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

[Peter_Plato]

But we are animals: species Homo sapiens, genus homo, family hominidae, suborder haplorhini, order primates, class mammalia, clade synapsida, phylum chordata.

As I’ve never met a disembodied person or a philosophical zombie, I’d say there is no sharp distinction. As the CCC has it, the soul is the form of the body.

I see God’s plan more in terms of “do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth”. In other words we are active participants with a living God, not passive artifacts subject to a fate ordained by a long dead designer (which is how arguments for design strike me). How does your take on design escape from being cast in stone?

What appears rather confusing is that by claiming we ARE “animals: species Homo sapiens, genus homo, family hominidae, suborder haplorhini, order primates, class mammalia, clade synapsida, phylum chordata,” you are the one making the case that humans are, in fact, “passive artifacts” subject to the fate of being nothing more than animals.

How does one reconcile NOT “storing up for yourselves treasures on earth” with being merely animals, if we are fated to be merely animals? We would have no choice in the matter of what to store up and what not to – we are either like squirrels storing nuts, like carnivores hunting for our daily meat or like scavengers living off found remains.

It doesn’t make any sense to claim we are MERELY animals and yet we ought to make entirely free choices and NOT store up treasures as if mere animals had some hidden latent capacity to be unencumbered by the laws of physics, biology and genetics.

I would suppose that human beings are not merely animals but have or are something more which would permit us to live lives which transcend those of mere animals – I.e., that we are made in God’s Image, an image which far exceeds the innate “nature” of animals to be what they have been preordained by nature to be.

A leopard cannot change its spots, but according to John the Baptist AND Jesus, human beings can repent of what we have turned ourselves into and be reborn of the Spirit to bear fruit befitting our higher calling.

There is NO reason NOT to ascribe design and order to nature while, at the same time, invoking a higher calling – free moral agency and transcendence – where human beings are concerned.

I am still not sure why you want to insist it must be either one or the other and cannot be both, when our studies of physics, chemistry and biology presuppose ordered design, but psychology, sociology, and jurisprudence point towards an open architecture regarding the capacities of human beings.

Merely because you have difficulty reconciling one with the other does not mean it MUST be either one or the other as far as God’s creative power is concerned.

 

[Bradski]

Did someone say MERELY animals?

Back to your old tricks, Peter.

 

[inocente]

I’ve split this up as it’s got unwieldy. The science bit:

“our” begs the question.

Read the introduction in the crow experiment and you’ll see that in the abstract she’s not summarizing the results, but rather the current position in academia as a background for why it was performed.

There is* no*** appeal to authority in this study. It is based on evidence for which there is no known explanation:

Exactly, just as with all the other physical constants, the fine structure constant is a placeholder for a gap in our knowledge. Is God to be found only in what we can’t explain? “Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all”. Do you agree or disagree with that comment from Charles Coulson?

Do you reject their measurements? If so why? If not how do you explain the discrepancy with the view of the Establishment that the constants of nature are set in stone?

Like other physical constants, the value isn’t observed directly. If you look at the research paper, they compared wavelengths in atomic transitions between distant quasars and the lab, and found minute differences which they say could be due to “as yet undetected systematic effects”. The article you posted quotes Lennox Cowie, who is very experienced in this area:

“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: “That’s way beyond what we have here.” He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing”.

Would you explain why you’re so enthusiastic about statistically insignificant results which depend on sophisticated measurements and complex models, which the experimenters themselves say may be wrong, but won’t accept the clear and simple crow experiment?

 

[inocente]

The rest:

*Is there a physical reason for **everything ***we think and do? Do we differ from animals in that respect?

Do mathematicians write equations and poets write sonnets for physical reasons? I’d guess mainly no. Do dogs play and birds sing for the joy of it? Mostly I’d guess yes. Does this have anything to do with the OP? Guess you’ll tell me when you’re ready .

*But according to you there seems to be no essential difference between a human mind and an animal mind. It is only a question of the development of intelligence. Where does free will come into the picture?

No more than animals?*

There are physical differences (brainfacts.org/About-Neuroscience/Ask-an-Expert/Articles/2014/How-does-the-human-brain-differ-from-that-of-other-primates), and our much greater capabilities would seem largely due to scale. Whether they might emerge in any other species or we have some unique wow factor, I don’t know.

On free-will: sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140529142448.htm

In that case precisely how are we made in God’s image?

Precisely? To how many decimal places? A place to start might be UHDR Art. 1 - “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

So God has no plan for our life on earth, never intervenes or works miracles and is a passive Spectator of everything that happens on earth - which does indeed imply we are artifacts subject to a fate ordained by a Creator who takes not the slightest interest in human affairs and is concerned only with what happens in heaven?

Hang on, I asked you a question, “How does your take on design escape from being cast in stone?”. You show me your answer than I’ll show you mine .

 

[inocente]

What appears rather confusing is that by claiming we ARE “animals: species Homo sapiens, genus homo, family hominidae, suborder haplorhini, order primates, class mammalia, clade synapsida, phylum chordata,” you are the one making the case that humans are, in fact, “passive artifacts” subject to the fate of being nothing more than animals.

You seem to be coming at this from the angle that other animals are no more than machines.

Your intelligent designer must be crest-fallen.

*How does one reconcile NOT “storing up for yourselves treasures on earth” with being merely animals, if we are fated to be merely animals? We would have no choice in the matter of what to store up and what not to – we are either like squirrels storing nuts, like carnivores hunting for our daily meat or like scavengers living off found remains.

It doesn’t make any sense to claim we are MERELY animals and yet we ought to make entirely free choices and NOT store up treasures as if mere animals had some hidden latent capacity to be unencumbered by the laws of physics, biology and genetics.

I would suppose that human beings are not merely animals but have or are something more which would permit us to live lives which transcend those of mere animals – I.e., that we are made in God’s Image, an image which far exceeds the innate “nature” of animals to be what they have been preordained by nature to be.

A leopard cannot change its spots, but according to John the Baptist AND Jesus, human beings can repent of what we have turned ourselves into and be reborn of the Spirit to bear fruit befitting our higher calling.*

Sure, as animals go we’re right up there, yes siree, but what’s with this “mere animals”? It’s arguable that so many species are currently in danger of extinction precisely because of the “mere animals” attitude we inherited.

I’d say a corrective is needed. It may come as a shock to some, just as those who thought they were at the center of the universe were shocked, but another humbling is due.

*I am still not sure why you want to insist it must be either one or the other and cannot be both, when our studies of physics, chemistry and biology presuppose ordered design, but psychology, sociology, and jurisprudence point towards an open architecture regarding the capacities of human beings.

Merely because you have difficulty reconciling one with the other does not mean it MUST be either one or the other as far as God’s creative power is concerned.*

Your term “open architecture” is normally used to mean the opposite of proprietary architecture. A solo intelligent designer wouldn’t need an open architecture, it would only be useful to a polytheistic design group.

I see no evidence that “ordered design” is presupposed in the hard sciences. Some stuff is easy to predict, other stuff isn’t. It’s hard to derive a precise law of explosions or earthquakes for the same reason it’s hard to derive a precise law of romance - by observation we conclude they’re hard/impossible to predict.

There’s no difficulty whatsoever in reconciling that with reality. No dual systems, no proprietary design for some stuff and open architecture for other. One God, who is found in what we know not in what we don’t know. Nothing to reconcile. Done and dusted.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “How does your take on design escape from being cast in stone?”. . .

I wasn’t asked but here goes:
We exist in time, where God enjoins us to grow toward Him in eternity.
God being in time and transcendent, brought creation into existence and maintains its flow in every moment towards this end.
The design is in the tweaking of all parts of the system, all places and all times from His position outside of time, as the font of all time.
The design is in the totality, from an ontological (the being we have here and now in relation to the whole) as well as temporal beginning (personal and of the world).
The one God with us here is with all creation, all beings in all times and all places as their loving Source guiding us to do His will.

 

[tonyrey]

Is there a physical reason for **everything **we think and do? Do we differ from animals in that respect? Do mathematicians write equations and poets write sonnets for physical reasons? I’d guess mainly no. Do dogs play and birds sing for the joy of it? Mostly I’d guess yes. Does this have anything to do with the OP? Guess you’ll tell me when you’re ready.

It has everything to do with it because your belief that persons made in the image of God is inconsistent with your reduction of reason to intelligence shared with animals. The reference to dogs playing and birds singing for the joy of it strengthens the impression that in your scheme of things we are fundamentally no different from animals apart from our higher IQ.

But according to you there seems to be no essential difference between a human mind and an animal mind. It is only a question of the development of intelligence. Where does free will come into the picture?

No more than animals?

There are physical differences (brainfacts.org/About-Neur…other-primates), and our much greater capabilities would seem largely due to scale. Whether they might emerge in any other species or we have some unique wow factor, I don’t know.

Thank you for confirming that in your scheme of things we are fundamentally no different from animals apart from our higher IQ.

On free-will: sciencedaily.com/release…0529142448.htm

Thank you for confirming that in your scheme of things we are fundamentally no different from animals apart from our higher IQ.

In that case precisely how are we made in God’s image?

Precisely? To how many decimal places? A place to start might be UHDR Art. 1 - “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

We have no choice in your scheme of things…

So God has no plan for our life on earth, never intervenes or works miracles and is a passive Spectator of everything that happens on earth - which does indeed imply we are artifacts subject to a fate ordained by a Creator who takes not the slightest interest in human affairs and is concerned only with what happens in heaven?

Hang on, I asked you a question, “How does your take on design escape from being cast in stone?”. You show me your answer than I’ll show you mine .

God’s gift of free will enables us to shape our own destiny within the framework of Design which is evident in the order and beauty of nature which reveal His love for all His creatures. Why else did Jesus refer to the lilies in the field?

Do you believe God has no plan for our life on earth, never intervenes or works miracles and is a passive Spectator of everything that happens on earth - which does indeed imply we are artifacts subject to a fate ordained by a Creator who takes not the slightest interest in human affairs and is concerned only with what happens in heaven?

 

[tonyrey]

Read the introduction in the crow experiment and you’ll see that in the abstract she’s not summarizing the results, but rather the current position in academia as a background for why it was performed.

The present scientific Establishment is notorious for its secularism.

Exactly, just as with all the other physical constants, the fine structure constant is a placeholder for a gap in our knowledge. Is God to be found only in what we can’t explain? “Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all”. Do you agree or disagree with that comment from Charles Coulson?

God is ontologically present in everything that exists but that doesn’t prevent Him for intervening whenever He chooses to do so because He knows the laws of nature cannot cater for every contingency. Jesus told us He answers our prayers and demonstrated that miracles are not an illusion but a fact we should take into account.

 

[tonyrey]

Did someone say MERELY animals?

Back to your old tricks, Peter.

“merely” does not belittle animals but is a response to the belittling of persons as no more than animals implying that we don’t have free will or moral responsibility.

 

[tonyrey]

I wasn’t asked but here goes:
We exist in time, where God enjoins us to grow toward Him in eternity.
God being in time and transcendent, brought creation into existence and maintains its flow in every moment towards this end.
The design is in the tweaking of all parts of the system, all places and all times from His position outside of time, as the font of all time.
The design is in the totality, from an ontological (the being we have here and now in relation to the whole) as well as temporal beginning (personal and of the world).
The one God with us here is with all creation, all beings in all times and all places as their loving Source guiding us to do His will.

Unlike the God of the deists who regard Him as a remote Observer who never helps or inspires us.

 

[Aloysium]

“merely” does not belittle animals but is a response to the belittling of persons as no more than animals implying that we don’t have free will or moral responsibility.

When human beings, having spiritual soul with free will, behave like animals, they are in fact demonic.

 

[tonyrey]

When human beings, having spiritual soul with free will, behave like animals, they are in fact demonic.

Indeed. They are literally decadent because they have descended to a primitive, amoral level at which they are ruled by instinct and impulse rather than reason and conscience.

 

[inocente]

I wasn’t asked but here goes:
We exist in time, where God enjoins us to grow toward Him in eternity.
God being in time and transcendent, brought creation into existence and maintains its flow in every moment towards this end.
The design is in the tweaking of all parts of the system, all places and all times from His position outside of time, as the font of all time.
The design is in the totality, from an ontological (the being we have here and now in relation to the whole) as well as temporal beginning (personal and of the world).
The one God with us here is with all creation, all beings in all times and all places as their loving Source guiding us to do His will.

What I disagree with is that God makes a design and then, as you put it, tweaks the system. A theist who wants a designer cannot escape the tweaking phase, since without it the designer has left the scene and it becomes deism. The tweaking phase is logically necessary for a hands-on designer, but it implies the design is imperfect, otherwise the designer could have got it right first time (in IT the tweaking method is called prototyping). And you have to give the designer jobs to do, you have to have him intervene, to prove he’s still there and the universe isn’t just on autopilot. Logically, the designer must also be composite as there are two phases. As an argument, it’s inelegant and leaves all kinds of questions.

Whereas if you do away with the design phase and just accept that God as creator has things unfold and evolve, everything is much more simple and easier to defend.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Did someone say MERELY animals?

Back to your old tricks, Peter.

No trick, Brad.

Inocente’s argument depends upon the fact that human beings are in no relevant respects any different than animals. He pretty much insisted that in his post that followed mine.

What he doesn’t do (nor do you) is address the point of my post, which is whether or not having moral agency or the ability to transcend the causal order (free will) are “animal” characteristics – I would assume they are not – and in which respects these two features of humans render his argument null and void.

He wants to propose a God who creates in the present without addressing whether or not his God had a "design’ or plan for creation.

It would seem to me that the causal “givens” regarding animal and human biology were “pre-planned” intelligently, but the reality of free will and moral agency require the possibility of an “open” architecture with regard to God’s design such that his intervention at any moment is always a possibility.

Inocente always dodges this issue as if it doesn’t apply to his position. Yet he continually attempts to invoke the findings of science as if these are indisputable – implying some level of pre-ordination to creation – but then turns around and insists that God isn’t a designer, as if the two are entirely and self-evidently compatible.

What baffles me most, however, Is that I have suggested a number of times on these fora the idea that creation is likely more like an improvised performance than a watchmaker’s watch. That scenario would be entirely consistent with a pre-existing score from which God might from time to time decide to use his infinite talents to “wander” from the pre-ordained notations.

Yet, inocente want to argue that BOTH science is correct in noticing and drawing implications from the regularities in nature - but that God has no “design” and creates moment by moment as he sees fit.

I am merely pointing out that inocente has not explained how the two – God and science – ought to be reconciled if there exists no inherent “design” in nature but God freely creates at every moment in time.

Yes, we do know how members of rational rat packs would reconcile the two, but the point wasn’t addressed to members of species which respond to their environment impulsively or by instinct. It was addressed to a supposed member of a species who claims human existence was/is made in the image of God who apparently is free to change creation on a whim. THAT – I.e., being made in the Imago Dei – I assume, means something to inocente, though I am unclear what since he also wants to insist that we are merely “extended” animals. Again, I am not clear what that means.

The implication of that claim is that either all animals are more or less also made in the image of God or it means something else. Perhaps, inocente can explain.

 

[inocente]

It has everything to do with it because your belief that persons made in the image of God is inconsistent with your reduction of reason to intelligence shared with animals. The reference to dogs playing and birds singing for the joy of it strengthens the impression that in your scheme of things we are fundamentally no different from animals apart from our higher IQ.

Thank you for confirming that in your scheme of things we are fundamentally no different from animals apart from our higher IQ.

Thank you for confirming that in your scheme of things we are fundamentally no different from animals apart from our higher IQ.

We have no choice in your scheme of things…

I thought the Church teaches that you receive your soul at conception. Is that not sufficient for you?

God’s gift of free will enables us to shape our own destiny within the framework of Design which is evident in the order and beauty of nature which reveal His love for all His creatures. Why else did Jesus refer to the lilies in the field?

Let’s not take the sentence out of context. Jesus is teaching about having faith that God will provide (in both Matt and Luke, the NABRE heads it “Dependence on God” and the NIV “Do not worry”). In that context he chooses the flowers to illustrate his message. It makes no difference to his message whether the flowers are designed or evolved, for the message is “If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?”.

Do you believe God has no plan for our life on earth, never intervenes or works miracles and is a passive Spectator of everything that happens on earth - which does indeed imply we are artifacts subject to a fate ordained by a Creator who takes not the slightest interest in human affairs and is concerned only with what happens in heaven?

I think Jesus reveals part of God plan in the passage just discussed - God’s plan is have faith that He loves us (Matt 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-34).

Jesus reveals many things but nowhere in the NT have I seen Him reveal that God’s plan is we must find evidence God intervenes or we won’t be saved.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What I disagree with is that God makes a design and then, as you put it, tweaks the system. A theist who wants a designer cannot escape the tweaking phase, since without it the designer has left the scene and it becomes deism. The tweaking phase is logically necessary for a hands-on designer, but it implies the design is imperfect, otherwise the designer could have got it right first time (in IT the tweaking method is called prototyping). And you have to give the designer jobs to do, you have to have him intervene, to prove he’s still there and the universe isn’t just on autopilot. Logically, the designer must also be composite as there are two phases. As an argument, it’s inelegant and leaves all kinds of questions.

Whereas if you do away with the design phase and just accept that God as creator has things unfold and evolve, everything is much more simple and easier to defend.

Actually, the bold-faced statement is logically incorrect. The “tweaking phase” does not imply the design is imperfect, unless you limit yourself to speaking of 19th century industrial design. I see no need to limit what God does to such a “type.”

What it could also mean is that part of what God did add into HIS initial design was the capacity of some created aspects of the design to exhibit free will choices and transcend the causal (designed) order by so doing. That leaves open the possibility of God “tweaking” the causal order in response to the freely made choices of those agents as he wills and determines after the fact.

There is no “imperfection” to be appealed to here. The real issue, for you, is that your limited view of what “design” means impales you on its built-in limitations.

I sense that a reference to a dictionary definition will be forthcoming as if the writers of dictionaries are also the definers of reality and that God MUST restrict his working to what has been pre-ordained by those writers.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Whereas if you do away with the design phase and just accept that God as creator has things unfold and evolve, everything is much more simple and easier to defend.

Yes, in the sense that everything is explained away and needs no explanation because GODDIDIT becomes the explanation.

Wasn’t it you who was drumming on about the God of the Gaps argument?

Doesn’t “everything is much more simple and easier to defend” simply mean that “everything” is a gap that does NOT need explaining BECAUSE God is the creator of everything that unfolds and evolves as he sees fit and we don’t need to explain any of it? Ergo, “everything is much more simple and easier to defend” in a “we don’t need to explain it” happy-gappy kind of way.

Yes, that would be simple AND easy, I suppose.

 

[inocente]

The present scientific Establishment is notorious for its secularism.

Yes, God’s plan is that men and women of all faiths and ethnicities come together to work in harmony.

How good and how pleasant it is,
when brothers dwell together as one!

Like fine oil on the head,
running down upon the beard,
Upon the beard of Aaron,
upon the collar of his robe.

Like dew of Hermon coming down
upon the mountains of Zion.
There the Lord has decreed a blessing,
life for evermore!

Ps. 133

God is ontologically present in everything that exists but that doesn’t prevent Him for intervening whenever He chooses to do so because He knows the laws of nature cannot cater for every contingency. Jesus told us He answers our prayers and demonstrated that miracles are not an illusion but a fact we should take into account.

Not sure you answered my question, which was do you agree or disagree with Charles Coulson that “Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all”?

 

[Aloysium]

What I disagree with is that God makes a design and then, as you put it, tweaks the system. A theist who wants a designer cannot escape the tweaking phase, since without it the designer has left the scene and it becomes deism. The tweaking phase is logically necessary for a hands-on designer, but it implies the design is imperfect, otherwise the designer could have got it right first time (in IT the tweaking method is called prototyping). And you have to give the designer jobs to do, you have to have him intervene, to prove he’s still there and the universe isn’t just on autopilot. Logically, the designer must also be composite as there are two phases. As an argument, it’s inelegant and leaves all kinds of questions.

Whereas if you do away with the design phase and just accept that God as creator has things unfold and evolve, everything is much more simple and easier to defend.

God is with us in time, but is transcendent, tweaking all parts of the system in all times and all places from His seat in eternity, outside of time. It isn’t a matter of “getting it wrong” and “getting it right”, but rather universal interaction between God and what is in time. This involves all that is, but specifically us, we who go astray and need our Shepherd to guide us back. At any rate the tweaking, although it occurs in time, arises from outside time. Ultimately, as “designed” in each and every moment through God’s relationship with all moments, the universe as the Beatific Vision is perfect.

I lost you when you got into the IT analogy, which fails almost immediately because programming is about control and getting things to do what you want. Life is about love.

In have no intention of defending any position that leads me astray. I am here to grow in faith. Whatever facilitates that process and brings me closer to God is really all that matters.

There is no “design phase” as far as I can see other than that which covers all creation, all times and all places. All beings have their specific attributes which define and govern their relationships with everything else. It all arises from and is centred around God the Father. Of these natural tendencies and interactions, He as their Cause, permits what He wills to permit.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, God’s plan is that men and women of all faiths and ethnicities come together to work in harmony.

I suppose that would include those whose “faith” is to behead others on beaches so that not only fine oil but streams of blood run down upon their beards. Yes, how “good and pleasant” it is for men and women of all ethnicities and beliefs to execute those beliefs upon others even against the wills of those others.

Tell me, do you think forced “submission” to what is purported to be “God’s will” is also an integral part of “God’s plan?”

It is God’s plan, I suppose, for some to kill others even while God’s command is that they do not. Perhaps those faiths which are completely contrary to the commands of God are also part of God’s plan?

No explanatory gaps there, I guess.