Faulty "intelligent design" argument

[Trevor_Stamm]

Intelligent design argument should not be used in a philosophical debate to prove God for,

1. Bases off mechanicalism, not applicable to metaphysics.
2. The “watch” does not require the “watchmaker” to exist after creation.

Most commonly confused that the Fifth way is applied with this argument, on the contrary. Fifth way is a teleological argument and involves God in existence in the here and now. Not a once-and-for-all event as a watch and watchmaker, but God ever present in existence; the music stops when the minstrel stops playing music. Also not to involve scientific empirical hyothesises to prove “complexity” is reason of God. The music is simple to minstrel while the music is complex to the listener, the more real whole truth is that the music is simple.

Thoughts?

 

[tonyrey]

The argument is not mechanistic but teleological because it is based on the existence of order, harmony, purpose, development, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love as evidence for Design. Nor does it imply a once-for-all act of Creation because all these feats and features need to be sustained, controlled and directed…

 

[ibo]

Intelligent design argument should not be used in a philosophical debate to prove God for,

1. Bases off mechanicalism, not applicable to metaphysics.
2. The “watch” does not require the “watchmaker” to exist after creation.

Most commonly confused that the Fifth way is applied with this argument, on the contrary. Fifth way is a teleological argument and involves God in existence in the here and now. Not a once-and-for-all event as a watch and watchmaker, but God ever present in existence; the music stops when the minstrel stops playing music. Also not to involve scientific empirical hyothesises to prove “complexity” is reason of God. The music is simple to minstrel while the music is complex to the listener, the more real whole truth is that the music is simple.

Thoughts?

1. Bases off mechanicalism, not applicable to metaphysics.

Would you mind to explain this, please?

The “watch” does not require the “watchmaker” to exist after creation.

It may need. Evolution is human’s viewpoint of God’s invisible viewpoint.
Anyhow, Evolution does not exist by itself as an architect plan by itself and alone does not make the building. It need the Powere which comes not from the architect plan.

“complexity”

I would say that complexity with entropy is nothing. But with order, then demands intelligence. The more ordered complexity more intelligence is needed. Take for an example the brain power needed in the CERN, the monstrous mchine to detect the bosom of Higgins.

I loved your questions. You’ve got brain power !!!

Cheers:thumbsup:

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

The argument is not mechanistic but teleological because it is based on the existence of order, harmony, purpose, development, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love as evidence for Design. Nor does it imply a once-for-all act of Creation because all these feats and features need to be sustained, controlled and directed…

I think my presentation is being confused. The intelligent design argument I’m speaking of is the scientific observation of complexity in nature, such as the cell. And it is drawn that since there is so much complexity, it counts as evidence of God. It is a focused observation of material and formal causes, and making a philosophical stance of such. I just think that has no place in a philosophical arena.

Now I totally agree with you, as I am required, that there is teleology of nature, and the unintelligible things unable to move themselves and are directed by an intelligent being we know as God. That’s the second half of the 5th way. But the mechanical intelligent design argument seems to imply a once-for-all-event since it fails to introduce efficient and final causes.

Would you mind to explain this, please?

See above, I think there is just a misunderstanding of “which” intelligent design argument I’m speaking of.

It may need. Evolution is human’s viewpoint of God’s invisible viewpoint.
Anyhow, Evolution does not exist by itself as an architect plan by itself and alone does not make the building. It need the Powere which comes not from the architect plan.

I would say that complexity with entropy is nothing. But with order, then demands intelligence. The more ordered complexity more intelligence is needed. Take for an example the brain power needed in the CERN, the monstrous mchine to detect the bosom of Higgins.

We agree BUT this argument is open to imply an impersonal deity. Should probably revise my statement that this sort of argument shouldn’t be used in a tradition theistic arena since we aim our proofs to a personal theos.

I loved your questions. You’ve got brain power !!!

Cheers:thumbsup:

Don’t give me to much credit, I was rephrasing a pointed raised by Dr. Feser in his Aquinas book. But still struck me as true.

And not much brain power this time last year was a selfish agnostic who had little knowledge of theism and philosophy and just played video games. Just counting the seconds now till my baptism and full communion :bounce: hope to be a life long Thomist. Got a long way to go to have measurable brain power :whacky:

 

[grannymh]

I think my presentation is being confused. The intelligent design argument I’m speaking of is the scientific observation of complexity in nature, such as the cell. And it is drawn that since there is so much complexity, it counts as evidence of God. It is a focused observation of material and formal causes, and making a philosophical stance of such. I just think that has no place in a philosophical arena.

Now I totally agree with you, as I am required, that there is teleology of nature, and the unintelligible things unable to move themselves and are directed by an intelligent being we know as God. That’s the second half of the 5th way. But the mechanical intelligent design argument seems to imply a once-for-all-event since it fails to introduce efficient and final causes.

Have you read this article by Williiam Dembski?

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-presuppose-a-mechanistic-view-of-nature/

Which ended with this:

“P.S. ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide. But that’s not to say the designer is anonymous. I’m a Christian, so the designer’s identity is clear, at least to me. But even to identify the designer with the Christian God is not to say that any particular instance of design in nature is directly the work of his hands. We humans use surrogate intelligences to do work for us (e.g., computer algorithms). God could likewise use surrogate intelligences (Aristotelian final causes?) to produce the sorts of designs that ID theorists focus on (such as the bacterial flagellum).”

 

[DPMartin]

Intelligent design argument should not be used in a philosophical debate to prove God for,

1. Bases off mechanicalism, not applicable to metaphysics.
2. The “watch” does not require the “watchmaker” to exist after creation.

Most commonly confused that the Fifth way is applied with this argument, on the contrary. Fifth way is a teleological argument and involves God in existence in the here and now. Not a once-and-for-all event as a watch and watchmaker, but God ever present in existence; the music stops when the minstrel stops playing music. Also not to involve scientific empirical hyothesises to prove “complexity” is reason of God. The music is simple to minstrel while the music is complex to the listener, the more real whole truth is that the music is simple.

Thoughts?

Trevor Stamm

It could be that proponents of “Intelligent Design” are caught up in recreating the wheel, when the wheel already exists.

It seems that the problem is; if using the physical existence to disprove Spiritual existence is not working, then how could using the physical existence, to prove Spiritual existence, possibly work? In the physical, it is that it is, that proves that it is, wouldn’t this be also true in the Spiritual? God is Present in His Creation but not of it. Therefore the physical can’t prove God. God reveals His Presence in His Creation, by His Word, in His Presence. We must remember all that is, is His domain.

In the world (human existence), you are in human existence , and are able to say that you are in human existence, for as long as you are in human existence. And it is only human existence that works science, for what ever reasons and purposes humans seek. Even if its just curiously, in how some thing works, or what is in the physical. However, this doesn’t even prove human existence. In order to know human existence, one must be in human existence.

Science can’t disprove God, nor can it prove God. The existence of God is proved by God, making His Presence known in human existence.

Hence the only proof of God, in human existence, is that His Word in His Presence is of Him. It was the Voice of the Lord that was walking in the Garden that Adam and Eve hid from. It is the resurrection of Jesus Christ that proved He is the Word of God in the Presence if God in human existence. As Jesus said, you can’t do anything without Him.

Souls are won unto Christ, by the revelation of His Word in His Presence. You don’t win science to be anything other then science. You win Souls that are scientist or those Souls that look to science for answers and proofs. And it is not with science that they are won. It is the Presence of God that is with you, in human existence that proves God, according to His Revelation.

 

[buffalo]

Trevor Stamm

It could be that proponents of “Intelligent Design” are caught up in recreating the wheel, when the wheel already exists.

It seems that the problem is; if using the physical existence to disprove Spiritual existence is not working, then how could using the physical existence, to prove Spiritual existence, possibly work? In the physical, it is that it is, that proves that it is, wouldn’t this be also true in the Spiritual? God is Present in His Creation but not of it. Therefore the physical can’t prove God. God reveals His Presence in His Creation, by His Word, in His Presence. We must remember all that is, is His domain.

In the world (human existence), you are in human existence , and are able to say that you are in human existence, for as long as you are in human existence. And it is only human existence that works science, for what ever reasons and purposes humans seek. Even if its just curiously, in how some thing works, or what is in the physical. However, this doesn’t even prove human existence. In order to know human existence, one must be in human existence.

Science can’t disprove God, nor can it prove God. The existence of God is proved by God, making His Presence known in human existence.

Hence the only proof of God, in human existence, is that His Word in His Presence is of Him. It was the Voice of the Lord that was walking in the Garden that Adam and Eve hid from. It is the resurrection of Jesus Christ that proved He is the Word of God in the Presence if God in human existence. As Jesus said, you can’t do anything without Him.

Souls are won unto Christ, by the revelation of His Word in His Presence. You don’t win science to be anything other then science. You win Souls that are scientist or those Souls that look to science for answers and proofs. And it is not with science that they are won. It is the Presence of God that is with you, in human existence that proves God, according to His Revelation.

The ID the science argument is based on probabilities. ID the science makes no claim on who the designer is. That is left to the philosophers.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

trevor

We agree BUT this argument is open to imply an impersonal deity. Should probably revise my statement that this sort of argument shouldn’t be used in a tradition theistic arena since we aim our proofs to a personal theos.

It doesn’t really imply an impersonal deity. All it implies is that if there is a deity, the deity is able to order Creation through a set of laws that reflect something about the intellect of the Designer. This far I think science can legitimately go, but not much farther. A Designer God can be rationally seen as a loving God through Revelation. After all, if God is loving, why wouldn’t He reveal himself to us in ways that go beyond science into, for example, philosophy, literature, music and art?

This is one reason why I have never been able to fathom Einstein’s willingness to to speak of a God who designs but not of a God who loves. If God is capable of the one power, why not also of the other? And why wouldn’t He love what He created?

I suspect the defect in Einstein, his inability to relate to a personal God, was that his entire being was more ordered toward knowledge than toward love. Though he was by no means an atheist and dissociated himself from the atheist world view, he shared with them that presumption that traditional religion is for people who need a crutch to lean on.

But isn’t it just possible that if there is a God, a God of love, He would be there for us to lean on, just as we need from time to time to lean on each other? Why was leaning on God so verboten to Einstein?

Albert Einstein:

“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.”

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” (Einstein, as cited in Clark 1973, 33).

 

[danserr]

Intelligent design argument should not be used in a philosophical debate to prove God for,

1. Bases off mechanicalism, not applicable to metaphysics.
2. The “watch” does not require the “watchmaker” to exist after creation.

Most commonly confused that the Fifth way is applied with this argument, on the contrary. Fifth way is a teleological argument and involves God in existence in the here and now. Not a once-and-for-all event as a watch and watchmaker, but God ever present in existence; the music stops when the minstrel stops playing music. Also not to involve scientific empirical hyothesises to prove “complexity” is reason of God. The music is simple to minstrel while the music is complex to the listener, the more real whole truth is that the music is simple.

Thoughts?

A brief thought on point 2. Namely that this is true and I agree with you, but all that does is show the limits of the intelligent design argument. We can still use it to show that the fine tuning of the universe for life (or specified complexity of the cell if you prefer that version) calls out for a designer. So we could use the ID argument as a valuable piece of evidence for God, and yet still be mindful of its limits.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

It doesn’t really imply an impersonal deity. All it implies is that if there is a deity, the deity is able to order Creation through a set of laws that reflect something about the intellect of the Designer. This far I think science can legitimately go, but not much farther. A Designer God can be rationally seen as a loving God through Revelation. After all, if God is loving, why wouldn’t He reveal himself to us in ways that go beyond science into, for example, philosophy, literature, music and art?

I wasn’t saying directly implying an impersonal deity, but it is open to. As Danserr said it shows the limitations and can be used as an additional argument, an analogy being more bullets in the gun, but as a traditional theist I just think we should be careful what we use as ammunition. What I’ve noticed in Aquinas’s philosophy, it was systematically building up to a personal God and not allowing, in loose language, wiggle room to escape that buildup. All I’m saying is the strict mechanical ID argument allows wiggle room to run in any direction of theism. I guess it’s up to the debater to try and steer the conversation into Christianity, it’s just looking at it from a systematic way, I don’t see it hurting the conversation but I don’t see it helping as much as one would like.

I like your write up about Einstein. I would say he was looking for God with a earnest heart, and like to think he’s with Him now, but with such scientific hard minds comes sometimes pride or a great disconnect between themselves and others. I’m not knowledged of his personal life but from experience dealing with these types, there is almost a true lacking capacity in their will to fully love or to be loved. I myself am victim to this to a certain degree between people such as intimacy, but with God and myself is completely different though that might be explainable to me as a possible vocation, guess I’ll see in the future.

 

[DPMartin]

The ID the science argument is based on probabilities. ID the science makes no claim on who the designer is. That is left to the philosophers.

buffalo
thanks for the reply

That is true, but its been my experience in philosophy web sites, that its not viewed the way you have expressed, by the majority. People use science to prove what they believe. Where as science is a human activity. It is man that proves science to be true or useful. Of which I believe Trevor Stamm’s concern is warranted.

Men don’t serve what science knows, or thinks, science serves men. And men serve God who proves men.

 

[grannymh]

Personally, I think ID science is being used to disprove the philosophical theory of evolution which is that a supernatural being is not necessary in the natural world. ID does not address the main issues of Catholicism regarding human origin, human nature, and the end purpose of human beings.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1