Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MindOverMatter2 said:
Nobody has argued that miracle cures and saving graces, in the context of “human history”, don’t occur.
Click to expand...
It’s good to know that God does intervene in nature after all!!! 👍

In fact, when He heals people who have suffered with illnesses due to nature – God does a wonderful job of mending, fixing, repairing, restoring, curing, and healing wounded human beings. Thankfully, our loving God intervenes to miraculously help us all the time!! 🙂
 
ricmat said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, it is not. Science textbooks are not science. They are explanations of science by scientists who often have a metaphysical agenda.

Only once you would find the term “purposeless” in the primary scientific literature on biology, i.e. the scientific journals in which scientific findings and conclusions are published, then you and ReggieM and Tonyrey would have a point. But this is not the case.
 
TEPO said:
According to Catholic evolutionists, Jesus could have just as easily been a bumble-bee.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!!

“If you let the videotape of life run again, I think you’d get large streamlined predators that swam in the ocean. I think you’d get something that used photosynthesis not unlike plants but it might not be plants today. And eventually I think you would also get a large, intelligent, reflective, self-aware organism with a highly developed nervous system. Now it might be a big-brained dinosaur, or it might be a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities… my point is that I think eventually under the conditions that we have in this universe you would get an intelligent, self-aware and reflective organism, which is to say you’d get something like us. It might not come out of the primates, it might come from somewhere else.”
——Brown University biologist and theistic evolutionist Kenneth Miller, comments at the “Shifting Ground”
conference, Bedford, NH, March 24, 2007, emphasis added.

That’s what happens when you compromise your reasoning powers (and your Catholic faith) in order to give homage and submission to the Darwnian myth. It renders you insane – as would be the reasonable product of unintelligent, blind, random natural processes. Unintelligent molecules cannot produce human reason – much less the immortal soul.
 
Al_Moritz said:
No, it is not. Science textbooks are not science.
Click to expand...
It’s unfortunate that most biology student, professors and textbook authors don’t know that.
They are explanations of science by scientists who often have a metaphysical agenda.
Click to expand...
I can try again – science is method for collecting data through measurements and testing. That data is MEANINGLESS without interpretation. ALL interpretations are philosophical constructs.
Only once you would find the term “purposeless” in the primary scientific literature on biology, i.e. the scientific journals in which scientific findings and conclusions are published, then you and ReggieM and Tonyrey would have a point. But this is not the case.
Click to expand...
The primary scientific literature usually doesn’t reference “purposelessness” because that is a philosophical inference reached from the scientific data. But I can show you more evidence, if that will help. There is a great deal of primary scientific literature from evolutionary psychology that explains purpose as the product of biological processes alone.

Dawkins has already stated that the study of biology is founded on things that appear to have been designed for a purpose (but which are not since that purpose is an illusion).

He has the role of teaching biology and explaining biology in the U.K. educational system.

But apparently, he doesn’t know what biological science actually is – and you have the correct understanding of it?

I’d be happy to agree with you, but if it was true --then I’d think you’d direct your attack against science textbook publishers (who affect millions of students with a message of atheism), rather than vent your continued hostility towards ID.
 
TEPO said:
I thought either you or al said that God was responsible for forming the cosmos, but had no hand in biological design…? :confused::confused:
Click to expand...
Correct – that’s exactly what they argued (with quite a lot of ridicule added in just for fun).
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
  1. So you agree that miracles occur frequently and that very often they cure diseases and deformities?
  2. Do they occur to prevent accidents and disasters?
  3. Are they restricted to believers and those who pray for a miracle?
 
TEPO said:
…So, if there is no design, then technically the human body is not the destined temple of the Soul… :confused:
Click to expand...
Absolutely right. We already read that Catholic evolutionists claim that God didn’t know that human beings would evolve. Even a Catholic priest made that ridiculous claim, and he was defended … :confused:

It means that God did not plan human nature – but it was just the accidental result of mutations.
 
reggieM said:
It’s unfortunate that most biology student, professors and textbook authors don’t know that.

I can try again – science is method for collecting data through measurements and testing. That data is MEANINGLESS without interpretation. ALL interpretations are philosophical constructs.

The primary scientific literature usually doesn’t reference “purposelessness” because that is a philosophical inference reached from the scientific data. But I can show you more evidence, if that will help. There is a great deal of primary scientific literature from evolutionary psychology that explains purpose as the product of biological processes alone.

Dawkins has already stated that the study of biology is founded on things that appear to have been designed for a purpose (but which are not since that purpose is an illusion).

He has the role of teaching biology and explaining biology in the U.K. educational system.

But apparently, he doesn’t know what biological science actually is – and you have the correct understanding of it?

I’d be happy to agree with you, but if it was true --then I’d think you’d direct your attack against science textbook publishers (who affect millions of students with a message of atheism), rather than vent your continued hostility towards ID.
Click to expand...
I’m done discussing this with you. Others will get my point.
 
reggieM said:
Absolutely right. We already read that Catholic evolutionists claim that God didn’t know that human beings would evolve. Even a Catholic priest made that ridiculous claim, and he was defended … :confused:

It means that God did not plan human nature – but it was just the accidental result of mutations.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I can’t help but to wonder if there is some sort of agenda behind this reasoning… Especially coming from a Catholic priest.

It’s clearly wrong, since things tend to dis-assemble in nature, as opposed to progress…

I’m more inclined to believe in the teleological argument, as far as biological design… Which I see as a form of intelligent design.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Only once you would find the term “purposeless” in the primary scientific literature on biology, i.e. the scientific journals in which scientific findings and conclusions are published, then you and ReggieM and Tonyrey would have a point. But this is not the case.
Click to expand...
You’re setting an unreasonable standard by requiring the term “purposeless”.
It’s the concept that counts, not the exact term.
You already agreed earlier in the thread the neuroscience makes claims about free-will (I posted a peer-reviewed primary source paper on this).
There are peer-reviewed scientific studies on:
The biological origin of consciousness, the mind, free-will and religion.
Mainstream science accepts that these metaphysical entities are the biological/physical result of evolution.
The papers don’t have to refer to the term “purposeless”.
Even materialists think that purpose is derived from blind, unintelligent laws.
It’s for Catholics to deduce that a determinist system cannot confer purpose.
That is perfectly consistent with what we read in the biology textbooks.
 
ricmat said:
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!
Click to expand...
I am only here for the moment – to point out what finally has become obvious.

Catholics need to realize that the material world’s purpose is to be material. Thus, from the Catholic position, the only creature having the true purpose of eternal happiness is the creature who is not only material but spiritual as well. (I am referring to the human person as God’s creature.)

Apparently, because ID does not consider basic Catholic doctrines as part of its approach, Catholics are starting to forget the difference between the purpose of material and the purpose of spiritual. What is the purpose of a material cell? It is to function as a material cell within a material anatomy, which is its only inherent purpose. Does a cell have a purpose beyond its self? No. Can information gained from studying cells benefit humanity. Yes. Do cells hop up to the microscope on their own?

What can the “uncaring process of natural selection” (Post 2005, second paragraph) really care about? Genetics does its thing without thinking.

Of course, “The advent of Darwinism posted even greater threats to religion…” (Post 2005, sixth paragraph). Does ID specify the threats to various Catholic doctrines about the purpose of human nature in terms of man’s personal relationship to the one and only God? Nope.

I can understand the initial response of Catholics to ID science because the ID purpose was to defeat a certain biological theory which was used to attack the reality of God. That ID purpose is plain on this thread with its philosophy of design. The addition of miracles by some Catholics affirms that ID is missing the spiritual doctrines of the Catholic Church.

In my cranky (feminine of snarky) mood, I would like to see Catholic ID advocates defend Catholic doctrines, which to me would be more practical than all the fancy footwork (questions answering questions) on this thread. This would mean learning this decade’s attack on human nature which has gone beyond the design issue.
 
Al_Moritz said:
I’m done discussing this with you. Others will get my point.
Click to expand...
I’ll put it this way – Darwinian Theory itself is a philosophical construct. It is an inference that uses data from science. It looks at measurements and the results of tests – and then arrives at an inference that comes from philosophy.
In fact, the theory itself comes from a philosophical orientation. It is not something that is found in science – it exists in the mind and not in nature.
 
TEPO said:
Sometimes I can’t help but to wonder if there is some sort of agenda behind this reasoning… Especially coming from a Catholic priest.
Click to expand...
I wonder about him also – his ideas about God are far from consistent with the Catholic Faith.
It’s clearly wrong, since things tend to dis-assemble in nature, as opposed to progress…
Click to expand...
I’m more inclined to believe in the teleological argument, as far as biological design… Which I see as a form of intelligent design.
Click to expand...
We can see things directed by an orderly process to fulfill ends – this is all strong evidence for design.
 
grannymh said:
The addition of miracles by some Catholics affirms that ID is missing the spiritual doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The** inclusion** of miracles is to reinforce the teaching of Jesus that we have a loving Father who answers our prayers rather than a Creator who sustains the universe and never or very rarely suspends natural laws to prevent, reduce and mitigate suffering. 🤷
 
Al_Moritz said:
I’m done discussing this with you. Others will get my point.
Click to expand...
I am sincerely trying to understand your point of view – and I think I’ve got more to add.

The problem hinges on the use of purely philosophical concepts in the expression of a scientific theory.

The most important philosophical concept with regards to biological design is that of randomness (or a chance, stochastic process).

When science states that a process is “random” or “stochastic” — it is using a philosophical term.

Some might say “There is no randomness. God planned, created, sustained, designed – everything in the universe. So, what seems to be purposeless, is really part of God’s design.”

But this is not how science uses the term, and it’s not how we use the term in ordinary life.

Raindrops falling on the sidewalk produce a random pattern. It can help to think that “God knew exactly what that pattern would be like – or He even designed it. The pattern truly has meaning, if only we could see it.”

Spiritually, that is a good way to look at reality.

But if the raindrops created a perfect image of George Washington on the sidewalk – we don’t merely say that “God creates all kinds of random images on the sidewalk”.

Scientific papers are filled with analyses of chance processes. Are those processes “purposeless”? Under the ordinary meaning of the word “chance” — yes, by definition they are purposeless.

To import a new concept and meaning – that chance does not exist – into science is, again, an ad ho addition that does not have support at all in the greater scientific community.

It could have support – if all scientists were theists – for example, but currently, chance processes are understood as purposeless. They are not directed to an end, from the scientific perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top