Evidence for Design?

[Al_Moritz]

They will take note that you have failed to answer our posts after alleging that our arguments are invalid…

No, reasonable people wiill see that you want to bully me into once again entering a hopeless discussion. You and ReggieM really form an admirable tag team – as long as you can fool yourself into thinking your position is the most reasonable one by high-fiving each other’s posts with “Irrefutable! ” (at least that’s what you did a few pages ago), you’re going to feel just fine. Good for you.

 

[reggieM]

In a moment of weakness, I answered this in post 2053
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8978412&postcount=2053

To borrow from a very good response to you:

I have already pointed out [to you specifically] that it is impossible to deal with everything at once and that when we are discussing the issue with non-believers the first priority is to establish the reality of Design; otherwise we are wasting our time and energy presenting truths which presuppose the existence of God.

 

[LittleSoldier]

**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.

I’m assuming this is from the CCC and that you didn’t write it. It makes me wonder if there is any hope for a good marriage - after all, "the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. So - what about a man and a woman who honestly love each other, have kept their vows which they stated in a Catholic ceremony (meaning the Sacrament of Matrimony), who do not look upon each other or others with lust, who submit to each other in love.

Is that even possible or is the Church telling us that marriage is henceforth ruined and nothing we do can make it work?

It’s the same with “harmony with creation.” Is the Church telling us that nothing we do will be any good - we’ve messed it up once and that is it; and what is this about “visible” creation becoming alien and hostile toward man? What about “invisible creation?” Is "invisible creation (whatever the heck that is) not becoming alien and hostile toward man? And aren’t we part of God’s creation? So are we becoming alien and hostile toward ourselves (I can understand hostile but alien?)? Or is it other parts of creation that are alien and hostile toward man?

I’m also bothered by the shattering of “the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body.” So our souls do us no good? Why then do I pray? Why do I submit myself to God? Why do I try to be obedient to Him?

Why don’t I just give up right now, leave the Church, and go back to being an agnostic/atheist (depending on my mood)? It doesn’t seem that there is any hope for me so why bother?

 

[tonyrey]

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.

This is a very important point which affects the spiritual welfare of millions of children, particularly in the UK where Religious Education has been eliminated from the subjects for the baccalaureate as a result of pressure from Humanists:

“Religious education is in danger of disappearing from the curriculum in many secondary schools, RE teachers say.
Schools in England are meant to teach the subject to pupils up to the age of 16.
But RE teachers say a new league table measure is drawing pupils away, because the subject is not included in this measurement.
The new English Baccalaureate measures pupils with GCSEs in five subjects.
These have to be good passes (A* to C) in English, maths, a language, two sciences and either geography or history.
Redundancies The government introduced the measure last December and RE teachers say the impact has been instant.
Music teachers have also said that their subject is suffering as a result of being left out of the English Baccalaureate.
The National Association of Teachers of Religious Education (NATRE) asked its members about how much RE teaching was being done in their schools.
It says about a quarter of the state-funded schools featured in its research were not teaching RE to pupils aged from 14 to 16.”

bbc.co.uk/news/education-13893958

 

[reggieM]

No, reasonable people wiill see that you want to bully me into once again entering a hopeless discussion. You and ReggieM really form an admirable tag team – as long as you can fool yourself into thinking your position is the most reasonable one by high-fiving each other’s posts with “Irrefutable! ” (at least that’s what you did a few pages ago), you’re going to feel just fine. Good for you.

If I have come across as deliberately trying to bully you – then I apologize for giving that impression. That is not at all what I have been trying to do. I’m very sure that is true for Tony and Buffalo also. Yes, we disagree on some aspects of the design argument. So what? We fully agree on many other important aspects of that argument, and we agree most importantly, on the truth of the Catholic Faith.

Where we disagree – I hope we can all seek understanding and the opportunity to learn something from each other.

 

[tonyrey]

No, reasonable people wiill see that you want to bully me into once again entering a hopeless discussion. You and ReggieM really form an admirable tag team – as long as you can fool yourself into thinking your position is the most reasonable one by high-fiving each other’s posts with “Irrefutable! ” (at least that’s what you did a few pages ago), you’re going to feel just fine. Good for you.

If you answered my three simple questions your statements would be more convincing…

1. Do you agree that miracles occur frequently and that very often they cure diseases and deformities?
2. Do miracles ever occur to prevent accidents and disasters?
3. Are miracles restricted to believers and those who pray for a miracle?

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, reasonable people wiill see that you want to bully me into once again entering a hopeless discussion. You and ReggieM really form an admirable tag team – as long as you can fool yourself into thinking your position is the most reasonable one by high-fiving each other’s posts with “Irrefutable! ” (at least that’s what you did a few pages ago), you’re going to feel just fine. Good for you.

Argumentum ad popularum (aka a red herring). Isn’t it? If I don’t agree with you I must not be reasonable? C’mon now!

 

[buffalo]

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.

So the new admission is textbooks are not to be trusted? I already knew that…

Then it all should be withdrawn from the science class.

 

[reggieM]

Catholics need to realize …

With Lent starting this week, we can take some time to meditate on Our Lord’s **intervention **in the world and His Passion and Death which **healed **and redeemed a **broken **human race. He saved us from sin and **repaired **damage done to our human **nature **and to all creation.

We can be glad for His sufferings – and for the way we can join ours to His!

In my cranky (feminine of snarky) mood,

I hope that mood will be lifted.

I would like to see Catholic ID advocates defend Catholic doctrines

I would like to see all Catholic apologists defend Catholic doctrines. But as an “ID advocate”, a appreciate being singled out for this important mission.

which to me would be more practical than all the fancy footwork

Of course, it depends on who the audience is. If you’d like me to defend Catholic doctrines to a group of people who speak Swahili, then please give me a chance to learn the language.

If you’d like me to explain the Summa Theologica to a group of 8 year olds, then please give me a chance to create some materials that will be appropriate for that mentality.

The Design Argument is actually one of the simplest things that any Catholic should be able to understand.

But, amazingly, many Catholics cannot understand or accept it. That makes it far more difficult to explain matters that require more faith to accept.

Because that’s what you’re interested in --** doctrines that require faith**. They’re not reducible to reason alone.

That is not true of philosophy. Even “unaided reason” (as the Church refers to it) can recognize the truth of the Design Argument.

This would mean learning this decade’s attack on human nature which has gone beyond the design issue.

It has its foundation in the design issue. If a person is not convinced of the evidence for design, then there’s no point in trying to explain doctrines that require faith.

 

[buffalo]

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.

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.

My contention all along is the weakness is in the human reasoning of the observations.

 

[LittleSoldier]

.

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.

I think that it is perfectly appropriate to use “snarky” when referring to either a masculine or feminine mood, while “cranky” brings up connotations of monthly cycles and PMS.

Just sayin’.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Bingo! If the cosmos is degenerating what on earth keeps life persisting? I submit it is the breath of God that informs life with the information needed.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m assuming this is from the CCC and that you didn’t write it. It makes me wonder if there is any hope for a good marriage - after all, "the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. So - what about a man and a woman who honestly love each other, have kept their vows which they stated in a Catholic ceremony (meaning the Sacrament of Matrimony), who do not look upon each other or others with lust, who submit to each other in love.

Is that even possible or is the Church telling us that marriage is henceforth ruined and nothing we do can make it work?

It’s the same with “harmony with creation.” Is the Church telling us that nothing we do will be any good - we’ve messed it up once and that is it; and what is this about “visible” creation becoming alien and hostile toward man? What about “invisible creation?” Is "invisible creation (whatever the heck that is) not becoming alien and hostile toward man? And aren’t we part of God’s creation? So are we becoming alien and hostile toward ourselves (I can understand hostile but alien?)? Or is it other parts of creation that are alien and hostile toward man?

I’m also bothered by the shattering of “the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body.” So our souls do us no good? Why then do I pray? Why do I submit myself to God? Why do I try to be obedient to Him?

Why don’t I just give up right now, leave the Church, and go back to being an agnostic/atheist (depending on my mood)? It doesn’t seem that there is any hope for me so why bother?

Because you have been liberated from the power of evil by Christ’s love for you… and for me and for everyone else…

 

[Al_Moritz]

If you answered my three simple questions your statements would be more convincing…

1. Do you agree that miracles occur frequently

Extremely frequently. The Holy Eucharist is a most astonishing miracle that is renewed every day in many places around the world.

and that very often they cure diseases and deformities?

No, while they do occur, physical miracles are rare. The Catholic Church is quite explicit about that. Even in the long history of Lourdes, for example, there are only some 60+ confirmed miracle healings, even though the claims run into the thousands or even ten thousands (regardless of what you think of Lourdes and miracles in general, the point is that miracles, certainly confirmable ones, are considered rare).

As for God helping us with physical needs, I don’t see why this cannot occur along natural channels rather than by supernatural means (even though that does happen, though very rarely). For example, upon prayer God can direct us to a doctor who can help us effectively with sickness, instead of healing us directly.

1. Do miracles ever occur to prevent accidents

Perhaps, but (upon prayer or not) God can move souls of people involved in a chain of events in order to prevent accidents without a physical miracle. I had discussed that earlier in the thread.

and disasters?

There is no evidence for that, no. Science can quite well predict the general frequency of earthquakes in certain spots around the globe (e.g. in the Ring of Fire forming the border of the Pacific tectonic plate), and there is no reason to think God interferes – nor for the better nor for the worse.

The Haiti earthquake was predicted (not the precise day, of course, but it was considered overdue before it happened), including the approximate magnitude (around 7 on the Richter scale).

In the natural order, God appears to intervene rarely, at least in a measurable way. This is even logically necessary, otherwise we would not know what to expect from our physical world. Imagine stepping into an airplane without predictable laws of nature …

God made the world as it is. He foresaw all the consequences of the laws of nature, and if bad things happen, good can come from that (this is classical Catholic theology, by the way). Obviously, for reasons that God knows, God did not create a world in which suffering is impossible or even prevented.

1. Are miracles restricted to believers and those who pray for a miracle?

It appears not. There are some amazing conversion stories based on miracles that were not asked for.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Because you have been liberated from the power of evil by Christ’s love for you… and for me and for everyone else…

Hmmm…:ehh: I didn’t see anything about *that *in the quote.

 

[reggieM]

This is a very important point which affects the spiritual welfare of millions of children, particularly in the UK where Religious Education has been eliminated from the subjects for the baccalaureate as a result of pressure from Humanists:

“Religious education is in danger of disappearing from the curriculum in many secondary schools, RE teachers say.
Schools in England are meant to teach the subject to pupils up to the age of 16.
But RE teachers say a new league table measure is drawing pupils away, because the subject is not included in this measurement.
The new English Baccalaureate measures pupils with GCSEs in five subjects.
These have to be good passes (A* to C) in English, maths, a language, two sciences and either geography or history.
Redundancies The government introduced the measure last December and RE teachers say the impact has been instant.
Music teachers have also said that their subject is suffering as a result of being left out of the English Baccalaureate.
The National Association of Teachers of Religious Education (NATRE) asked its members about how much RE teaching was being done in their schools.
It says about a quarter of the state-funded schools featured in its research were not teaching RE to pupils aged from 14 to 16.”

bbc.co.uk/news/education-13893958

I didn’t realize that. This is a very dangerous trend for the spiritual health of the nation – not to mention each individual child who will be deprived of religious knowledge.

Perhaps in reaction – or just meeting the need, Dr. Alastair Noble has created some excitement with his new organization in Glasgow which is studying evidence for design in nature.

c4id.org.uk/

guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/oct/01/centre-intelligent-design-science-religion

Once again, there are accomplished scientists who draw the inference of design from the scientific data.

The network of people supporting the centre’s activities numbers between 50 and 100. Among them is its president Professor Norman Nevin, emeritus professor of medical genetics, Queens University, Belfast, and its vice-president Dr David Galloway, who is also vice president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow. In its FAQs, the site lists the UK scientists "who are brave enough to make their support for intelligent design public. There are many more who are not willing to risk their careers by making their objections to evolution known.

 

[buffalo]

I’m assuming this is from the CCC and that you didn’t write it. It makes me wonder if there is any hope for a good marriage - after all, "the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. So - what about a man and a woman who honestly love each other, have kept their vows which they stated in a Catholic ceremony (meaning the Sacrament of Matrimony), who do not look upon each other or others with lust, who submit to each other in love.

Is that even possible or is the Church telling us that marriage is henceforth ruined and nothing we do can make it work?

It’s the same with “harmony with creation.” Is the Church telling us that nothing we do will be any good - we’ve messed it up once and that is it; and what is this about “visible” creation becoming alien and hostile toward man? What about “invisible creation?” Is "invisible creation (whatever the heck that is) not becoming alien and hostile toward man? And aren’t we part of God’s creation? So are we becoming alien and hostile toward ourselves (I can understand hostile but alien?)? Or is it other parts of creation that are alien and hostile toward man?

I’m also bothered by the shattering of “the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body.” So our souls do us no good? Why then do I pray? Why do I submit myself to God? Why do I try to be obedient to Him?

Why don’t I just give up right now, leave the Church, and go back to being an agnostic/atheist (depending on my mood)? It doesn’t seem that there is any hope for me so why bother?

Yes it is from the Catechism. We also understand that consupiscence is part of our human nature. With God’s graces we can overcome much but not all. The reality is that no marriage is perfect but we can sort of be on the road to perfection.

Because you love Him.

Hope lies in God.

 

[buffalo]

If I have come across as deliberately trying to bully you – then I apologize for giving that impression. That is not at all what I have been trying to do. I’m very sure that is true for Tony and Buffalo also. Yes, we disagree on some aspects of the design argument. So what? We fully agree on many other important aspects of that argument, and we agree most importantly, on the truth of the Catholic Faith.

Where we disagree – I hope we can all seek understanding and the opportunity to learn something from each other.

Am i part of the tag team???

 

[buffalo]

Extremely frequently. The Holy Eucharist is a most astonishing miracle that is renewed every day in many places around the world.

No, while they do occur, physical miracles are rare. The Catholic Church is quite explicit about that. Even in the long history of Lourdes, for example, there are only some 60+ confirmed miracle healings, even though the claims run into the thousands or even ten thousands (regardless of what you think of Lourdes and miracles in general, the point is that miracles, certainly confirmable ones, are considered rare).

As for God helping us with physical needs, I don’t see why this cannot occur along natural channels rather than by supernatural means (even though that does happen, though very rarely). For example, upon prayer God can direct us to a doctor who can help us effectively with sickness, instead of healing us directly.

Perhaps, but (upon prayer or not) God can move souls of people involved in a chain of events in order to prevent accidents without a physical miracle. I had discussed that earlier in the thread.

There is no evidence for that, no. Science can quite well predict the general frequency of earthquakes in certain spots around the globe (e.g. in the Ring of Fire forming the border of the Pacific tectonic plate), and there is no reason to think God interferes – nor for the better nor for the worse.

The Haiti earthquake was predicted (not the precise day, of course, but it was considered overdue before it happened), including the approximate magnitude (around 7 on the Richter scale).

In the natural order, God appears to intervene rarely, at least in a measurable way. This is even logically necessary, otherwise we would not know what to expect from our physical world. Imagine stepping into an airplane without predictable laws of nature …

God made the world as it is. He foresaw all the consequences of the laws of nature, and if bad things happen, good can come from that (this is classical Catholic theology, by the way). Obviously, for reasons that God knows, God did not create a world in which suffering is impossible or even prevented.

It appears not. There are some amazing conversion stories based on miracles that were not asked for.

Are you aware of the process and the evidence necessary for a confirmed Lourdes miracle? It is really extensive and laborious.

In some ways it is the same with differentiating design. In the case of Lourdes miracles many people have been healed and not been declared officially. Some healings are less miraculous than others. Does that mean they weren’t miracles because they were not obvious to investigators?

 

[tonyrey]

Bingo! If the cosmos is degenerating what on earth keeps life persisting? I submit it is the breath of God that informs life with the information needed.

Add to that the fact that life on earth has almost become extinct on several occasions. There are overwhelming odds against survival on a dangerous planet - particularly for immensely complex organisms, many of which have become extinct while the simplest forms of life have survived.

It is taken for granted that it was inevitable that we should exist but that is by no means the case. That is why every moment is a miracle which presupposes not only God’s sustaining power but His constant love and protection. Providence is not confined to knowledge but extends to action in moments of peril. I have had so many narrow escapes from death I’m convinced they weren’t all due to coincidence. In some cases it was a matter of seconds that made all the difference. Even now I shudder when I realise the danger to which I was exposed in Africa as a result of my own stupidity - not once but several times. I’m sure there are many other people in the world who have had even more incredible experiences…