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

[edwest2]

I agree that we should not make gap claims in general. That cuts both ways. If a particular question about the natural world remains stubbornly open (unsolved), we can’t tell whether that’s because:

1. we’re just ignorant and the explanation is there and waiting - albeit maybe indefinitely - to be discovered through science,

or

1. the explanation really isn’t there to be discovered through science, no matter how long/hard we try and no matter how much our descendants might discover and learn, because the open question really is, inherently and fundamentally, an unfathomable mystery.

Since we can’t know which is the case, we have plenty of motivation to keep trying to learn what we can through science. We can’t necessarily predict scientific success beforehand, as in naturalism of the gaps. We can’t necessarily predict scientific failure beforehand, as in God of the gaps.

We just keep searching for scientific explanations knowing that when we succeed as scientists in finding natural explanations, we are not thereby detracting from any truly valid store of “evidence” for God. When a scientist humbly, faithfully and doggedly keeps searching for natural explanations, she/he is not attacking God or God’s church.

That last sentence was not part of my question.

The topic is intelligent design and supposed design flaws. If things only look designed or appear to have design built into them, as in a biological unit like human DNA has various parts, the question simply suggests that the parts and their interaction may or may not be caused by an intelligence. Assuming it is designed, what about supposed design flaws?

I realize, and know, people with expertise in some areas. Here, as in other discussions about biology, there is data that can be known and interpreted primarily by highly trained professionals. The information given to the general public often is given in a simplified form.

For example, if the public understands “intelligent design” as involving some intelligent agency, what is it? Aliens? God? Don’t know?

Ed

 

[cfauster]

There being one truth, science and religious teachings should be consistent.

I believe we have had this discussion before regarding creation.

As a molecular geneticist you are basically bound to what the discipline holds true.
One of its tenets would be that the way we observe matter interacting now, is the way it has always interacted. The laws which describe the nature and behaviour of matter do not change.
Another has to do with the current understanding of matter, which for some constitutes reality (materialism).
Thus, we do not need to consider the Hand that moves creation, a hand that might do otherwise according to its will.
By focusing on and delving into constituent parts we believe we are discovering more about what it is. ***What we find is not considered to be merely the decomposed remains of a whole being, but rather a truer reality. ***With this view comes the abolition of the person.

You and I are whole persons, whom we can understand as a matter-spirit unity. We are separate and have our individual relationship with the world and the Source of this relational capacity. Our being, which is given to us, reaches out into the world through perception, understanding and action. This is all one in the reality of the person who exists in relation to what is other. Intellectually, the person disappears when we reduce him/her to decomposable parts - molecular and ultimately subatomic.

Genesis speaks to all ages in a language that is clear to those who can hear. It reveals the basics of our creation, what we need to know in our dialogue with God. I am not going to get into it here, but I do know that science a thousand years from now will have a very different understanding of who we are and where we come from.

I agree with most everything in the above nicely-articulated statement. You make many very important points!

I’ve highlighted (bold italics) one sentence that puzzles me. I’m not sure what you mean, whether it is supposed to describe science done well or poorly, whether it is supposed to describe science that is compatible or incompatible with faith in the Creator.
Perhaps you are describing what you think scientists typically do, or perhaps even must do. In any case, what I consider to be science done well might differ from that sentence, if I’m understanding that sentence at all. Furthermore, the science described by that sentence seems incompatible with faith in God. Perhaps some scientists fit that description, but not all.

 

[Bradski]

For example, if the public understands “intelligent design” as involving some intelligent agency, what is it? Aliens? God? Don’t know?

Ed

Don’t be naiive, Ed. ID is an invention of the Discovery Institute. And is creationism wearing a false nose and shades, trying to sneak in the back door.

 

[cfauster]

That last sentence was not part of my question.
Ed

Ed, I did not mean that you or anyone else posting in this thread thinks science is an attack on God or God’s church.

What I wrote is simply part of what it means to me to learn more about nature while also believing in God, because it’s important to me to be an integrated person, with aspects of my one life that are distinct yet not contradictory.

So, here is part of your question:
“and another may learn more about nature but believes in God. Correct?”

And here is my sentence:
“When a scientist humbly, faithfully and doggedly keeps searching for natural explanations, she/he is not attacking God or God’s church.”

 

[cfauster]

Don’t be naiive, Ed. ID is an invention of the Discovery Institute. And is creationism wearing a false nose and shades, trying to sneak in the back door.

In a way, it’s unfortunate that religious views should even bear on whether ID is or is not science. ID - if presented as science - is problematic for reasons quite unrelated to personal religious or philosophical beliefs.

I’ve come to value good science regardless of the motivations of those doing the science. Typically, good science always involves curiosity, honesty, and a few more qualities shared by all good scientists. But indeed, some scientists have been motivated in part to find natural answers to replace previous thinking that involved supernatural agency. Other scientists have been motivated in part because they view understanding how nature works, even in purely natural terms, as adding to their appreciation of the wisdom and goodness of the Creator. As far as the science itself, I’ve seen good science done by scientists with both of those contrasting motivations, as well as by scientists with neither of those as part of their motivation.

 

[Aloysium]

By focusing on and delving into constituent parts we believe we are discovering more about what it is. What we find is not considered to be merely the decomposed remains of a whole being, but rather a truer reality.

To clarify:

You and I are whole persons, a unity which thinks, feels, perceives and acts. This person who we are, sustains physical damage when (s)he stubs his/her toe. We feel pain if our nervous sytem is intact and because we exist and existence involves suffering and ultimately nonexistence. We are a unity of matter-spirit.

If and when we focus solely on the constituent physical parts, ignoring or denying that which is spirit, we may think we are gaining a better understanding of what is a person, but we are likely getting farther from the truth. What the study of decomposed remains (organs such as the brain, intranuclear material, etc) demostrate is the complexity of the “dust” that constitutes our presence in time and space. What animates the dust is the spirit and together they form one entity, very simple in its unity but very, very complex in its existence continuous with the material universe. As we think and act, a myriad of biochemical reactions occur within the one being who we each are. Although the interaction of material substances describes the physical structure and dynamics of who we are, it is not a truer reality than what is happening here as we engage in discourse. This is it, and it is pretty freaking amazing!

 

[cfauster]

Thanks.

Speaking for myself and several other scientists, we would agree that what we can learn via science about the human body is limited, and is not “truer” than understandings that go beyond science to include spirit and whole person.

To get at the “truest” scientific truth, any kind of science must recognize its limits. And, some (but not all) valid scientific approaches involve fragmenting and reducing in order to analyze parts of a whole. Good scientists never forget, however, that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, so what is learned via reductionist-style experiments (say cells in culture dishes, or with cadavers rather than living bodies) cannot tell the whole story, not even the whole purely scientific story told in purely natural terms, about the entire living being, let alone populations of beings and ecosystems of populations.

Add to that your valid point that even the most holistic scientific description cannot give a metaphysically holistic picture, because there’s more to reality than what science can study.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Don’t be naiive, Ed. ID is an invention of the Discovery Institute. And is creationism wearing a false nose and shades, trying to sneak in the back door.

Yes, the Discovery Institute has an interesting and eminent pedigree going back several centuries.

Nicolaus Copernicus: Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System
“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler: Laws of Planetary Motions
“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei: Laws of Dynamics
“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton: Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

 

[edwest2]

Yes, the Discovery Institute has an interesting and eminent pedigree going back several centuries.

Nicolaus Copernicus: Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System
“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler: Laws of Planetary Motions
“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei: Laws of Dynamics
“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton: Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Thank you. I only believe the Church has the fullness of truth. Somehow, this alliance, if you will, of science and religion changed in the late 19th Century.

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thank you. I only believe the Church has the fullness of truth. Somehow, this alliance, if you will, of science and religion changed in the late 19th Century.

Ed

No doubt as a result of Darwin’s disciples wrongly promoting the dis-alliance.

 

[tonyrey]

Couldn’t agree more (with csfauster’s last post).

What those who point to a gap in our knowledge and state that ‘God did that’ are doing is proclaiming a supernatural answer to the problem. That is, that science will never be able to solve it, because science can only deal with the natural.

In effect, they are saying: ‘It’s a waste of time to continue looking. You can stop now’.

Wouldn’t have got us very far, would it…

And, in passing, who are those who make that call? Can’t get a solution to super-string theory? Should we stop now? Have we got as far as we can go? Who do we ask? Who says that the next step is God?

The greatest gap in scientific knowledge is its metascientific foundation. It doesn’t explain our intelligence or the intelligibility of the universe. Science certainly doesn’t explain itself…

 

[tonyrey]

… So all the reports of miracles worked by the Apostles and saints are false? Jesus was misleading everyone when He promised that our prayers would be answered? Our loving Father in heaven does absolutely nothing to prevent or mitigate suffering? The Beatitudes apply solely to what happens after we die? As far as this life is concerned God leaves us entirely to our own devices? Why doesn’t He ever help us when we are in desperate need?

Is the prayer given to us by Our Lord concerned solely with our spiritual needs?

“Our Father, Who art in heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name;
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.”

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t be naiive, Ed. ID is an invention of the Discovery Institute. And is creationism wearing a false nose and shades, trying to sneak in the back door.

The Design argument was introduced by the preSocratic philosopher Anaxagoras and developed by Plato, Aristotle and subsequent philosophers.

 

[Aloysium]

There is order, that we can discern. That order is “within” us, “is” who we are in the formation of this very experience. That order which we seek to understand, is not limited to the workings of our physical components. It includes this understanding. What, or should I say who, is that is that anyway? And, then there is you and me. How is this possible?

 

[inocente]

If I were now where I was some three or four decades ago, I’d be able to translate it for you. With the great strides that have been made in developing the jargon, it’s pretty much gibberish to me as well.

I agree with you that there is not that much new in the research. However, the implications could be huge. I would imagine that living in Europe you might have an awareness of the controversy around genetically modified products. The research suggests that there is more going on than has been considered. If you mess up on a code, the consequences are very limited. Someone messes up on genetic codes, the repercussions could be felt possibly throughout the world. There’s a lot of anxiety about these sorts of things, not all of it unfounded.

The paper reveals the awesomeness of God’s design. It proves nothing if one does not already know of His plan in creation.

“Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all.” - Charles Coulson.

Isn’t God to be found in all knowledge? If not, why not? And as this paper is “pretty much gibberish” to you, I’ve moved to ask which part of the gibberish revealed to you “the awesomeness of God’s design”?

That said, you appear to be speculating that the “implications could be huge”. Sure, playing with genetic codes is dangerous, and sure, it would be foolhardy for anyone playing with genes to assume she knows perfectly what’s going on, when research is still far from complete.

But surely that’s an argument for being more skeptical, not less.

*If you look at the " media hype", it is going in the other direction. I’m generally up on the news, especially that which pertains to scientific matters. I never heard of this study. There seems to have been very little media coverage. This isn’t the Higgs boson, but it may have deserved a bit more than it got. Interestingly, it’s getting stuff like “delusion” and “hype” - what?? Research is a slow process and likely people are pursuing the findings. However, knowing that it chases the politics and the money, hearing from you that there is no published follow up to some very interesting and relevant findings, is somewhat disconcerting.

I wasn’t addressing the Design discussion but rather your approach to science. I thought it important to show how off the mark you were in your response to the link. You were obviously trying to discredit it. This may be how the world works, but not how science should in its quest for the truth.
*

The paper has been cited in others, there doesn’t appear to be any conspiracy of silence.

I’d agree that trying to use unconfirmed results to bolster arguments is building on sand. Without any specialist knowledge, it makes me leery to only find skeptical reports in the 30 months since the initial press release. What makes me doubly leery is that design fans rarely seem to cite well-established research rather than papers which have not yet had time to be confirmed or falsified, such as this one and the paper on the fine-structure constant earlier (another paper which is pretty much gibberish to all us non-specialists).

*There is such a thing as constructive criticism. I was attempting to reflect back an error that I saw. You post here of your own accord. I would never presume to judge you morally. If I gave a student a “D” way back when, it was never personal.

The comment about “atheistic” logic, so well demonstrated on this subforum, was tongue-in-cheek. While needing a , I think it was appropriate. Because you found nothing, you cannot assume there was nothing to it. There are many factors involved involved in why you do not find something on a Google search, the least of which is that there is nothing there.*

I think you cannot somehow make a sin not a sin by adding a smilie. We’re only shooting the breeze here, no one will die, no civilization will topple. So if I gave a student a “D” way back when, it was never personal.

 

[inocente]

Being inextricably united rules out the arbitrary separation of the spiritual and biological aspects of our nature. Modern medicine, for example, is holistic…

Then you appear to agree there’s no need to claim any essential difference in the biology of humans to other animals.

How else could the soul emerge? When would it appear?

I see it a little differently. The following masterpiece is in the Library of Congress, as it’s the first recording of a musician playing a tune without ever actually playing the tune. To me he makes a true statement about the relationship of body and soul.

Body & Soul, Coleman Hawkins (1939) - youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7J4PgrRsY

God is not the subject. It is the origin and development of living beings that is the issue. There is no reason why Creation should not have multiple causes. The all or nothing approach is simplistic:

There’s one God, so Creation has one cause.

Your disparaging comment is out of place in what should be an objective discussion…

Except I wasn’t being disparaging.

inocente;13941149:

As I said, God has intervened in my life so no to all the above, not based on theories but on experience.

So all the reports of miracles worked by the Apostles and saints are false? Jesus was misleading everyone when He promised that our prayers would be answered? Our loving Father in heaven does absolutely nothing to prevent or mitigate suffering? The Beatitudes apply solely to what happens after we die? As far as this life is concerned God leaves us entirely to our own devices? Why doesn’t He ever help us when we are in desperate need?

Errr, look again at your list. Did you really want me to answer yes to “1. Do you believe God never intervenes?” or yes to “6. Never gives strength to those who face temptation?”? Would you answer differently and say yes, you believe God never intervenes?

 

[tonyrey]

There is order, that we can discern. That order is “within” us, “is” who we are in the formation of this very experience. That order which we seek to understand, is not limited to the workings of our physical components. It includes this understanding. What, or should I say who, is that is that anyway? And, then there is you and me. How is this possible?

Only God knows if there is a reason but it is possible there are ultimate facts which are intrinsically inexplicable. Otherwise there would apparently be an infinite regress of explanations!

 

[AndrewW94]

Sorry to “hijack” the thread, but the simple answer to the original question is this:

There is no greatest integer. For any integer you choose I can find a greater one. Similarly, there is no best world. For any world God creates He could create a better one. So complaining that improvement ___ could be applied to this world is irrelevant because no matter which world God created such a complaint would be valid. But that doesn’t mean that God should not create any world.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Design argument was introduced by the preSocratic philosopher Anaxagoras and developed by Plato, Aristotle and subsequent philosophers.

We could add the Roman Cicero to the list.

“When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?” (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34)

 

[Aloysium]

“Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all.” - Charles Coulson.

Isn’t God to be found in all knowledge? If not, why not? And as this paper is “pretty much gibberish” to you, I’ve moved to ask which part of the gibberish revealed to you “the awesomeness of God’s design”?

That said, you appear to be speculating that the “implications could be huge”. Sure, playing with genetic codes is dangerous, and sure, it would be foolhardy for anyone playing with genes to assume she knows perfectly what’s going on, when research is still far from complete.

But surely that’s an argument for being more skeptical, not less.

The paper has been cited in others, there doesn’t appear to be any conspiracy of silence.

I’d agree that trying to use unconfirmed results to bolster arguments is building on sand. Without any specialist knowledge, it makes me leery to only find skeptical reports in the 30 months since the initial press release. What makes me doubly leery is that design fans rarely seem to cite well-established research rather than papers which have not yet had time to be confirmed or falsified, such as this one and the paper on the fine-structure constant earlier (another paper which is pretty much gibberish to all us non-specialists).

I think you cannot somehow make a sin not a sin by adding a smilie. We’re only shooting the breeze here, no one will die, no civilization will topple. So if I gave a student a “D” way back when, it was never personal.

I’m bored hearing you talk about me and that paper. Nothing to see here folks; let’s move on.