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

[GEddie]

The laws of nature are inflexible in the sense that they do not adapt to the needs of individuals but they seem miraculous in all the grace and beauty they have produced.

Sorry, amigo, an argument from subjectivity isn’t much of an argument at all.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Solmyr]

There has to be a limit to miracles which are not “magical tricks” but suspension of the laws of nature by their Creator.

Aha… “there has to be a limit” says tony. So what is that “limit”? Surely you know that? One a day? One a century? One every 2000 years?

:clapping: The principle of inadequate explanation seems to be the hallmark of materialism.

I can hardly wait to see how “goddidit” will be offered as an “adequate explanation” - supported with suitable, rational line of arguments, of course. Come on tony, the suspense is “killing” me… Does “goddidit” explain “itself”?

 

[tonyrey]

Aha… “there has to be a limit” says tony. So what is that “limit”? Surely you know that? One a day? One a century? One every 2000 years?

I can hardly wait to see how “goddidit” will be offered as an “adequate explanation” - supported with suitable, rational line of arguments, of course. Come on tony, the suspense is “killing” me… Does “goddidit” explain “itself”?

Sarcasm is an inadequate substitute for rational argument:

1. The laws of nature are not infallible or changeable yet** the plasticity of biological organisms is undeniable**. That is where a mechanistic explanation fails miserably because it ignores the teleological aspect of the biosphere.
2. If God constantly intervened to prevent disasters it would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly, predictable world. There has to be a limit to miracles which are not “magical tricks” but suspension of the laws of nature by their Creator. The most notorious instance of magic is the materialist’s derivation of intelligence from mindless molecules…
3. There is no evidence that the physical laws of the universe appeared out of the blue for no reason whatsoever.
4. The materialist’s implicit claim that everything is unreasonable is self-contradictory.
5. It is inevitable that the laws of nature do not adapt to the needs of individuals.

6.** “A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere even the careless, the most stupid thinker.” **- David Hume

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry, amigo, an argument from subjectivity isn’t much of an argument at all.

ICXC NIKA

“The laws of nature are inflexible in the sense that they do not adapt to the needs of individuals” is an objective fact. To deny they have produced grace and beauty overlooks the superiority and elegance of living organisms to man-made mechanistic devices. Beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder but a reflection of the harmony in Creation - an example of which is the golden ratio.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Aha… “there has to be a limit” says tony. So what is that “limit”? Surely you know that? One a day? One a century? One every 2000 years?

I can hardly wait to see how “goddidit” will be offered as an “adequate explanation” - supported with suitable, rational line of arguments, of course. Come on tony, the suspense is “killing” me… Does “goddidit” explain “itself”?

The implication of Aristotelian-Thomistic (AT) metaphysics is that to have an adequate explanation in any sense of the word and at all, the Uncaused Cause (AKA Complete Explanation for anything and everything) would, logically speaking, have to explain itself.

It would still, however, have to be an explanation for both itself and all else, which means essentially that claiming “Goddidit” still requires an answer to “How did God do it?” because it is, after all, explanations that are being sought.

Now the problem, it seems to me, is that a judge and jury will permit “Joedidit,” but just as in the game of Clue, that answer doesn’t suffice, it must still be shown how Joe did it – the “means” along with whether he had the motive and opportunity. Now it seems to me that offering an intentional agent as an explanation doesn’t reduce the burden of proof but vastly increases it. With natural causes, an answer to the “How?” is all that is required (provide an explanation of the efficient cause with a supporting outline of material causation as a preamble,) but to offer an agent as perpetrator means that all of Aristotle’s Four Causes must be explicated – material, efficient, formal and final – just as is required in courts of law.

J. Warner Wallace moves quite convincingly in that direction in his book *God’s Crime Scene, *where he uses his skills as a cold-case detective to show that, just like the burden which falls on any detective, in order to prove a perpetrator is the explanation or cause of any outcome whatsoever it is necessary to “move outside the room” to sustain a claim that natural causes don’t suffice to explain what has occurred.

Might be worth a read – I mean if the suspense is really “killing you.” But, of course, it isn’t since you already have cobbled together an “explanation” which isn’t really a complete one but excludes, by definition, any non-natural possibilities. You are the detective who insists the “crime” was merely a natural event justified by insisting that only natural explanations – those found in the room – will be permitted as far as you are concerned.

 

[GEddie]

“The laws of nature are inflexible in the sense that they do not adapt to the needs of individuals” is an objective fact. To deny they have produced grace and beauty overlooks the superiority and elegance of living organisms to man-made mechanistic devices. Beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder but a reflection of the harmony in Creation - an example of which is the golden ratio.

“Grace and beauty” are subjective.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

“Grace and beauty” are subjective.

ICXC NIKA

“Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these…” - Jesus

 

[tonyrey]

The implication of Aristotelian-Thomistic (AT) metaphysics is that to have an adequate explanation in any sense of the word and at all, the Uncaused Cause (AKA Complete Explanation for anything and everything) would, logically speaking, have to explain itself.

It would still, however, have to be an explanation for both itself and all else, which means essentially that claiming “Goddidit” still requires an answer to “How did God do it?” because it is, after all, explanations that are being sought.

Now the problem, it seems to me, is that a judge and jury will permit “Joedidit,” but just as in the game of Clue, that answer doesn’t suffice, it must still be shown how Joe did it – the “means” along with whether he had the motive and opportunity. Now it seems to me that offering an intentional agent as an explanation doesn’t reduce the burden of proof but vastly increases it. With natural causes, an answer to the “How?” is all that is required (provide an explanation of the efficient cause with a supporting outline of material causation as a preamble,) but to offer an agent as perpetrator means that all of Aristotle’s Four Causes must be explicated – material, efficient, formal and final – just as is required in courts of law.

J. Warner Wallace moves quite convincingly in that direction in his book *God’s Crime Scene, *where he uses his skills as a cold-case detective to show that, just like the burden which falls on any detective, in order to prove a perpetrator is the explanation or cause of any outcome whatsoever it is necessary to “move outside the room” to sustain a claim that natural causes don’t suffice to explain what has occurred.

Might be worth a read – I mean if the suspense is really “killing you.” But, of course, it isn’t since you already have cobbled together an “explanation” which isn’t really a complete one but excludes, by definition, any non-natural possibilities. You are the detective who insists the “crime” was merely a natural event justified by insisting that only natural explanations – those found in the room – will be permitted as far as you are concerned.

As if “nature” is self-explanatory…

 

[GEddie]

“Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these…” - Jesus

If you try to meet hideousness with poetry, you will fail. Yes, a lot of Scripture is poetry.

“Beauty” is altogether out of place on a page describing how a little boy got eaten by an alligator, or in a conversation about a young man dying of muscular dystrophy. No amount of poetry can mitigate such hideousness.

The attempt to meet hideousness with poetry is one reason why the faith is repeatedly fumbled against the post-Christian culture.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Richca]

Disabilities in people and animals, diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s, as well as other things which seem to be design flaws.

If he could not create the world without these things, he is not all powerful. Or would He want suffering in the world? Then He would be evil.

How can we reconcile these seemingly flaws of design with possible intelligent design by God?

(Sorry if this is in the wrong sub forum, mods please move it if it is!)

At least as far as human beings go, God did create a world for the first man and woman, namely, Adam and Eve, without the evils you mention as well as others not mentioned. Adam and Eve were created in the state of original holiness and justice and their were not subject to suffering, disease, and death. The Garden of Eden is also called the Garden of Paradise for a reason. These gifts from God Adam and Eve would have passed on to their children if they had not sinned. The fact is that Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s commandment to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and in consequence lost the preternatural and supernatural gifts God endowed them with at their creation. Because of their sin, the original sin, Adam and Eve pass on to us their descendants and children a fallen human nature now subject to death, disease, suffering, and all manners of evils. Harmony with creation itself is broken, “creation has become alien and hostile to man…creation is now subject to its bondage to decay” (CCC#400). The scripture says “For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world” (Wisdom 2: 23-24). Punishing wrongdoing is not an evil but a good for it pertains to God’s justice. And God’s chastisements on us in this life are meant for our eternal good. The scripture says “Whoever spares the rod hates the child, but whoever loves will apply discipline” (Proverbs 13: 24).

 

[Aloysium]

If you try to meet hideousness with poetry, you will fail. Yes, a lot of Scripture is poetry.

“Beauty” is altogether out of place on a page describing how a little boy got eaten by an alligator, or in a conversation about a young man dying of muscular dystrophy. No amount of poetry can mitigate such hideousness.

The attempt to meet hideousness with poetry is one reason why the faith is repeatedly fumbled against the post-Christian culture.

ICXC NIKA

I’m not sure what you are trying to say. It sounds like you contend that beauty is subjective while hideousness is not. There is a truth to beauty. That truth is not imagined nor projected, but rather discerned. The confusion would seem to lie in those who do not appreciate the Christian vision of reality, a vision that takes one to its Source. A world without God is flawed wherever one looks; with Love as its Centre, it is good.

 

[magnet]

As deduced by physicists and seismologists, Earth was formed billions of year ago when clouds of matter swirling around the Sun, began to congeal. Life was probably not existent in this primordial mass because there was no liquid water. As this primordial gas and dust began to cool, gradually superhot rocks began to be formed. Earth started being segregated into the following components:

1. Inner core (Solid Iron-Nickel Alloy)
2. Outer core (Liquid iron mixed with nickel and trace amounts of lighter elements)
3. Lower Mantle (Silicate High Viscosity)
4. Upper Mantle (Silicate Low Viscosity)
5. Crust
   a. Oceanic Crust (solid basalt, gabbro, and diabase)
   b. Continental Crust (solid granite)

It was only when the earth cooled down enough so that water could exist in liquid form that life could become possible. Even then, all the oxygen was bound up in water and minerals. Methane (CH4) was the primary gas available for life, but without oxygen, environment conducible to life was quite restricted. Somewhere during the eons of time, the chlorobacteria came along, and behold,the first organisms to make use of the sun’s energy made possible the proliferation of microscopic life.

At what point can we say that God created this?

 

[Solmyr]

Sarcasm is an inadequate substitute for rational argument:

The presentation of the questions was a tad playful, but the questions themselves are serious.

**You **said: There has to be a limit to miracles which are not “magical tricks” but suspension of the laws of nature by their Creator. So it is a perfectly rational question to ask:

1. How many “MPD”-s (miracles per day) are allowed?
2. Who decides this “limit”?
3. How is “goddidit” a rational explanation for anything?

You need to answer these questions before asking your own. It was your assertion that God is somehow “limited” to “X” number of miracles per day or per century. I have no idea what “god” are you referring to, but it is not the “God of Christianity”, who is “sovereign”, who cannot be limited by anything external. To make another “semi-sarcastic” remark: “I hope you know the word ‘sovereign’…” Hint: it is not a old British coin (worth one pound).

And a suggestion: “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

And a suggestion: “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”

As deduced by physicists and seismologists, Earth was formed billions of year ago when clouds of matter swirling around the Sun, began to congeal. Life was probably not existent in this primordial mass because there was no liquid water. As this primordial gas and dust began to cool, gradually superhot rocks began to be formed.

Another suggestion: If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the lower mantle.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So it is a perfectly rational question to ask:

1. How many “MPD”-s (miracles per day) are allowed?
2. Who decides this “limit”?
3. How is “goddidit” a rational explanation for anything?

And it is perfectly rational to answer:

1. That would depend on those capable of carrying out any MPDs at all. Obviously, it is not up to those incapable of any whatsoever to decide. That would mean you and I are incapable of determining an allowable MPD rate, no?
2. I would submit the question should be left to those capable of any miracles whatsoever. Thus, I am content to declare my incapacity to answer. Do you claim any qualifications for determining a proper MPD rate? We are all ears.
3. No one claimed it was. Just as in legal cases, “Joe did it,” is not a rational explanation for an event until how and why Joe did it are explicated. These would be left to forensic sciences and medical psychologists to explore. Clearly, to disallow the answer “Joe did it,” on the grounds that the question cannot be answered by science proper will incapacitate the legal system with regard to determining the culpability of perpetrators.

As far as I can tell, all of science endeavors to uncover HOW Goddidit and all of theology endeavors to uncover WHY Goddidit. I don’t see a conflict, merely a challenge to integrate the two.

 

[Solmyr]

And it is perfectly rational to answer:

1. That would depend on those capable of carrying out any MPDs at all. Obviously, it is not up to those incapable of any whatsoever to decide. That would mean you and I are incapable of determining an allowable MPD rate, no?
2. I would submit the question should be left to those capable of any miracles whatsoever. Thus, I am content to declare my incapacity to answer. Do you claim any qualifications for determining a proper MPD rate? We are all ears.

You should present these questions to tony. He was the one who presented an “upper limit” for allowable “miracles” .

1. No one claimed it was. Just as in legal cases, “Joe did it,” is not a rational explanation for an event until how and why Joe did it are explicated. These would be left to forensic sciences and medical psychologists to explore. Clearly, to disallow the answer “Joe did it,” on the grounds that the question cannot be answered by science proper will incapacitate the legal system with regard to determining the culpability of perpetrators.

As far as I can tell, all of science endeavors to uncover HOW Goddidit and all of theology endeavors to uncover WHY Goddidit. I don’t see a conflict, merely a challenge to integrate the two.

That is your problem. Explain HOW the snapping of God’s imaginary fingers would bring forth a “universe” from “nothing”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You should present these questions to tony. He was the one who presented an “upper limit” for allowable “miracles” .

That is your problem. Explain HOW the snapping of God’s imaginary fingers would bring forth a “universe” from “nothing”.

Clearly, bringing forth the universe from nothing is the work of super intelligence monkeying with physics. HOW is a question being answered in more and more detail every day by minds much bigger than you and me, Sol. But they seem to have not gotten very far.

“Snapping of God’s imaginary fingers” must be a euphemism for even the brightest minds in physics cannot yet explain in much detail HOW. Perhaps “imaginary fingers” is a clumsy expression – “metaphorical fingers” would be more apt since the “magic” of creation still has those brightest minds shaking their heads in astonishment and wonder.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . At what point can we say that God created this?

God created the universe in time (Let’s call them God-days.) and this is reflected in how the universe “evolved” from supposedly a dimensionless point, to the universe as it is.

And, it is maintained in existence, with each moment brought into being from the Eternal. This universe contains us doing what we are doing here and now, discussing and trying to understand. It seems to me that the complexity of this very simple unity that is this conversation between two persons, would require a vastly superior mind to exist.

Tossing around descriptions about what happened in the formation of this amazing universe is like talking about the words happening here without considering the minds that contain them, implying that they are not needed.

That’s the bare minimum of what God is. I think it outstanding that people could contemplate His nonexistence. Pause and reflect for a moment; how is all this possible? I’m sure people will jabber on.

 

[inocente]

1. The laws of nature are not infallible or changeable yet** the plasticity of biological organisms is undeniable**.

The only way gravity could make a mistake is to forget to pull. Never happened. The laws of nature are infallible.

Plus, ask any designer or artist, rules are essential to variety. Try writing a piece of music without any laws of harmony and rhythm, you just end up with noise.

*That is where a mechanistic explanation fails miserably because it ignores the teleological aspect of the biosphere.

1. If God constantly intervened to prevent disasters it would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly, predictable world. There has to be a limit to miracles which are not “magical tricks” but suspension of the laws of nature by their Creator.*

Leaving aside other issues, you make the teleological claim that one of the designer’s purposes is an orderly, predictable world, then you have the designer undermine that purpose by intervening unpredictably. Are there any teleological claims which are not self-defeating?

Beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder but a reflection of the harmony in Creation - an example of which is the golden ratio.

There’s no conclusive evidence that we do prefer the golden ratio. For those who do, it may only be a learned cultural response - they’re taught to prefer it and so not unsurprisingly, they do. But even if there was evidence that all humans prefer the golden ratio, it can be explained simply that we evolved to be attracted to healthy specimens, and they show the symmetry and simple growth patterns which the ratio expresses.

Yet another example of nature being self-explanatory…

As if “nature” is self-explanatory…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The laws of nature are infallible. . . rules are essential to variety. Try writing a piece of music without any laws of harmony and rhythm, you just end up with noise. . . you make the teleological claim that one of the designer’s purposes is an orderly, predictable world, then you have the designer undermine that purpose by intervening unpredictably. Are there any teleological claims which are not self-defeating? There’s no conclusive evidence that we do prefer the golden ratio. For those who do, it may only be a learned cultural response - they’re taught to prefer it and so not unsurprisingly, they do. But even if there was evidence that all humans prefer the golden ratio, it can be explained simply that we evolved to be attracted to healthy specimens, and they show the symmetry and simple growth patterns which the ratio expresses. . .

Elaborating in my own fashion, not disagreeing or agreeing, for that matter, I would say that the beauty of a thing is a truth, which can be known. We understand through the grace of the Holy Spirit, aspects of the Divine. We know things of this world as part of our created “evolutionary” mind, moulded by experience and cultural processes.

I wouldn’t say I '“know the laws of nature are infallible”. Laws I understand to be human constructs that describe the structure which underlies nature and govern our actions in relation to it. It is a sort of built-in faith, reinforced culturally that there exists an order which can be known.

The golden ratio as other forms of beauty would be something to which life aspires. That is why deviations from it constitutes ill health. You look at creatures of the darkness, and amazing as they are, they tend to be visually ugly. (As is what is hidden within us, btw.) The instincts of life too, are guided by God towards beauty.

There’s a deer fly buzzing around me at the moment. It sort of feels like one of those flaws people are talking about. Clearly, it’s annoying behaviour is adaptive. I am annoyed, so I swat it. It annoys so that when the dive-bombing ceases, this relentless bug can get away with biting me while I bask in the peace. Why God would create flies and mosquitoes seems to be one of those mysteries. If one’s into fishing and bird watching, one may be appreciative. But, in these along with many, many more aspects of reality that have nothing to do with me, we are likely to find the reasons.