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

[Aloysium]

I have not denied this. I said the universe is a blind watchmaker. It didn’t just come into existence with all its potency fully actualized. “Physical reality” has naturally evolved into what it is according to its nature and at the same time God is actualizing and sustaining its potency.

This can be interpreted in different ways depending on what is meant by “watchmaker”, “evolved” and “naturally”. Nature is a given, ever-changing system of interrelated components whose interactions underlie the change. Those physical components composed of simpler material being, as you say, did not bring themselves into existence but were created and maintained in existence.

I am not sure the phrasing is correct, maybe I shouldn’t be on philosophy forums at all, but the complexity of material forms is not the result of the actualization of potencies resident in simpler components. The human body is not the natural outcome of an animal nature which includes organ systems. Animals are not the natural outcome of unicellular creatures, as those are not merely a consequence of organic molecular interactions or even more simple processes as the subatomic. All this can be conceptualized as the direct manifestation of God’s word ontologically and in time, a layering of more complex wholes comprised of those which are more basic.

So we would appear to disagree as to the blindness of the process, who or what is the maker, and how the complexity of each simple being such as the person has come to be (“evolved” is way too ambiguous a term for my liking). I believe that we would agree that the potency lies in God’s will. He has chosen physical reality to be as it is; He could choose it to be otherwise.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The jury is in:

Robert Jastrow, Astronomer

“If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

Francis Crick, Biochemist Nobel Prize

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

Antony Flew, Formerly Atheist Philosopher

“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

 

[tonyrey]

Physical reality cannot actualize itself, and neither can it create intellect or intention. I am not convinced in anyway shape or form that intellect or intention is a physical process, especially intention since there is no reason to think that a natural physical process would intend anything since nature is naturally acting toward an end whereas intention is acting toward knowledge of an end. It makes rational sense to think that an intellect is the first cause of intellects.

Of course, this is not a fully fledged argument, i am simply stating my philosophical position on the matter.

“nature is **naturally **acting toward an end” begs the question! Is there any reason why natural processes are purposeful? It is not self-evident that inorganic structures **had to **acquire a will to survive.

 

[IWantGod]

“nature is **naturally **acting toward an end” begs the question! Is there any reason why natural processes are purposeful? It is not self-evident that inorganic structures **had to **acquire a will to survive.

Things are behaving according to their nature. Its not like a mechanic building a car. This what is what i mean.

God is not building the universe in the same sense that a mechanic would build a car.

That things act toward a potential end according to their nature implies that there is a design by which things behave. Things are not arbitrary. There is definitely a law by which things move and evolve which implies that there is a purpose behind it. But this is a very different kind of design. It is teleological not anti-natural evolution.

 

[tonyrey]

Things are behaving according to their nature. Its not like a mechanic building a car. This what is what i mean.

God is not building the universe in the same sense that a mechanic would build a car.

That things act toward a potential end according to their nature implies that there is a design by which things behave. Things are not arbitrary. There is definitely a law by which things move and evolve which implies that there is a purpose behind it. But this is a very different kind of design. It is teleological not anti-natural evolution.

Then we are on the same wavelength! That view seems a far cry from “the concept of a blind watchmaker”.

 

[IWantGod]

Then we are on the same wavelength! That view seems a far cry from “the concept of a blind watchmaker”.

But despite the concept being the Brain Child of an atheist Richard Dawkins, the concept itself does not rule out the possibility of there being a teleology in nature, rather it rules out the possibility of God being a mechanic in so far as physical behavior is concerned. The point is people need to stop being negative about the idea of natural-evolution. Biological evolution is like a blind watch-maker and there is a teleology in its activity at the same time. It being true does not disprove the idea of there being a purpose behind the universe even if Richard Dawkins thinks so.

The idea that natural evolution disproves purpose is a red herring.

 

[tonyrey]

But despite the concept being the Brain Child of an atheist Richard Dawkins, the concept itself does not rule out the possibility of there being a teleology in nature, rather it rules out the possibility of God being a mechanic in so far as physical behavior is concerned. The point is people need to stop being negative about the idea of natural-evolution. Biological evolution is like a blind watch-maker and there is a teleology in its activity at the same time. It being true does not disprove the idea of there being a purpose behind the universe even if Richard Dawkins thinks so.

The idea that natural evolution disproves purpose is a red herring.

If development is** solely **due to fortuitous combinations of molecules and random mutations it is not teleological but mechanistic. It is attributed by atheists to the mindless Goddess, Chance, rather than the God of theists.

 

[IWantGod]

If development is** solely **due to fortuitous combinations of molecules and random mutations it is not teleological but mechanistic. It is attributed by atheists to the mindless Goddess, Chance, rather than the God of theists.

It is teleological. Random mutations doesn’t change the fact that mutations tend to occur in relation to the environment. And Dna acts to the particular end that results in the production of an organism. So it is not completely random and neither do i think Random is meant to mean by chance; it is not by chance that mutations occur; they have a tendency to occur, otherwise they would not have occurred as much as they have. And there is chance involved. Otherwise you are arguing that God is a mechanic.

 

[magnet]

It is teleological. Random mutations doesn’t change the fact that mutations tend to occur in relation to the environment. And Dna acts to the particular end that results in the production of an organism. So it is not completely random and neither do i think Random is meant to mean by chance; it is not by chance that mutations occur; they have a tendency to occur, otherwise they would not have occurred as much as they have. And there is chance involved. Otherwise you are arguing that God is a mechanic.

We are more likely to see the results of successful mutation but not unsuccessful ones. Unsuccessful mutations usually are not propagated, especially if the mutation discourages reproduction. So if we see results after success has been achieved, it appears that this was by design. Those offspring that could reproduce are successful, not by design, but because of chance. In the goal of survival, an offspring will perish if not adapted to its environment. If the environment changes and the species cannot mutate fast enough, it may become extinct.

There are many cases in evolutionary biology where species evolved themselves into corners. Why would becoming blind as creatures in caves do be an advantage?

 

[IWantGod]

We are more likely to see the results of successful mutation but not unsuccessful ones. Unsuccessful mutations usually are not propagated, especially if the mutation discourages reproduction. So if we see results after success has been achieved, it appears that this was by design.

I don’t know what you mean by design.

Those offspring that could reproduce are successful, not by design, but because of chance.

The parts required for reproduction may have come together by chance, but it is not by chance that an organism is reproductive. Its not by chance that Dna is a possibility. It is not by chance that you need a brain to think. You are speaking about the processes by which these qualities emerge.

In the goal of survival.

That is completely an utterly meaningless if there is no purpose behind the universe. Physical processes are not trying to survive. There just objectively meaningless processes.

If the environment changes and the species cannot mutate fast enough, it may become extinct.

So a mutation just so happens to occur that relates to the environment in which an organism finds itself. And I’m suppose to not be surprised by this because other mutations don’t work out so well.

There are many cases in evolutionary biology where species evolved themselves into corners. Why would becoming blind as creatures in caves do be an advantage?

Why would it be a disadvantage? By what standard? The fact of the matter is organisms adapt to their environments; there is clearly a relationship and that relationship is not arbitrary or chance or random.

 

[Bradski]

So a mutation just so happens to occur that relates to the environment in which an organism finds itself. And I’m suppose to not be surprised by this because other mutations don’t work out so well.

You have it the wrong way around. Organisms don’t appear in suitable environments. It’s that the organisms that weren’t suitable for the environment die out. And leave, unsurprisingly, organisms that do suit that environment. That best fit the environment. ‘The fittest’ means just that – the survival of those who best fit. Fit for purpose. That’s what the word used to mean in Darwin’s time. Then people look at how it all seems to fit together wonderfully well and assume design.

Why would it be a disadvantage? By what standard? The fact of the matter is organisms adapt to their environments; there is clearly a relationship and that relationship is not arbitrary or chance or random.

As regards cave dwelling fish, for example, losing their eyes, you must remember that every organ that an animal possesses comes at a price. It has to be fed with blood, you need extra nutrients, particular elements, more energy. The slightest advantage is maintained and if losing your sight is no disadvantage then evolution will remove it. Use it or lose it has never been truer.

 

[magnet]

I saw a nature program on PBS showing how certain types of animals pair up with others. For example, pistol shrimp are blind and pair up with sighted gobi fishes who act as lookouts. These shrimp are excellent house keepers but gobi’s are slobs. Other kinds of shrimp are known to have excellent eyesight.

Maybe when the gobies and pistol shrimp started living together, the shrimp had no more need for eyes.

 

[tweedlealice]

You are right in quoting Isaiah, Alice, because God is the Ultimate Cause of everything but He was not certainly not the** direct **cause of natural evil. St Thomas pointed out that it is incidental, i.e. “happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else”. In such an immensely complex universe wityh countless creatures and countless events occurring at every moment many mishaps and misfortunes are inevitable. We can’t have everything for nothing!
Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage…

Hi
For every action. There is an equal and something reaction
The devil didn’t always maker do it
We live in a natural world and a supernatural world
If we stayed in Eden w love and obedience given to God
We would only know sunshine. God would keep the flowers alive if no rain? Would we have known we were happy without sadness. Once a month. Eve would get PMS. ADAM would know misery right along with Eve. He’d be calling God after two days.

 

[tonyrey]

Hi
For every action. There is an equal and something reaction
The devil didn’t always maker do it
We live in a natural world and a supernatural world
If we stayed in Eden w love and obedience given to God
We would only know sunshine. God would keep the flowers alive if no rain? Would we have known we were happy without sadness. Once a month. Eve would get PMS. ADAM would know misery right along with Eve. He’d be calling God after two days.

Indeed. Cosmic justice is an undeniable fact.

 

[tonyrey]

I saw a nature program on PBS showing how certain types of animals pair up with others. For example, pistol shrimp are blind and pair up with sighted gobi fishes who act as lookouts. These shrimp are excellent house keepers but gobi’s are slobs. Other kinds of shrimp are known to have excellent eyesight.

Maybe when the gobies and pistol shrimp started living together, the shrimp had no more need for eyes.

Despite its shortcomings the wisdom of nature hasn’t been surpassed by human inventions.

 

[tonyrey]

So a mutation just so happens to occur that relates to the environment in which an organism finds itself. And I’m suppose to not be surprised by this because other mutations don’t work out so well.

A more fundamental issue is the suitability of the environment for which Chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation…

Why would it be a disadvantage? By what standard? The fact of the matter is organisms adapt to their environments; there is clearly a relationship and that relationship is not arbitrary or chance or random.

As regards cave dwelling fish, for example, losing their eyes, you must remember that every organ that an animal possesses comes at a price. It has to be fed with blood, you need extra nutrients, particular elements, more energy. The slightest advantage is maintained and if losing your sight is no disadvantage then evolution will remove it. Use it or lose it has never been truer.

In other words cosmic justice is a fact rather than an illusion! Chaos has never been the primary state of affairs nor could it possibly produce rational beings like you and I, Brad.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know what you mean by design.

The parts required for reproduction may have come together by chance, but it is not by chance that an organism is reproductive. Its not by chance that Dna is a possibility. It is not by chance that you need a brain to think. You are speaking about the processes by which these qualities emerge.

That is completely an utterly meaningless if there is no purpose behind the universe. Physical processes are not trying to survive. There just objectively meaningless processes.

So a mutation just so happens to occur that relates to the environment in which an organism finds itself. And I’m suppose to not be surprised by this because other mutations don’t work out so well.

Why would it be a disadvantage? By what standard? The fact of the matter is organisms adapt to their environments; there is clearly a relationship and that relationship is not arbitrary or chance or random.

The key word is " relationship" which presupposes order rather than chaos…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A more fundamental issue is the suitability of the environment for which Chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation…

Indeed, the environment of the universe as a whole is that it is suited to the development of life. It might very well not have been, and all the more likely so if hydrogen had not from the start to be the dominant element throughout the universe.

Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen; water is required for life.

According to Niels Bohr Physicist, Nobel Prize Winner

“Scripture and Nature agree in this, that all things were covered with water; how and when this aspect began, and how long it lasted, Nature says not, Scripture relates. That there was a watery fluid, however, at a time when animals and plants were not yet to be found, and that the fluid covered all things, is proved by the strata of the higher mountains, free from all heterogeneous material. And the form of these strata bears witness to the presence of a fluid, while the substance bears witness to the absence of heterogeneous bodies. But the similarity of matter and form in the strata of mountains which are different and distant from each other, proves that the fluid was universal.”

Genesis 1: 9: “Then God said: Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear. And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared.”

 

[Bradski]

A more fundamental issue is the suitability of the environment for which Chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation…

You still have it the wrong way around. The environment isn’t suitable for us…we have evolved to suit the environment.

 

[kdbueno]

Rest assured that predestination is really according to grace.