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

[Aloysium]

In addition to which the blind forces become capable of controlling themselves and understanding how blind they are… Miracles certainly never cease!

And of course, miracles cannot happen by chance. There is an order and that order, as it is understood currently understood, cannot explain the obvious reality that you describe. The answer is given that although we cannot explain such things now, science will get at the truth. It will, and it will then reveal that the current secular vision is wrong. As it was found that the sun does not revolve around the earth, it will be known that our existence does not “revolve” the “world”. Matter does not constitute the foundation of our being; it creation “revolves” around God. He is the true Centre of existence, the order giver and the source of miracles when they are needed for our salvation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

With all due respect to such learned professors and acknowledging my shortcomings, I cannot see the dice being loaded. God has created life which is the organizing principle that brings blind forces of nature, that could not possibly do so themselves, together in the formation of beings whose components are thereby able to act in a cooperative fashion.

By loading the dice we are speaking much as Thomas Aquinas spoke 8 centuries ago.

“Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.”

 

[Aloysium]

By loading the dice we are speaking much as Thomas Aquinas spoke 8 centuries ago.

“Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.”

The number that comes up with a roll of the dice is considered random.
It is so because of the almost infinite determinants to the outcome.
There are so many subtle variations in the rattling, throw, spin and bouncing until movement ceases, that we get the expected probability curves.
When dice are loaded they are weighted to turn a particular side up much more frequently, if not exclusively.
I would say that it is the creation of life that constitutes the weighing of the dice, that shapes matter into the macromolecules that are its physical manifestation.
God’s plan includes not only the weighing of the dice as it relates to particular elements of life such as disease, fortune, fame, and other things of this world; He has bestowed upon us the capacity to choose our response to what has been rolled.

 

[tonyrey]

In addition to which the blind forces become capable of controlling themselves and understanding how blind they are… Miracles certainly never cease!

To exclude the Supreme Being amounts to worshipping ourselves as the most intelligent beings on this planet and probably in the entire universe because rational beings seem a rare phenomenon. To all intents and purposes a godless existence is a recipe for egolatry in accordance with Nietzsche’s belief in the Will to Power…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Abiogenesis, the creation of the first living cell, is so vastly improbable as a result of pure chance that the only explanation, short of a directly accomplished miracle, is the likelihood of heavily loaded dice thrown to accomplish the necessary concatenation of atoms and molecules. Even Francis Crick admitted that the first living cell had to have some living intelligence behind its arrival on earth. I agree. The intelligence of our living God.

“Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.” Thomas Aqiuinas

 

[cfauster]

“Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.” Thomas Aqiuinas

Indeed. I like his analogy. Here’s part of an essay that extends this even to abiogenesis:

“Aristotle and especially Aquinas consider the structures of animals and plants to arise from matter and to be fundamentally nothing other than structures of matter. The ‘substantial form’ of an animal or plant is only ‘negatively’ immaterial; it does not persist after death, although it is not equal to matter (in the same way atomic structure is not itself an atom). Life can easily arise from non-life by a new structure entering into the picture that permits new causal powers to be exercised. But that’s not to say life is reducible to matter or its basic powers … Something has to have at least ‘virtual’ power to bring this new arrangement about, even if it is chance events that arrange initial conditions to bring about, for example, RNA in a pool of proto-organic slime. A kind of intrinsic order must already exist, with the powers of individual elements to enter into certain kinds of organization, before they do enter into those arrangements. There has to be, for example, carbon and water. These have to have a kind of ability to enter into an order with each other that eventually allows other kinds of order to emerge, etc.”

Thus, the passage you quoted shows Thomas distinguishing between the course of nature (including self-assembly kinds of change) and things outside the course of nature (creation, in the strict sense, the “divine art” that created a universe with the potential for self-assembly) that only God can do.

A full reading of Thomas certainly shows that nature too is part of the world that God created and thus God “creates” through nature’s indirect/secondary causes as well as through direct/primary causation. The direct, primary causation can be inferred philosophically, but not by gaps in our understanding of indirect/secondary causation.

 

[Aloysium]

The potential for organization into macromolecules must exist in atoms, specifically the tetrahedral form of carbon which allows for a plethora of combinations that we see in life. Atoms likewise exist because they utilize subatomic properties and processes, as well as the reality of space-time. We can conceptualize a hierarchy of forms which require, but are not created by properties inherent in their constituent parts.

Ocean waves roll in and out, a whole constructed of what can be isolated as an almost infinite number of the most minute of events, existing as the fathomless depth and not individually (unless extracted), contributors, giving of themselves to the vastness.

Holistic entities such as atoms, molecules and life forms are primary, existing as themselves, albeit created temporally later than their constituent parts. Life was formed from a dust which awaits its fulfillment in ultimate union with its Creator through us. We as persons are the reality, although we may be decomposed into the “elements” of which we are constructed. Doing a chemical analysis of our physical make-up takes us further away from the truth of who we are. Left with organs, tissues and molecules, our imaginations reconstruct a Frankenstein monster of humanity, animated by the forces inherent in the parts rather than in the human spirit which is the body’s organizing principle.

Life was brought into existence in the same fashion as was the singularity, the original plasma that was the universe, time and space, quarks and leptons, atoms and molecules. What we observe is a hierarchy of forms, composed of more basic structures. The whole, which is greater than the parts, is organized according to its own principles, which are not contained within the more basic structures. While an original singularity contained the potential for all this, which includes you and me, what followed with the unfolding of creation, was the moulding into new, more complex wholes, of holistic entities which had already been formed.

If you bothered to get through this, thanks for the read and hoping I have contributed something useful.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you bothered to get through this, thanks for the read and hoping I have contributed something useful.

Kudos to you and cfauster.

 

[Cheiron]

I suffered from an auto-immune disease when I was just 2 years old. If Intelligent Design is true, then I sure would like to have a word with the designer.

 

[tonyrey]

I suffered from an auto-immune disease when I was just 2 years old. If Intelligent Design is true, then I sure would like to have a word with the designer.

It is unrealistic to expect a total absence of misfortunes where there are countless living beings being born at every moment in an immense variety of circumstances.

 

[Cheiron]

It is unrealistic to expect a total absence of misfortunes where there are countless living beings being born at every moment in an immense variety of circumstances.

I don’t doubt for a second that an intelligent designer makes mistakes, although that does make me wonder about the extent of his intelligence. He’s still responsible for the mistakes he makes. And I’d like to have a word with him about that.

 

[Aloysium]

I suffered from an auto-immune disease when I was just 2 years old. If Intelligent Design is true, then I sure would like to have a word with the designer.

You don’t have to post it here.
I wouldn’t personally.
What would you say to Him?

 

[Cheiron]

You don’t have to post it here.
I wouldn’t personally.
What would you say to Him?

It might sound a bit cliché, but it’s probably going to be the why question. Fortunately, I made a full recovery, I don’t need medicine and my illness doesn’t affect my life in any way. Which is even more reason to ask the Designer if it was really necessary that my own body turned on me and caused so much anxiety, especially for my parents. There was a real possibility that my parents would lose their two year old child. I would also tell Him, with all due respect, that He could have done a better job in general. I survived, but many others do not. Probably more people will be religious if He improves His designing skills.

And that’s the moral issue with intelligent design: the Designer can’t take credit for the good things and escape responsibility for the bad things.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t doubt for a second that an intelligent designer makes mistakes, although that does make me wonder about the extent of his intelligence. He’s still responsible for the mistakes he makes. And I’d like to have a word with him about that.

It’s not a question of making mistakes but accepting the limitations of a physical universe which is necessarily imperfect but better than not creating a universe at all or one which has far less beauty, richness and independence. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage and we cannot have everything for nothing. To criticise the universe implies that we have more insight, knowledge, wisdom and experience of creating universes than the Creator - which is obviously absurd…

 

[Aloysium]

It might sound a bit cliché, but it’s probably going to be the why question. Fortunately, I made a full recovery, I don’t need medicine and my illness doesn’t affect my life in any way. Which is even more reason to ask the Designer if it was really necessary that my own body turned on me and caused so much anxiety, especially for my parents. There was a real possibility that my parents would lose their two year old child. I would also tell Him, with all due respect, that He could have done a better job in general. I survived, but many others do not. Probably more people will be religious if He improves His designing skills.

And that’s the moral issue with intelligent design: the Designer can’t take credit for the good things and escape responsibility for the bad things.

Confession is frequently the shortest way to the truth. And, people’s stories, if you can ever get to them, being the reality of their philosophies, tend to be far more interesting. Yours affirms my faith in God. It is a tale of success, courage and love, here listed in the opposite order of importance.

What follows may ring hollow to you, but it expresses, not as well as I would like, my view of our situation.

I must begin by saying that you should feel thankful, as you likely are in spite of the fact that it happened at all. Similar circumstances can yield very different outcomes.

Let’s look at our human condition. We have an immune system which maintains the physical integrity of our bodies. While illness is thought of as being other to the person who suffers, it is actually a part of what we are. If there is a “bad thing”, be it an autoimmune disease, cancer, the inability to fight an infection, it boils down to it being integral to the person. Suffering is inescapable in life. There is a sense of brokenness that accompanies us after such encounters. Now, the child does not bring him/herself into existence nor do the parents create them, but guilt emerges along with a sense of defectiveness. Emotionally speaking, children tend to blame themselves and also their parents; parents vice versa. The challenge faced by the family can bring it together, but it is not uncommon to see the dynamic tear it apart. It can remain intact as reason and defenses take over and the blame is cast off onto nature, God, or perhaps the medical profession when things don’t work out.

At least if one blames God, there is a chance of reconciliation through the dialogue. Otherwise we are left with a view, if we matter at all, of a cruel nature which will ultimately take everything from us.

But, as you experienced, people care and act courageously. We do matter to one another; there is love. And that is one of the many reasons why I am a Christian, because your story is one of many, many others which do not turn out so well. Human beings have the capacity for much good and much evil. I could not possibly be a humanist with what I have experienced. It comes across to me as a very pleasant vision, but one seen through a distorting lens that denies the truth of evil. When all hope seems lost, a greater truth is there. As a Christian, the symbol of transcendence is the Cross. Suffering has meaning; and God is with us every step of the way, as were your parents in the hospital with you. The sacrifice of Jesus does many things including the revelation of God’s love for us. It is within the Sacred Heart of Jesus that we find peace, strength, the courage to carry on and true healing, spiritual if not also physical, a return to wholeness.

Why this stuff happens to good people, as if bad people were more deserving, has been written about forever actually, going back to Job in the Judeo-Christian tradition. There are better sources than Internet forums that you might wish to pursue. Ultimately, it is up to us to find the answer as it deals with the meaning of our existence.

 

[Cheiron]

Thank you for your response. I waited a few days to think about what I would write in return.

I’m very grateful to the doctors, my parents and everyone who was around that time - although I don’t remember much. As I said earlier: I was just two years old.

I don’t blame my parents (for one thing, my auto-immune disease does not appear to be hereditary) nor myself. This stuff just happens and nature is completely indifferent about it. It’s only when intelligent design appears on the stage there suddenly is an intelligent designer that can - and should - be held responsible for everything. The original question of this topic was how to reconcile design flaws with the argument of intelligent design. Which is just another form of the question of Evil. As you rightly say, we’re probably not going to solve that question right here and now on these forums.

I must stress that this is not the reason why I’m an atheist though. God’s existence and His character are separate matters to me.

 

[Cheiron]

It’s not a question of making mistakes but accepting the limitations of a physical universe which is necessarily imperfect but better than not creating a universe at all or one which has far less beauty, richness and independence. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage and we cannot have everything for nothing. To criticise the universe implies that we have more insight, knowledge, wisdom and experience of creating universes than the Creator - which is obviously absurd…

I don’t see why every advantage needs to have a disadvantage and I don’t see how you could say that when you also wrote that we don’t have more insight, knowledge, wisdom and experience than the Creator. You seem to think that the Creator wanted to create the best possible universe. If we don’t know what the best possible universe is that He could have created, then we should be open to the possibility that He thought this universe was good enough and simply couldn’t be bothered to create something better.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s not a question of making mistakes but accepting the limitations of a physical universe which is necessarily imperfect but better than not creating a universe at all or one which has far less beauty, richness and independence. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage and we cannot have everything for nothing. To criticise the universe implies that we have more insight, knowledge, wisdom and experience of creating universes than the Creator - which is obviously absurd…

Please give an example of an advantage without a corresponding disadvantage and explain how we can have everything for nothing.

You seem to think that the Creator wanted to create the best possible universe. If we don’t know what the best possible universe is that He could have created, then we should be open to the possibility that He thought this universe was good enough and simply couldn’t be bothered to create something better.

Since we don’t know what the best possible universe is you are not justified in criticising this universe or suggesting He thought this universe was good enough and simply couldn’t be bothered to create something better. Ignorance implies lack of evidence for incompetence, negligence or indifference.

 

[tonyrey]

… And that’s the moral issue with intelligent design: the Designer can’t take credit for the good things and escape responsibility for the bad things.

Your objection implies that the drawbacks of life outweigh its benefits. Do you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life hadn’t existed on this planet?
If not why not?

 

[Bradski]

Please give an example of an advantage without a corresponding disadvantage…

If we had been designed properly, then walking upright wouldn’t cause all the problems that we have with knees, hips and backs.

If we could see better in the dark, then it would be an advantage in avoiding prey.

If we could decide when to conceive as opposed to leaving it to chance, then there’s be hardly any abortions.

If…well, I could do this all day. But I can’t really see the point in making a list with hundreds of advantages when 2 or 3 will suffice.