How can we reconcile the argument of intelligent design with supposed design flaws?

[tonyrey]

Chance cannot happen without order.

Indeed! Coincidences and spontaneous events presuppose a framework of regularity and consistency by which they are distinguished.

 

[IWantGod]

Indeed! Coincidences and spontaneous events presuppose a framework of regularity and consistency by which they are distinguished.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The view that there is necessarily conflict between science and religion is obsolete.

Well yes, to right thinking people.

Richard Dawkins & Company will certainly disagree.

Jacques Maritain, Philosopher:

“Since science’s competence extends to observable and measurable phenomena, not to the inner being of things, and to the means, not to the ends of human life, it would be nonsense to expect that the progress of science will provide men with a new type of metaphysics, ethics, or religion.”

 

[tonyrey]

Well yes, to right thinking people.

Richard Dawkins & Company will certainly disagree.

Jacques Maritain, Philosopher:

“Since science’s competence extends to observable and measurable phenomena, not to the inner being of things, and to the means, not to the ends of human life, it would be nonsense to expect that the progress of science will provide men with a new type of metaphysics, ethics, or religion.”

Maritain’s positive contributions to the intellectual history of mankind will outlast the negative attacks on theism by Dawkins and Co whose scientism reveals total ignorance of metaphysical principles like the intelligibility of the universe and the validity of reason. He was one of the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which atheists take for granted - or dare not reject in public! For them it is merely a matter of human convention without any rational basis in their secular scheme of things…

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed! Coincidences and spontaneous events presuppose a framework of regularity and consistency by which they are distinguished.

Thanks! The most fundamental facts are often taken for granted precisely because they are so fundamental! That is why the members of the anti-Design brigade are inconsistent. The framework of order was not inevitable or due to physical necessity. In other words it didn’t come about for no reason whatsoever nor is purposeful activity an accident…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What I still don’t get is how anyone can agree there are laws throughout the universe, but there can’t be a Lawgiver.

 

[inocente]

Actually, the claim is that God is not confined BY space and time. The fact that God is both transcendent and immanent seems to have evaded you. This does not preclude God acting in or upon space, time, energy and matter without being changed in any way.

So all intelligent design fans are fully agreed that God still designs and therefore designed the Zika virus?

You don’t seem to understand that metaphysics is a discipline within philosophy.

Yes of course. I was referring to your claim that the origin of DNA is a basic issue in metaphysics. Please cite some metaphysics papers supporting your claim.

RNA World had been shown to be wholly inadequate. Yes, it is a big issue since any theory about how living organisms “evolved” has to have some inkling into what those organisms evolved FROM.

The moderator has instructed us not to discuss evolution.

You rely on what you learned in high school and you want I should be the the one to bone up on the subject?

I only mentioned it because you claimed the origin of DNA is some huge problem, and it isn’t.

Funny how you are quite willing to permit the scientists you are willing to indulge the ability to liberally write promissory notes but not extend the same privilege to those with whom you disagree, ideologically speaking.

Not even remotely the same. Scientists publish their hypotheses, while you can only claim “there are hypotheses being written”, which is exactly like saying the check’s in the mail.

*No reasonable response to be had so we must resort to deriding and defaming by association. *

Which is exactly what UFO-logists or 9/11 conspiracy theorists might say about intelligent design. You’re the one talking of an international conspiracy of scientists. Please provide evidence.

Actually, you already had “mentioned the case” in several of our previous exchanges.

People reading this thread probably don’t know of previous exchanges.

*What were those words of St. Paul, again, about not putting any stumbling block in the way of your brother or sister? It is rather amusing that you can put so much effort into promoting what appears to be atheistic materialism, and yet accuse others of creating stumbling blocks to your faith when they ask you to explain your position in a coherent way.

It seems to me that faith that cannot 'fess up and justify itself in the face of inquiry will not remain in the face of active persecution. Perhaps treating your faith with kid gloves is what has placed you in such a vulnerable position to begin with. Cf. “refiner’s fire” in the Bible.*

No idea what that’s supposed to be about. I know you can’t help making personal attacks but you could at least try to make them coherent.

Actually, there are a number of biologists and biochemists doing just that. If I recall, the last time I cited the work of some of those, I heard a great deal of “sniping” from the sidelines concerning how ID is NOT science even though these scientists were, in fact, doing scientific research on protein synthesis and what is genetically required for the acquisition of new adaptive traits.

You said, regarding the science, that your concern “is to be thorough and to resolve all theoretical issues completely” – denial and obfuscation doesn’t get us there". And you said “If any particular form of evolutionary theory is correct it should be robust enough to answer all issues surrounding what it purports to explain. It shouldn’t seek to silence critics. Yet, that approach is all too common in modern science, which is, I think, an indicator that science has become far too agenda driven and has gotten away from its basic mandate of explaining, in a complete and satisfying way, how the observable universe works”.

Do you work in one of the life sciences then, to have such concerns? Or is all of that just dinner party talk?

Where are these intelligent design hypotheses which are thorough, and which resolve all issues completely, and which are robust enough to answer all issues, and which don’t follow an agenda? Are they the hypotheses you claim are still in the process of “being written in rigorous detail with testability built into them”? Yet you write as if they they’ve already been proven, and then complain that the whole of modern science is agenda driven! Glorious.

I suspect there is a misconception of the concept of “Unmoved Mover” at play here. The idea is not that God is a passive recluse who does nothing because he is constrained by the logic of “unmoved” to not lift a finger or move in any way.

The Thomistic terms “fullness of being,” Actus Purus or “the pure act of Being itself” are better. The idea is that God is complete in every possible aspect of being so there is nothing that remains purely potential – all is actualized in God. There is nothing that can come about, nowhere to “move to” and nothing left to be actualized.

He is not “unmoved” in any passive sense of remaining inactive by some inherency of his nature. He is Unchanging because in God there is no potential which is not actualized – the fullness of all possible existence is active and present in God.

A Thomist who was a regular poster here maintained that the unmoved mover continually sustains every change, and therefore never rests, and was adamant that this includes every change of direction of every particle in the universe. Otherwise, if the unmoved mover only started motion at the big bang, and subsequent changes happened all by themselves as per modern science, there would be no continuing need for the unmoved mover.

That’s what the Thomist poster thought, we debated it for an entire thread and he probably cited Feser et al at me, but I remained unmoved.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes of course. I was referring to your claim that the origin of DNA is a basic issue in metaphysics. Please cite some metaphysics papers supporting your claim.

Please cite some scientific papers showing how DNA formed in the first living organism.

It certainly didn’t evolve itself into existence, as it had nothing to evolve from.

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure what you are talking about. Not an unusual situation in this ultrapostmodern Tower of Babel, the Internet.

I am interested in how you figured out how to write: E = mc[sup]2[/sup]. [sup], eh? Go figure.

Here are some random thoughts, for what they are worth:

God resting may have something to do with why X never changes.

That the sum of all energies is zero sounds rather Zen and I’m sure Lao-Tzu
(Laozi if you want to nit-pick - there’s a bad pun in that btw. I have to explain my attempts at a joke, more than i do my posts)
would approve.

Existence is necessary to be. We then have to understand the nature of being - clue: it is relational.

I found out about [sup] by noticing it when quoting someone else. There’s also [sub] for subscripts.

The zero energy universe hypothesis is what cosmologists call a universe from nothing. Theologians might call it creation ex nihilo. I don’t know if God can break the principle of conservation of energy. Presumably He could unless it involves a logical contradiction, like a square circle.

I like bad puns - what is it?

 

[inocente]

You continue to refuse to cite the post in which you say I called you insincere.

Post #193: “You think like an agnostic. You just refuse to put that word after your name.”

Which is calling my insincere, deceitful and dishonest. No need to apologize, now please let’s leave it be .

This is right, so far as it goes. The Big Bang was still being vigorously challenged by the likes of George Gamow and Fred Hoyle, both adamant atheists. The last thing Lemaître needed was to hear them howling something like, “Aha, the pope is the final authority on all things astronomical!.”

What Pius was merely saying is that the Big Bang was consistent with a biblical creation moment. He had every right to say that. And Lemaître had every right to be upset that he said it.

Don’t forget that the big bang was still just an hypothesis at that time, so it was premature for Pius to say science “has succeeded in bearing witness”, and his linking it to “Fiat lux” was close to claiming science had proved God exists, which of course it hasn’t. I think that was probably Lemaître’s main concern.

 

[inocente]

There are at least two compelling reasons to believe the Creator doesn’t micro-manage everything - as opposed to Calvin’s view that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God. He would be directly responsible for all the hideous aspects of life on earth and also for all the atrocities planned and implemented by human beings.

Agreed.

There is no conflict whatsoever between Design and evolution. Chance alone is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the development of rational beings from mindless molecules - nor will physical Necessity suffice…

The well-tested theory relies on blind forces, not on chance.

I think there are other design fans who don’t agree with you that there is no conflict. There doesn’t appear to be much agreement on what intelligent design is supposed to mean even among the small number of fans on this thread.

To equate negativity with dislike is unreasonable. It amounts to rejecting beauty and harmony as figments of the imagination. Likewise there is no objective reason for distinguishing disease from good health and disasters from the normal course of events.

A very curious deduction! Please explain how you reached that conclusion.
The view that there is necessarily conflict between science and religion is obsolete.

Agreed on your last sentence, although again design fans may disagree with you.

You propose “**Positive **aspects of reality like the beauty of a butterfly and the harmony in nature are designed”, if you don’t like something then “**Negative **aspects like disease and disasters are caused by unfortunate coincidences like exposure to radiation or being in an earthquake zone”.

I’m just looking at the logic. The main problem is that “unfortunate” is not an absolute, there’s no way to test the truth or falsity since people won’t agree what is beautiful and harmonious, it depends on opinion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
.
A second problem is it’s not economical. It proposes two separate ways in which things in nature come about, whereas there’s only one way in the existing science, so your proposal has less explanatory power. A third problem is that coincidences are “remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection”. But you’re already claiming an absence of causal connection for design, since the intelligent designer is out of a job when something develops by many small steps, by a series of causes and effects due to blind forces.

And forth, I think many design fans won’t agree with you anyway.

 

[tonyrey]

There are at least two compelling reasons to believe the Creator doesn’t micro-manage everything - as opposed to Calvin’s view that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God. He would be directly responsible for all the hideous aspects of life on earth and also for all the atrocities planned and implemented by human beings.

It doesn’t follow that the Creator never intervenes

There is no conflict whatsoever between Design and evolution. Chance alone is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the development of rational beings from mindless molecules - nor will physical Necessity suffice…

The well-tested theory relies on blind forces, not on chance.

That is one of the meanings of Chance!

I think there are other design fans who don’t agree with you that there is no conflict. There doesn’t appear to be much agreement on what intelligent design is supposed to mean even among the small number of fans on this thread.

All agree that Design implies God’s plan for Creation as opposed to purposeless activity.
:
*To equate negativity with dislike is unreasonable. It amounts to rejecting beauty and harmony as figments of the imagination. Likewise there is no objective reason for distinguishing disease from good health and disasters from the normal course of events.

A very curious deduction! Please explain how you reached that conclusion.
The view that there is necessarily conflict between science and religion is obsolete.*

Agreed on your last sentence, although again design fans may disagree with you.

You propose “**Positive **aspects of reality like the beauty of a butterfly and the harmony in nature are designed”, if you don’t like something then “**Negative **aspects like disease and disasters are caused by unfortunate coincidences like exposure to radiation or being in an earthquake zone”.

I’m just looking at the logic. The main problem is that “unfortunate” is not an absolute, there’s no way to test the truth or falsity since people won’t agree what is beautiful and harmonious, it depends on opinion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

There is no doubt whatsoever that disease and disasters are destructive and undermine the harmony in nature without which survival and development would be impossible. Beauty is not solely in the eye of the beholder because it is often based on the Golden Ratio and functional success.

A second problem is it’s not economical. It proposes two separate ways in which things in nature come about, whereas there’s only one way in the existing science, so your proposal has less explanatory power.

Science is defective because it is necessarily amoral. No rational person would base every conclusion solely on a scientific explanation.

A third problem is that coincidences are “remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection”. But you’re already claiming an absence of causal connection for design, since the intelligent designer is out of a job when something develops by many small steps, by a series of causes and effects due to blind forces.

When the vast majority of coincidences lead to the development and fulfilment of living beings they are clearly evidence of Design because blind forces are notoriously inconsistent and spasmodic. “By their fruits you shall know them…”

In a violent universe the odds against the survival of immensely complex living organisms are understandably immense. Amoeba and dinosaurs are incontestable evidence of the biological value of simplicity. Nor has the increase in complexity at the outset ever been explained. The astounding leap from inorganic molecules to purposeful entities remains a scientific mystery and a fundamental flaw in the Chance hypothesis.

And forth, I think many design fans won’t agree with you anyway.

Speculation leads nowhere.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Post #193: “You think like an agnostic. You just refuse to put that word after your name.”

Which is calling my insincere, deceitful and dishonest. No need to apologize, now please let’s leave it be .

Don’t forget that the big bang was still just an hypothesis at that time, so it was premature for Pius to say science “has succeeded in bearing witness”, and his linking it to “Fiat lux” was close to claiming science had proved God exists, which of course it hasn’t. I think that was probably Lemaître’s main concern.

Again, “insincere, deceitful and dishonest” are your words, not mine.

I’m not the only person who has found you confused. I prefer “confused” because your thought processes are frequently not consistent, and the fact that you are not aware of this shows you are confused. I could go back and make a documented case for this, but it would involve lots of tracking of your posts and I think the matter is too busy, not to mention petty, to be worth the bother. I will, as you request, leave it alone.

The “Fiat lux” of Pius XII was simply pointing to a consistency between the bible and the Big Bang, which was still being hotly disputed though it was, by 1951, more than a mere hypothesis since Hubble had already established the expanding universe through his telescope. The smoking pistol for the Big Bang was found in the early 60s when the echo of the Bang was detected throughout the universe. At that point Lemaitre had been completely vindicated, and should have no longer had any reason to be upset with Pius.

Certainly Pius, astute student of science that he was, would have known that science cannot prove the existence of God. Yet the Big Bang has made atheists decidedly uncomfortable since it was first proposed, because it argues an origin to the universe that is beyond the reach of science to explain. Hence the rush by atheists in later decades to find a Big Crunch or a Multiverse (both of these are No-god-of-the-gaps hypotheses) that would explain away the Big Bang as a true creation event.

I call that the No-god-of-the-gaps hypotheses.

Just to clarify something for my benefit: do you oppose the idea that the Big Bang was an event consistent with God’s creation of the universe?

Another question: Do you believe miracles are possible?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The well-tested theory relies on blind forces, not on chance.

How do you distinguish blind forces from chance?

One of us is confused

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In a violent universe the odds against the survival of immensely complex living organisms are understandably immense. Amoeba and dinosaurs are incontestable evidence of the biological value of simplicity. Nor has the increase in complexity at the outset ever been explained. **The astounding leap from inorganic molecules to purposeful entities remains a scientific mystery and a fundamental flaw in the Chance hypothesis. **
Speculation leads nowhere.

This is so true that Francis Crick, who discovered DNA, at first could not believe that the first single cell creature could have appeared on this planet without having been planted here by aliens.

Being an atheist, of course Crick preferred the Alien-of-the-gaps explanation to the God-of-the-gaps.

 

[tonyrey]

There are at least two compelling reasons to believe the Creator doesn’t micro-manage everything - as opposed to Calvin’s view that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God. He would be directly responsible for all the hideous aspects of life on earth and also for all the atrocities planned and implemented by human beings.

 Agreed. It doesn't follow that the Creator never intervenes.

Or that the laws of nature just happen to provide a solid foundation for the survival and development of living organisms and rational beings. The intellectual, moral, spiritual, social, political, aesthetic and technological achievements of humanity are overwhelming evidence that purposeless processes are an inadequate explanation of personal existence - unless we are incorrigible cynics who dismiss them as worthless…

 

[tonyrey]

In a violent universe the odds against the survival of immensely complex living organisms are understandably immense. Amoeba and dinosaurs are incontestable evidence of the biological value of simplicity. Nor has the increase in complexity at the outset ever been explained. **The astounding leap from inorganic molecules to purposeful entities remains a scientific mystery and a fundamental flaw in the Chance hypothesis. **

It is curious, Charlie, that there are freaks of nature which apparently will do anything to justify their hypothesis that they are freaks of nature! It makes one wonder how they happened to stumble upon such an accurate explanation… Perhaps they are the most freakish of the lot!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is curious, Charlie, that there are freaks of nature which apparently will do anything to justify their hypothesis that they are freaks of nature! It makes one wonder how they happened to stumble upon such an accurate explanation… Perhaps they are the most freakish of the lot!

That very first living organism must have been quite a freak on the planet. It didn’t know it was a freak. It took a few hundred million years for one of its descendants to realize how much of a freak it was. And we have all been freaking out ever since. :bigyikes:

 

[tonyrey]

*It is curious, Charlie, that there are freaks of nature which apparently will do anything to justify their hypothesis that they are freaks of nature! It makes one wonder how they happened to stumble upon such an accurate explanation… Perhaps they are the most freakish of the lot! *

Speak for yourself! Most of us don’t believe we are freaks because freaks couldn’t and wouldn’t realise they are freaks. They would be buffoons, numbskulls,chumps, suckers, clods, morons, ninnies, nutcases, boobies, crackpots, jackasses, dumbbells, dolts, goons, idiots, dopes, goofs, screwballs, clodpates, dingbats, clodhoppers, pea-brains, dullards, cretins, dummies, saps, mutts, loons, featherbrains, goofballs, noodles, screwballs, witlings, zombies, oafs, dorks, retards, jackasses, nincompoops, twits, nitwits,dimwits, halfwits, pin-heads,fatheads, blockheads, meatheads, boneheads, knuckleheads, muttonheads…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Speak for yourself! Most of us don’t believe we are freaks because freaks couldn’t and wouldn’t realise they are freaks. They would be buffoons, numbskulls,chumps, suckers, clods, morons, ninnies, nutcases, boobies, crackpots, jackasses, dumbbells, dolts, goons, idiots, dopes, goofs, screwballs, clodpates, dingbats, clodhoppers, pea-brains, dullards, cretins, dummies, saps, mutts, loons, featherbrains, goofballs, noodles, screwballs, witlings, zombies, oafs, dorks, retards, jackasses, nincompoops, twits, nitwits,dimwits, halfwits, pin-heads,fatheads, blockheads, meatheads, boneheads, knuckleheads, muttonheads…

Could you provide the Latin names - genus and species?

We need to at least present a front of being scientific, if we are going to be taken seriously discussing such matters.