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

[tonyrey]

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

The laws of nature are fallible in the sense that they sometimes do more harm than good.

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.

In this context variety leads to natural disasters of which gravity is a prominent cause.

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?

God intervenes so rarely in an obvious fashion that the world continues to be orderly and predictable. That is why there has to be a limit to the number of recognisable miracles but a loving Father minimises His creatures’ suffering in imperceptible ways. We cannot know how much pain others feel.

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.

Jesus took it for granted we can understand the supernatural significance of beauty when it is pointed out to us.

Yet another example of nature being self-explanatory…

As if “nature” is self-explanatory…

Nature as a whole is not self-explanatory…

 

[magnet]

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.

Why would God create parasites? Why would God create creatures that torment others? There is no beauty in a tapeworm, a tick, a mange mite, a scabies mite, a chigger, a bed bug, a head louse, a flea, a horse fly, or a mosquito. Excrement has no beauty. Why would God have allowed it drop to the ground and be an eyesore as well as an offensive substance?

Does a hyena, wart hog or wild boar have beauty? How about a horned toad?

Non-harmonious music was created by Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Berg. Atonal music is performed as if it were a desirable style. Is it beautiful?

 

[tonyrey]

Sarcasm is an inadequate substitute for rational argument:

Sarcasm has no place in an intelligent discussion even if its author thinks it’s funny because a valid point doesn’t need superfluous support. It merely distracts attention from the topic…

 

[Solmyr]

Sarcasm has no place in an intelligent discussion even if its author thinks it’s funny because a valid point doesn’t need superfluous support. It merely distracts attention from the topic…

It is not “superfluous”, because it points out the weakness of the argument. A sarcastic remark is only problematic if it is incorrect.

If a simple remark prevents you from concentrating on the topic… then you need to work on your cognitive skills. In the meantime:

1. How many “miracles” are allowed in a day?
2. Who decides this “limit”?
3. How is “goddidit” a rational explanation for anything?

You have no answer to these questions. Period.

 

[Aloysium]

Why would God create parasites? Why would God create creatures that torment others? There is no beauty in a tapeworm, a tick, a mange mite, a scabies mite, a chigger, a bed bug, a head louse, a flea, a horse fly, or a mosquito. Excrement has no beauty. Why would God have allowed it drop to the ground and be an eyesore as well as an offensive substance?

Does a hyena, wart hog or wild boar have beauty? How about a horned toad?

Non-harmonious music was created by Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Berg. Atonal music is performed as if it were a desirable style. Is it beautiful?

You missed my point in the quote you took out of context.

Interestingly, I had a horned toad as a pet when I was about twelve, as part of a large terrarium. I thought it was wondrous.

Excrement is a smorgasbord of fine delicate tastes for flies.

In other words, the universe is not centred around you. There is a beauty that can be seen everywhere, once you decide to look for it.

As to Avante garde music, it is not meant to be beautiful and pleasing to audiences. It is too intellectual and has no heart for my tastes. It seems pretentious actually. The disharmonic collection of clangs and unjoyous noise is a reflection of atheistic existentialism, nihilism and the anti-art of the Dada movement. It is supposed to be bad, an attempt to rebel against the good. Maybe something you might be trying to do?

 

[tonyrey]

Why would God create parasites? Why would God create creatures that torment others? There is no beauty in a tapeworm, a tick, a mange mite, a scabies mite, a chigger, a bed bug, a head louse, a flea, a horse fly, or a mosquito. Excrement has no beauty. Why would God have allowed it drop to the ground and be an eyesore as well as an offensive substance?

Does a hyena, wart hog or wild boar have beauty? How about a horned toad?

Non-harmonious music was created by Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Berg. Atonal music is performed as if it were a desirable style. Is it beautiful?

It is easy to have an unrealistic view of the world because we live in an artificial man-made environment in which ease, comfort and luxury are the main priorities. Yet the essence of life is physical, intellectual and spiritual development which necessitates overcoming hardships and challenges of every description. In the words of John Keats it is “a vale of soul-making”.

It is fascinating to see how nothing is wasted in nature. Within a few minutes excrement is removed by dung beetles which can bury an amount 250 times heavier than themselves in one night. These lowly creatures are the only known insects who orient themselves by the Milky Way. How did they learn how to do this? Our inability to answer this question should humble us and make us appreciate the wonders of life rather than criticise its weaknesses.

 

[magnet]

It is fascinating to see how nothing is wasted in nature. Within a few minutes excrement is removed by dung beetles which can bury an amount 250 times heavier than themselves in one night. These lowly creatures are the only known insects who orient themselves by the Milky Way. How did they learn how to do this? Our inability to answer this question should humble us and make us appreciate the wonders of life rather than criticise its weaknesses.

Which came first, the dung beetle or dung? Since dung is a universal product of vertebrates, but dung beetles have only limited presence, I would guess that dung was here first. There are uses for dried dung such as serving as fuel for cooking. It also is an excellent medium for horse flies. Here again, what came first, horse flies and fire builders, or dung? Dung is also valuable as a soil builder, since soil microbes love the stuff. My guess is that all these latter uses for dung came along much later than the product.

I suppose it is a similar situation of what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Did God create dung, and then come up with a use for the stuff as an afterthought?

 

[tonyrey]

It is fascinating to see how nothing is wasted in nature. Within a few minutes excrement is removed by dung beetles which can bury an amount 250 times heavier than themselves in one night. These lowly creatures are the only known insects who orient themselves by the Milky Way. How did they learn how to do this? Our inability to answer this question should humble us and make us appreciate the wonders of life rather than criticise its weaknesses.

Dung presupposes the existence of** purposeful** living organisms that cannot be explained by **purposeless **molecules.

 

[tonyrey]

If God constantly

 

[inocente]

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.

That’s why I think they are by definition infallible.

OED - physical law - a theoretical statement inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.

OED - infallible - incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. Never failing; always effective.

The golden ratio as other forms of beauty would be something to which life aspires. That is why deviations from it constitutes ill health.

Not sure what you mean by “to which life aspires”. Some cells multiply by the Fibonacci series, and dividing two terms of the series at the limit gives the golden ratio. So I think we just associate such patterns with healthy growth. But we only like classical beauty up to a point, we like to fiddle with the rules, hence the fashion industry. And there’s a lot of mysticism and numerology around the golden section.

 

[inocente]

The laws of nature are fallible in the sense that they sometimes do more harm than good.

In this context variety leads to natural disasters of which gravity is a prominent cause.

I think the word you want is amoral, not infallible.

Natural disasters are not flaws - try making an omelette without breaking eggs.

God intervenes so rarely in an obvious fashion that the world continues to be orderly and predictable.

By definition a law of nature must apply in all places at all times. Not just most of the time but always, or it’s not a law. In the same way, a teleological claim must surely apply in all places at all times or it fails.

*Jesus took it for granted we can understand the supernatural significance of beauty when it is pointed out to us. *

He isn’t making an aside about aesthetics, he is using an example for his theme.

Nature as a whole is not self-explanatory…

The intelligent designer used to be the explanation for the earth being at the center of the cosmos, but got pushed back. And the intelligent designer used to be the explanation for the species, but got pushed back again. Now it looks as if the intelligent designer has been pushed all the way back to only being an explanation for the big bang, until that gets explained naturally. Methinks there’s a trend to what theologians call god-of-the-gaps.

 

[inocente]

Non-harmonious music was created by Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Berg. Atonal music is performed as if it were a desirable style. Is it beautiful?

There are still rules though, rules which don’t let the musicians play out of tune and all at once, rules played out in the score. But yes, some find it beautiful and others don’t - beauty is in the ear of the beholder.

 

[tonyrey]

The laws of nature are fallible in the sense that they sometimes do more harm than good.

The laws of nature are fallible because they are intended to support life but they** fail** to do so when they harm and kill living beings.

Natural disasters are not flaws - try making an omelette without breaking eggs.

They are undoubtedly flaws from the point of view of the victims.

God intervenes so rarely in an obvious fashion that the world continues to be orderly and predictable.

By definition a law of nature must apply in all places at all times. Not just most of the time but always, or it’s not a law. In the same way, a teleological claim must surely apply in all places at all times or it fails.

In that case Jesus didn’t work miracles.

Jesus took it for granted we can understand the supernatural significance of beauty when it is pointed out to us.

He isn’t making an aside about aesthetics, he is using an example for his theme.

Jesus was pointing out the power of God in creating beauty which man cannot emulate.

Nature as a whole

is not self-explanatory….
The intelligent designer used to be the explanation for the earth being at the center of the cosmos, but got pushed back. And the intelligent designer used to be the explanation for the species, but got pushed back again. Now it looks as if the intelligent designer has been pushed all the way back to only being an explanation for the big bang, until that gets explained naturally. Methinks there’s a trend to what theologians call god-of-the-gaps.

There is also a trend to science-of-the-gaps by those who believe it can in principle explain everything - including humanity…

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/multiquote_off.gif​

 

[tonyrey]

“supposed” flaws do not need to be reconciled…

 

[magnet]

The laws of nature are fallible because they are intended to support life but they fail to do so when they harm and kill living beings.

Why are the laws of nature judged to be fallible in relation to life? They were in existence before vertebrate life appeared. Life evolved in presence of the laws of nature. In that respect, life became successful in the presence of the laws of nature. So can’t we say that the laws of nature are infallible?

When a meteorite strikes earth and extinguishes dinosaurs, how is that in any way related to support or ruin of life? After the extinction of dinosaurs, mammals began to proliferate. So can we say this event was in support of mammalian life at the expense of reptilian life?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why are the laws of nature judged to be fallible in relation to life? They were in existence before vertebrate life appeared. Life evolved in presence of the laws of nature. In that respect, life became successful in the presence of the laws of nature. So can’t we say that the laws of nature are infallible?

When a meteorite strikes earth and extinguishes dinosaurs, how is that in any way related to support or ruin of life? After the extinction of dinosaurs, mammals began to proliferate. So can we say this event was in support of mammalian life at the expense of reptilian life?

Not sure what your point is here. WE could likewise hold that carnivores proliferate at the expense of herbivores, herbivores proliferate at the expense of plants and decomposes proliferate at the expense of all of the above. Proliferating at the expense of is not an argument against design, however. All of this proliferating might have been designed to occur. What you need to demonstrate is that design of any sort necessarily precludes the proliferation of some designed parts at the expense of others as if such a feature is necessarily incompatible with design; and not merely that you might find it distasteful.

 

[magnet]

Not sure what your point is here. WE could likewise hold that carnivores proliferate at the expense of herbivores, herbivores proliferate at the expense of plants and decomposes proliferate at the expense of all of the above. Proliferating at the expense of is not an argument against design, however. All of this proliferating might have been designed to occur. What you need to demonstrate is that design of any sort necessarily precludes the proliferation of some designed parts at the expense of others as if such a feature is necessarily incompatible with design; and not merely that you might find it distasteful.

In the grand design, a critical factor is food. Should food be derived by ingesting living tissue? Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It is likely they ate other living substances also. Whatever they ate was at the expense of other living entities. This is the way nature works.

Organic substances are used for food. Sometimes they are alive and sometimes they are not. Sometimes it is residue from an entity that was formerly alive.

If a living entity can make its food from solar energy, using mineral matter in the process, then this is not happening at the expense of other life forms except perhaps when these life sustaining elements are in short supply.

A creature uses whatever is available for food. If these sources of food die in the process, then it is at their expense. Otherwise there is no harm done.

 

[Aloysium]

Plants and animals are not eternal creatures. Living out their lives, procreating and ultimately surrendering themselves to other forms enables life to flourish in its grand diversity. No flaw here. The law of tooth and claw is a projection of human existence in this fallen world from what I see.

 

[magnet]

Plants and animals are not eternal creatures. Living out their lives, procreating and ultimately surrendering themselves to other forms enables life to flourish in its grand diversity. No flaw here. The law of tooth and claw is a projection of human existence in this fallen world from what I see.

It is interesting that animals do not manufacture food. Only plants can do that. So, animals are predators on other presently-living or formerly-living things. So are many kinds of fungi, amoebas, protozoans, and zillions of one celled organisms. They consume, and the world has less food as a result of their activities. Indeed, the law of tooth and claw prevails in the non-plant world.

In the plant world, as a rule, energy is created by solar activity. This is stored for any living entity able to use it. The world is better off because of plants. The same cannot be said for animals.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the grand design, a critical factor is food. Should food be derived by ingesting living tissue? Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It is likely they ate other living substances also. Whatever they ate was at the expense of other living entities. This is the way nature works.

Organic substances are used for food. Sometimes they are alive and sometimes they are not. Sometimes it is residue from an entity that was formerly alive.

If a living entity can make its food from solar energy, using mineral matter in the process, then this is not happening at the expense of other life forms except perhaps when these life sustaining elements are in short supply.

A creature uses whatever is available for food. If these sources of food die in the process, then it is at their expense. Otherwise there is no harm done.

Still not sure what your point is in terms of the thread topic. You seem to be implying that animals feeding upon other animals entails that such a turn of events cannot have been designed.