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

[tonyrey]

When God created Adam and Eve and guided the proliferation of humanity, His design was flawed because He killed off all life except those chosen members of Noah’s Ark.
There are subsequent massacres of humanity that God performed because of defects.

Design flaws have repeatedly been corrected by God. Has the goal of human perfection been closely approximated so that there is no need for more massacres of humanity?

Only Fundamentalists believe everything in the Old Testament is literally true.

 

[inocente]

I am still baffled by your insistence that only theist “design fans” would be plagued by this problem when scientific-minded design fans whose pet theories concerning the nature or intelligibility of the design (as explained by some theory or other) would equally have been “disproved and replaced by other ‘tested’ explanations.”

Newton’s explanations regarding his view of the “design” of things was tested in his day and subsequently found wanting and supplanted by newer explanations which passed more stringent design tests.

The “gaps” are still there waiting to be filled by better explanations which will explain the design more completely and adequately.

Except I didn’t limit it only to theist design fans, I said and meant all design fans. The difference comes only after inventing design theories, when deist design fans don’t need to make their designer interfere periodically to demonstrate continued existence.

Newton wouldn’t agree with you. Descartes wanted science to be about deduction from a priori axioms, so that everything could be explained. Newton very much opposed this, and for instance says “I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not contrive hypotheses”. Science should be about first collecting evidence and then using inductive reasoning to draw conclusions from the data. Where there is not yet enough data to do so then no conclusion should be drawn. This of course is basically the modern scientific method.

Where Newton couldn’t make an inductive explanation he uses his faith that all things come from God, but I know of no case where he tries to use God as an alternative to induction (in the article someone posted a few days back, I think Tyson misrepresents Newton, although he did have mystic and at times plain weird religious views).

*If you want to attack straw men “design fans” who seek to claim design exists in nature without taking on the burden of attempting to explain anything at all about the nature of the design, then go ahead.

I would submit that those who do propose intelligent design seriously view that proposal as implying that the inherent design is, therefore, necessarily intelligible to some intelligence or other, including our own – I.e., the design can be understood precisely because intelligence underwrites it.*

If you can open a science textbook and see design in every theory on every page then fine with me. Or if an atheist can open a science textbook and not see design in any theory then at least that’s also consistent. What I object to is the inconsistency of only seeing God in some but not other, or only in what is not known and not in what is known.

*I think you are confusing “design fans” with brute factists who will, at some point, sooner rather than later, propose that there is no design and no ultimate explanation precisely because everything at ground just simply is and is without rhyme nor reason.

In other words, for them, God is nowhere precisely because the explanatory gap is all-encompassing – there exists no ultimate explanation precisely because there is no intelligent being underwriting “all of nature.” NO complete explanation, as far as they are concerned, is there to be had and we are just fooling ourselves by wrongly superimposing a parochial, misconstrued and limited appearance of design on what, at ground and in the final analysis, has none.*

No, as above, it’s the inconsistency I object to, such as linking to unconfirmed papers which appear to show evidence of design while ignoring all well-confirmed science in textbooks as if it doesn’t. Or fixing on physical constants as if they are inexplicably fine-tuned without realizing that it’s physicists who fine-tuned them, because it’s physicists who invented them to make the answers come out right until they’ve filled-in the gaps in their knowledge.

*This is the real dichotomy behind the issue. Either the universe is, indeed, designed and intelligible or it is not.

If it is, science and religion both have a role to play in deciphering the meaning implicit in it.

If not, then both will be shown to be nothing more than distractions from realizing the truth of things. The question will simply be a matter of how long will the illusion (or delusion) be sustained by one, the other or both.*

I think that’s a false dichotomy. For starters, we know that there are many things which appeared to be designed but are not. Surely a fine sunset is so beautiful it must be designed, but no, it isn’t. There are many examples where the appearance of design is just an illusion.

And also. If a fox finds the universe sufficiently intelligible to stalk rabbits, does that mean the universe must be intelligently designed? Newton point was that just because we’re baffled doesn’t make it right to contrive an hypothesis. Isaiah 55 says don’t try to limit God to human capabilities:

*“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.”*

 

[Solmyr]

If there is a God?

Since you are opening up that possibility, if I were you I’d be a little more temperate in my language.

It is you who will be in the dock, not God.

Does God hold a kangaroo court, where the accused is not allowed to speak?

How will you get those “few words” out when your mouth will be busy chawin’ on a whole lot of humble pie?

What are your qualifications for being a prophet? I find it very amusing to hear these kinds of “prophecies”: “Just you wait until you will actually meet God!” and "when you will be thrown into the eternal fire, you will change your mind, but by then it will be too late… "

 

[Solmyr]

If that were the case free will wouldn’t exist as far as moral decisions are concerned. Everyone would be a “do-gooder” and no one would be a criminal. There would be no merit in being noble or virtuous.

Now that is true. Just like the Virgin Mary and Jesus were not “noble” and “virtuous”, because they were created without sin and without concupiscence. And I would bet that many of others were without the desire (equivalent of “free will”) of committing atrocities and who never even contemplated them. But they had the “free will” of doing it, if they wanted to. A world filled with such people would be infinitely better than this one.

Anyone who is compelled to conform to moral principles is not genuinely committed and is simply acting like a zombie. It was an atheist, Sartre, who pointed that out.

You better read up on the word zombie. It is a re-animated corpse (like Lazarus, and… and…ya’ know…wink…) It is a robot which is assumed to be fully programmed without any freedom.

And pointing out your errors is not a lack of courtesy, it is a sign of helpfulness. Ah, and a question is not a personal remark. Elementary grammar my dear Watson.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think that’s a false dichotomy. For starters, we know that there are many things which appeared to be designed but are not. Surely a fine sunset is so beautiful it must be designed, but no, it isn’t. There are many examples where the appearance of design is just an illusion.

Ignoring several of your other points for now, let’s focus on this.

You claim a sunset is not designed, but in order to know THAT you have to know with certainty all of the metaphysical infrastructure behind what goes into bringing about a sunset and know, again with certainty, that there was no design or intention behind it.

Yet, how do you KNOW that with certainty since you admit there are limitations to what science can possibly say about reality in general, in particular, the metaphysical reality that exists behind the observable, physical reality we that we can say anything about to begin with?

At least be consistent and admit that we have no idea whether sunsets are, indeed, designed because we can only see (observe) that which is in front of the “observation” curtain and can only make tentative guesses about what lies behind it.

Yet, here you are drawing conclusions that sunsets are NOT designed based upon your limited ability to look at the superficial appearances of things that happen in front of that curtain.

It seems to me that it is you who are committing the logical error of drawing conclusions without proper warrant.

Perhaps you will, at this moment, take the time to acknowledge your error?

 

[Peter_Plato]

What are your qualifications for being a prophet? I find it very amusing to hear these kinds of “prophecies”: “Just you wait until you will actually meet God!” and "when you will be thrown into the eternal fire, you will change your mind, but by then it will be too late… "

Interesting how you reframe the entire point to make it appear that I was implying something more than I was. There was no prophecy intended. It was simply a case of wondering whether you would be capable of admitting the truth when you come to face it head on.

Again, there is no need to bring hell into the conversation. My question was whether you would be able, when the time comes, to see the whole truth and admit you were wrong.
Call it hypothetical wondering.

Might you be completely wrong on the matter and would you be able to admit that you are? Leave hell out of it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When God created Adam and Eve and guided the proliferation of humanity, His design was flawed because He killed off all life except those chosen members of Noah’s Ark.
There are subsequent massacres of humanity that God performed because of defects.

Design flaws have repeatedly been corrected by God. Has the goal of human perfection been closely approximated so that there is no need for more massacres of humanity?

Put simply, the freedom to do good or evil is not a design flaw.

God is also free to erase humans who have despoiled his design.

 

[Bradski]

God is also free to erase humans who have despoiled his design.

You mean punish, not erase. I can think of a lot of people who ‘despoiled his design’ and they weren’t removed. In fact, there are a lot around now. And they can even avoid punishment if they repent.

Funny system, if you ask me.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Does God hold a kangaroo court, where the accused is not allowed to speak?

I did not say you would not be allowed to speak.

What I certainly meant to say is that you are a classic case of opening mouth and inserting foot.

No sane person on trial goes into the courtroom shouting indictments against THE JUDGE.

 

[inocente]

Ignoring several of your other points for now, let’s focus on this.

You claim a sunset is not designed, but in order to know THAT you have to know with certainty all of the metaphysical infrastructure behind what goes into bringing about a sunset and know, again with certainty, that there was no design or intention behind it.

Yet, how do you KNOW that with certainty since you admit there are limitations to what science can possibly say about reality in general, in particular, the metaphysical reality that exists behind the observable, physical reality we that we can say anything about to begin with?

At least be consistent and admit that we have no idea whether sunsets are, indeed, designed because we can only see (observe) that which is in front of the “observation” curtain and can only make tentative guesses about what lies behind it.

Yet, here you are drawing conclusions that sunsets are NOT designed based upon your limited ability to look at the superficial appearances of things that happen in front of that curtain.

It seems to me that it is you who are committing the logical error of drawing conclusions without proper warrant.

Perhaps you will, at this moment, take the time to acknowledge your error?

Heh. The Earth rotates continuously, so there’s always a sunset in progress at some places between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles. 24 hours a day, every day there’s a sunset somewhere. Not just on this planet but on every rotating lump of rock in the entire solar system. And of course on all the lumps of rock orbiting billions of suns in this galaxy, and around billions of suns in billions of other galaxies. Are you claiming every one of those sunsets is intelligently designed, or just those you find aesthetically pleasing? Do they include those which some other people don’t find beautiful? Those which happen to win a majority vote? How about a sunset seen through the dust cloud from a nuclear bomb or forest fire, which is in the process of killing people even as its beauty is admired by others. Is that also intelligently designed?

I’d welcome your description of the coherent consistent “metaphysical framework” demonstrating design behind all that. Noting that if you claim they’re all intelligently designed, Tony may have something to say about those which result by chance from natural evil, and if you say only some are intelligently designed, you’ll need to explain the criteria for deciding which. Oh, and since the atmosphere is a prime example for chaos theory, please say how that fits in.

I take it that you, like me, would never claim 100% proof for anything based on experience since we both know that no a posteriori knowledge can ever be proven outright, so just argue what you think is most probably the case.

Or perhaps you will, at this moment, take the time to acknowledge your error?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You mean punish, not erase. I can think of a lot of people who ‘despoiled his design’ and they weren’t removed. In fact, there are a lot around now. And they can even avoid punishment if they repent.

Funny system, if you ask me.

Some would disagree that it’s funny. It actually works in a peculiar way.

“If you suffer, thank God! It is a sure sign that you are alive.” Elbert Hubbard

Not only that you are alive, but that you will strive to make the world a better place.

 

[Bradski]

Some would disagree that it’s funny. It actually works in a peculiar way.

Mmm. Quite peculiar.

If someone tortures my family, rapes my daughter, kills us all, then repents, we all get to be chums in heaven.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Mmm. Quite peculiar.

If someone tortures my family, rapes my daughter, kills us all, then repents, we all get to be chums in heaven.

Better than chums in hell!

 

[Solmyr]

There was no prophecy intended.

Well, you said that I will have my mouth full by chewing on humble pie. That is a “prediction”, aka “prophecy”. And I still don’t see how can you think that are qualified to make such a prediction.

It was simply a case of wondering whether you would be capable of admitting the truth when you come to face it head on.

If I would be in the position to find out that there is an afterlife, I would be ecstatically happy - at least until I found out more about it. Still, at that point the fundamental question is open. Is your picture of the afterlife correct or not? And that could be decided only by having a conversation with “God”. There are many questions which I would posit to that being who is supposed be the Christian God. And my final attitude would be contingent upon the answers. Just because he is allegedly more powerful than I, and can use his power to torture me forever is not an acceptable reason to “bend my knee” and start to worship him. He would have to earn love, respect and adoration.

But I am optimistic. For the time being none of you were able to present a coherent definition of God. Much less any evidence for the veracity of your assertions about God.

 

[Bradski]

Better than chums in hell!

No. It’s not.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But I am optimistic. For the time being none of you were able to present a **coherent definition **of God. Much less any evidence for the veracity of your assertions about God.

Well, this suggests writing an entire book, which I for one will not do in this forum.

But if you think the Christian definition of God is incoherent, why don’t you write a book explaining why?

Or maybe some of us would settle for just one aspect of the “incoherent” God.

Remember, by the way, that no Christian dares to assume that mysteries do not abound with respect to our God. I would not have it otherwise. For me it would be sign of an incoherent God that I was not baffled. It would be a sign that my God was not more intelligent than I am. And that seems to be what you are demanding. A God that can be absolutely and coherently comprehended without difficulty.

But I guess you know where that leads, don’t you? Putting yourself on the same plane of divinity that the Serpent offered Eve if she would just eat that worm-ridden apple.

Werhner von Braun, NASA engineer and scientist:

“Can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies, and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of God on the ground that they cannot conceive him?”

“My relationship with God is very personal. I think you can be on first name terms with Him, you know, and tell Him what your troubles are, and ask for help. I do it all the time and it works for me.”

 

[Solmyr]

No. It’s not.

Out of topic note. It was your 4096[sup]th[/sup] post. Which is 2[sup]12[/sup]… congratulations.

 

[Solmyr]

Well, this suggests writing an entire book, which I for one will not do in this forum.

But if you think the Christian definition of God is incoherent, why don’t you write a book explaining why?

Or maybe some of us would settle for just one aspect of the “incoherent” God.

Remember, by the way, that no Christian dares to assume that mysteries do not abound with respect to our God. I would not have it otherwise. For me it would be sign of an incoherent God that I was not baffled. It would be a sign that my God was not more intelligent than I am. And that seems to be what you are demanding. A God that can be absolutely and coherently comprehended without difficulty.

But I guess you know where that leads, don’t you? Putting yourself on the same plane of divinity that the Serpent offered Eve if she would just eat that worm-ridden apple.

You are mistaken. I am only asking for the allegedly coherent parts of the definition.

Please check my signature. I am only talking about your (general you) concept of God. And your definition of God is definitely NOT more intelligent than you. And that is fine.

To speak of “mysteries” is the implicit admission that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To speak of “mysteries” is the implicit admission that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Every scientists worth his salt speaks of mysteries.

Does no scientist know what he is talking about?

 

[Aloysium]

Does God hold a kangaroo court, where the accused is not allowed to speak? . . .

You are thinking and feeling right now. Whatever it is that compels you to post here, is a complicated vastness of past experiences, pleasant and painful situations, action and reaction, people behaving well and then behaving badly, those and others which a psychoanalyst might tease out to explain your behaviour and the emotional factors that contribute to your decision. All that stuff exists. God is the Font of existence - all moments in time, one Source in eternity. Personally and through Jesus Christ, God reveals Himself as being Love. He sees you as you are; there’s no hiding and no excuses are necessary since He knows and loves the reality of you. This stuff gets personal, there is nothing more personal, more intimate than our relationship with God, who knows how very hair and every thought that comes out of our head. That’s who you want as judge, someone who truly knows and loves you. But the judgement, as merciful as it can be rests on choice. In rejecting God, one rejects the mercy and the love, one condemns oneself to hell basically.