in the form of a dolphin.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

According to Catholic evolutionists, Jesus could have just as easily been a bumble-bee.

That is a misrepresentation of what i and Al Mortiz has been arguing.