Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

On the contrary, I am “the fairest in the land.” I figured out the rock and arrow puzzzzle above in post 2416.

Bravo!

 

[tonyrey]

However, I disagree that St. Thomas is advocating Intelligent Design as it is known today. This is because when one reads St. Thomas in the context of his writings, one immediately recognizes that he does stop with “intelligence”. According to Catholicism, there is a lot more to God than being an excellent designer. Jesus Christ for example.

In the first question of the Summa St. Thomas concludes that although theology does not need philosophy to promote revealed knowledge of God philosophy provides** a rational basis **for theology.

In the second question he maintains that the proposition “God exists” is self-evident in itself, but not to us, and thus requires demonstration. In a dialogue with an atheist it is jumping the gun to discuss the nature of God…

 

[inocente]

The rock is in the same category as the arrow. The arrow flies because an outside force, the archer is directing it. The rock rolls down the hill because of the outside force of gravity and strong winds which can set it in motion. The arrow’s shape has been designed by the archer so that it can fly toward the target (best result) and not boomerang. The rock has been formed by nature to be heavy enough so that it does not defy gravity (best result) and float up to the sky.

That’s the answer we would give today, using the Newtonian concept of physical forces we learned at school. However, Aristotle (and Thomas) used a very different model, which was about potentialities and actualities (matter and form). I’m trying to understand what he means looking at the world through his eyes rather than imposing our worldview on his.

Both the arrow and the rock do not have the inherent intelligence to flip a coin so as to choose which way they will fly or roll and then do so. Neither one has been designed with opposable thumbs. They have been designed to act appropriately in their surroundings.

If you jump off the Empire State building, (just saying ) then your inherent intelligence won’t give you any choice either, you too will act appropriately in your surroundings, you will be no different to a rock and will shoot down just like an arrow with or without opposable thumbs. So I don’t think that could have been Thomas’ point, it would be too obvious to need saying.

 

[inocente]

I take it that he meant living organisms. Even if he didn’t the orderliness and consistency of physical objects enable living organisms and rational beings to exist and develop. He anticipated the fine tuning argument and rejected the Chance hypothesis that everything is ultimately absurd, irrational, purposeless, valueless and meaningless. In short, things don’t exist for no reason whatsoever…

If he just meant living organisms then that makes a bit more sense. But if he anticipated fine-tuning, he must also have anticipated the physical constants and starting conditions. He sounds like John Wayne, winning WWII single handed.

Is Chance Hypothesis a new name for evolution instead of ######?

 

[inocente]

In the second question he maintains that the proposition “God exists” is self-evident in itself, but not to us, and thus requires demonstration. In a dialogue with an atheist it is jumping the gun to discuss the nature of God…

Hmmm, as granny was having a dialog with me, it might be uncharitable of me to think you’re up to your old tricks calling me an atheist again.

Then again, did you ever look up ad hominem to see what it means?

 

[grannymh]

That’s the answer we would give today, using the Newtonian concept of physical forces we learned at school. However, Aristotle (and Thomas) used a very different model, which was about potentialities and actualities (matter and form). I’m trying to understand what he means looking at the world through his eyes rather than imposing our worldview on his.

The original post 2402 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9013801&postcount=2402

only referred to St. Thomas Aquinas who did not need Newton to be able to observe both arrows and rocks doing their thing.

Discussing potentialities, actualities, matter and form can be interesting; however, I was specifically answering your specific comment "He lost me, would you explain why he thinks a rock rolling down hill acts “so as to obtain the best result”? "
in post 2408 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9014385&postcount=2408

This I did attempt in post 2416 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9014682&postcount=2416

Regarding your additional concepts, at this time I don’t feel qualified to really discuss them. However, I do know a tiny bit about Aristotle in regard to matter and form. So maybe I can join that discussion in the future.

** If you jump off the Empire State building, (just saying ) then your inherent intelligence** won’t give you any choice either, you too will act appropriately in your surroundings, you will be no different to a rock and will shoot down just like an arrow with or without opposable thumbs.

Emphasis mine.

Quite early in my posting on CAF, I had to post in a thread about determinism or something similar that I flat out refuse to be a rock. If I did jump off the Empire State building, I am still not a rock even though my anatomy is matter just like the arrow and the rock. You did give me credit for “inherent intelligence”.

I did not credit the arrow and the rock with inherent intelligence. So right off the bat we are talking in a different territory. The rock and the arrow have no inherent intelligence or free will which would enable them to look the situation over and decide on their own to do damage to the archer or not to roll down hill. This is a main difference between a human person and a non-human being.

Just because I am intelligent with opposable thumbs does not mean that my material anatomy can act differently from other material objects when it comes to gravity. Yes, birds, kites, and airplanes can defy gravity, but not my anatomy because it is not my anatomical nature to do so. Where my intellective, spiritual soul does defy material laws, is in the spiritual realm since Jesus Christ conquered human death by His resurrection. Praise God!

 

[tonyrey]

I take it that he meant living organisms. Even if he didn’t the orderliness and consistency of physical objects enable living organisms and rational beings to exist and develop. He anticipated the fine tuning argument and rejected the Chance hypothesis that everything is ultimately absurd, irrational, purposeless, valueless and meaningless. In short, things don’t exist for no reason whatsoever

Long before the physical constants were discovered scientists and philosophers realised many conditions had to be satisfied for life to exist on this planet. They knew how dangerous it can be in this world, let alone out in space. For the majority of people life was far shorter because the causes of diseases were unknown and epidemics were common. They were far more realistic than film buffs.

Is Chance Hypothesis a new name for evolution instead of ######?

Apart from the title "Chance and Necessity"of a 1970 book by Jacques Monod the Design-Chance dilemma dates back to the Greek philosophers. The Stoics inherited this problem, like Marcus Aurelius who wrote in his Meditations:

“Recall to your recollection this alternative; either there is** providence** or atoms, fortuitous concurrence of things.” and

“Either it is a **well-arranged **universe or a chaos huddled together, but still a universe.”

 

[tonyrey]

There is a delightful joke about the lengths to which scientists will go to evade the implications of purposeful activity in living organisms. They invented the term “teleonomic” to distinguish goal-directedness from “teleological” which applies to ends planned by an agent with intention and foresight:

Haldane [in the 1930s] can be found remarking, ‘Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.’ Today the mistress has become a lawfully wedded wife. Biologists no longer feel obligated to apologize for their use of teleological language; they flaunt it. The only concession which they make to its disreputable past is to rename it ‘teleonomy’.

The use of the term “disreputable” reveals the writer’s prejudice, which based on the assumption that all purposeful activity can be explained away! He was implying that his own behaviour is beyond his control - because it is supposed to have natural causes.

I wonder how natural causes can possibly account for themselves when they lack hindsight, insight and foresight…

 

[tonyrey]

The original post 2402 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9013801&postcount=2402

only referred to St. Thomas Aquinas who did not need Newton to be able to observe both arrows and rocks doing their thing.

Discussing potentialities, actualities, matter and form can be interesting; however, I was specifically answering your specific comment "He lost me, would you explain why he thinks a rock rolling down hill acts “so as to obtain the best result”? "
in post 2408 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9014385&postcount=2408

This I did attempt in post 2416 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9014682&postcount=2416

Regarding your additional concepts, at this time I don’t feel qualified to really discuss them. However, I do know a tiny bit about Aristotle in regard to matter and form. So maybe I can join that discussion in the future.

Emphasis mine.

Quite early in my posting on CAF, I had to post in a thread about determinism or something similar that I flat out refuse to be a rock. If I did jump off the Empire State building, I am still not a rock even though my anatomy is matter just like the arrow and the rock. You did give me credit for “inherent intelligence”.

I did not credit the arrow and the rock with inherent intelligence. So right off the bat we are talking in a different territory. The rock and the arrow have no inherent intelligence or free will which would enable them to look the situation over and decide on their own to do damage to the archer or not to roll down hill. This is a main difference between a human person and a non-human being.

Just because I am intelligent with opposable thumbs does not mean that my material anatomy can act differently from other material objects when it comes to gravity. Yes, birds, kites, and airplanes can defy gravity, but not my anatomy because it is not my anatomical nature to do so. Where my intellective, spiritual soul does defy material laws, is in the spiritual realm since Jesus Christ conquered human death by His resurrection. Praise God!

Cute and acute!

 

[tonyrey]

It constantly amazes me how people believe there is unbroken continuity between inanimate molecular structures and living cells - as if both are explicable entirely in terms of physics and chemistry. In spite of the view of the scientific Establishment I believe there is an immense gulf between the two forms of existence and I am not alone. There is an online collection of fascinating and clearly written extracts from a book about the directiveness of organic activities. The author introduces them with the question:

“As a philosophy materialism is absurd; why then base biology on it?”

books.google.co.uk/books?id=UNE8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=directiveness+of+living+organisms&source=bl&ots=XxrP4v1QKn&sig=pATF4nwl2N_UPlUvKYec780XodU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=omdNT9CTHoHU0QWt-rGeBQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=directiveness%20of%20living%20organisms&f=true

 

[PumpkinSeed]

So you don’t believe anyone designs anything?

That doesn’t make sense. We are not talking bout a painting or a book. We are talking about all life and the universe, ect. The two cannot be compared. You are saying you believe God made all this, and I’m saying that’s impossible to prove until you die.

 

[LittleSoldier]

That doesn’t make sense. We are not talking bout a painting or a book. We are talking about all life and the universe, ect. The two cannot be compared. You are saying you believe God made all this, and I’m saying that’s impossible to prove until you die.

They are all part of the creation of God. All can be traced back to the glory of God. A painting doesn’t appear by itself or as a part of nature but the artist’s hands, the pigments, the canvas, the brushes, etc. are all made of what was created by God. That is also true of the subject of the painting if the painter is trying to convey something he is seeing that actually exists. It’s also true if he is looking into his own mind and trying to express his thoughts as he was also created by God and his vision and talent are gifts from God. The same is true of a book and its author.

And the same is true of the universe, which includes all life - it was all created by God ex nihilo. Every bit of absolutely everything sans God Himself was created by God.

Are you requesting proof? That is beyond the scope of this forum. But if you’re requesting faith you might find it here. Or in nature. Or in a painting or a book or in the ocean or the stars.

It makes perfect sense.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It constantly amazes me how people believe there is unbroken continuity between inanimate molecular structures and living cells - as if both are explicable entirely in terms of physics and chemistry. In spite of the view of the scientific Establishment I believe there is an immense gulf between the two forms of existence and I am not alone. There is an online collection of fascinating and clearly written extracts from a book about the directiveness of organic activities. The author introduces them with the question:

“As a philosophy materialism is absurd; why then base biology on it?”

books.google.co.uk/books?id=UNE8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=directiveness+of+living+organisms&source=bl&ots=XxrP4v1QKn&sig=pATF4nwl2N_UPlUvKYec780XodU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=omdNT9CTHoHU0QWt-rGeBQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=directiveness%20of%20living%20organisms&f=true

It constantly amazes me how some people put all people except themselves and perhaps a few others into one category regardless of their education and beliefs and attack one of my fields of study.

Biology is simply the study of life. There are numerous ways to approach this study. Please feel free to choose one - nobody is stopping you.

And there’s no such thing as the “scientific Establishment,” except perhaps college and university professors who are forced to constantly publish, publish, publish instead of teach and learn.

 

[tonyrey]

That doesn’t make sense. We are not talking bout a painting or a book. We are talking about all life and the universe, ect. The two cannot be compared. You are saying you believe God made all this, and I’m saying that’s impossible to prove until you die.

How do you explain the** power** to design? By a series of accidents? Is your power of insight and understanding also due to Chance?

 

[tonyrey]

After some bitterly cold weather for the last few weeks in England we now have some glorious weather with a blue sky, golden sunshine and red blossom on some of the trees. It reminded me that colours are a luxury because they are not necessary for survival. I had an uncle who was colour-blind and lived like everyone else without any difficulty. There is so much beauty in the universe it is explained far more reasonably and adequately as an artistic creation inspired by Love rather than a meaningless accident…

 

[inocente]

The original post 2402 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9013801&postcount=2402

only referred to St. Thomas Aquinas who did not need Newton to be able to observe both arrows and rocks doing their thing.

My point was that it does no justice at all to Thomas when we don’t at least try to see the world through his eyes.

For example, last time it came up, there wasn’t one Catholic poster, not even one, who could explain what CCC 365 means by ‘The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body’. That also seems to have something to do with potentialities and actualities (matter and form), but posters were just winging it as not even one of them had ever got off their behind and made an effort to understand.

I did not credit the arrow and the rock with inherent intelligence. So right off the bat we are talking in a different territory. The rock and the arrow have no inherent intelligence or free will which would enable them to look the situation over and decide on their own to do damage to the archer or not to roll down hill. This is a main difference between a human person and a non-human being.

As I said, that’s so obvious that Thomas must be saying something a lot more profound. Well, unless he was a three year old at the time of course.

Where my intellective, spiritual soul does defy material laws, is in the spiritual realm since Jesus Christ conquered human death by His resurrection. Praise God!

I don’t know what “material laws” are, but would be interested in hearing any hypothesis which seeks to show that any aspect of you can ever defy the laws of nature. In the same way that Hollywood does not defy any law of nature by using special effects to make Superman fly in a movie, your brain does not defy any law of nature when you imagine Superman flying, and your mind arises from your brain. (This is far more cogent, and anyway just me saying it gives tony apoplexy ).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

After some bitterly cold weather for the last few weeks in England we now have some glorious weather with a blue sky, golden sunshine and red blossom on some of the trees. It reminded me that colours are a luxury because they are not necessary for survival. I had an uncle who was colour-blind and lived like everyone else without any difficulty. There is so much beauty in the universe it is explained far more reasonably and adequately as an artistic creation inspired by Love rather than a meaningless accident…

True; but that doesn’t mean that a person who believes in a Creator for Qualitative and Aesthetic reasons must believe that ID-Science is correct.

Also, the term “accident” can have different meanings according to different contexts.

 

[Shredderbeam]

After some bitterly cold weather for the last few weeks in England we now have some glorious weather with a blue sky, golden sunshine and red blossom on some of the trees. It reminded me that colours are a luxury because they are not necessary for survival. I had an uncle who was colour-blind and lived like everyone else without any difficulty. There is so much beauty in the universe it is explained far more reasonably and adequately as an artistic creation inspired by Love rather than a meaningless accident…

To be fair, your uncle lives in modern civilization. If your uncle had been born 200,000 years ago, could you say with certainty that he could live with no difficulties?

 

[inocente]

Long before the physical constants were discovered scientists and philosophers realised many conditions had to be satisfied for life to exist on this planet. They knew how dangerous it can be in this world, let alone out in space. For the majority of people life was far shorter because the causes of diseases were unknown and epidemics were common. They were far more realistic than film buffs.

Hang on, wasn’t there a big fuss long after Thomas died when some upstart heretics said the Earth was a planet and not, as every sensible person believed, some special creation at the center of the universe? And did ancient philosophers really work out that the atmosphere is just a thin blanket and there was such an immensity of outer space beyond? And didn’t some of them think diseases were the work of demons and witches? Imho it does no honor to those from the past to impose our own culture and values on them.

*Apart from the title "Chance and Necessity"of a 1970 book by Jacques Monod the Design-Chance dilemma dates back to the Greek philosophers. The Stoics inherited this problem, like Marcus Aurelius who wrote in his Meditations:

“Recall to your recollection this alternative; either there is** providence*** or atoms, fortuitous concurrence of things.” and

“Either it is a **well-arranged **universe or a chaos huddled together, but still a universe.”

And yet the concept of “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” was around since at least Aristotle. Just goes to show, you can lead a horse to water …

 

[inocente]

After some bitterly cold weather for the last few weeks in England we now have some glorious weather with a blue sky, golden sunshine and red blossom on some of the trees. It reminded me that colours are a luxury because they are not necessary for survival. I had an uncle who was colour-blind and lived like everyone else without any difficulty. There is so much beauty in the universe it is explained far more reasonably and adequately as an artistic creation inspired by Love rather than a meaningless accident…

At our altitude we usually get snow in January or February, but it’s been wall-to-wall blue sky for weeks. Almond blossom and butterflies. Colors are useful for survival - green meat and so on. By the by, watched a program from the UK on satellite the other night, Hockey’s iPad paintings of a year in the life of the woods near his home in Bridlington. He has the courage to paint the colors he sees rather than what he expected to see. If you get a chance, go to his Bigger Picture exhibition - at the RA until April-ish.