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

[tonyrey]

Could you provide the Latin names - genus and species?

We need to at least present a front of being scientific, if we are going to be taken seriously discussing such matters.

The topic of Design is metaphysical, i.e. more fundamental than scientific explanations which cannot possibly give a full explanation of personal existence because they presuppose the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. A scientific façade conceals the fundamental inconsistency of materialism which is at the root of alleged flaws in theism because it is self-contradictory and self-destructive. An irrational interpretation of reality is worthless…

 

[tonyrey]

The skeptic cannot escape design, since he is designing his skepticism all the time.

Neat! Conveniently kicking aside the ladder which enables him (or her) to survey the landscape…

 

[inocente]

It doesn’t follow that the Creator never intervenes

Agreed.

inocente;13866742:

The well-tested theory relies on blind forces, not on chance.

That is one of the meanings of Chance!

No!!!

Gravity is a blind force and gravity doesn’t work by chance, it doesn’t sometimes keep the Earth in orbit and other times let it wander off, does it? Gravity is absolutely dependable and predictable, the exact opposite of chance.

And what’s with capitalizing the word chance? You capitalize both chance and design, as if they are persons of equal stature.

All agree that Design implies God’s plan for Creation as opposed to purposeless activity.

I don’t agree. You’ve never defined what you mean by design with a capital D, except to say it’s not chance with a capital c. How can we agree to something which hasn’t even been defined?

*To equate negativity with dislike is unreasonable. It amounts to rejecting beauty and harmony as figments of the imagination. Likewise there is no objective reason for distinguishing disease from good health and disasters from the normal course of events. *

Here’s Schoenberg’s Suite Op.29. Play loud. Some like it, others don’t. What’s your opinion of its beauty and harmony?

youtube.com/watch?v=lxlw40Cqd30

*There is no doubt whatsoever that disease and disasters are destructive and undermine the harmony in nature without which survival and development would be impossible. Beauty is not solely in the eye of the beholder because it is often based on the Golden Ratio and functional success.

Science is defective because it is necessarily amoral. No rational person would base every conclusion solely on a scientific explanation.*

Your formatting went astray there so I don’t know if I missed anything. Well yes, I too like Bauhaus, form following function. Others like Baroque ornamentation or go-faster stripes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Many people don’t like wolves, and they were killed off in Yellowstone, and absent for many years. The science indicated strongly that was harmful to the habitat, and so wolves were reintroduced, and straight away vegetation recovered, there was less soil erosion, more plants, more animals, more song birds, and even the course of rivers changed. - youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

The science works. Your proposal doesn’t.

*When the vast majority of coincidences lead to the development and fulfilment of living beings they are clearly evidence of Design because blind forces are notoriously inconsistent and spasmodic. “By their fruits you shall know them…”

In a violent universe the odds against the survival of immensely complex living organisms are understandably immense. Amoeba and dinosaurs are incontestable evidence of the biological value of simplicity. Nor has the increase in complexity at the outset ever been explained. The astounding leap from inorganic molecules to purposeful entities remains a scientific mystery and a fundamental flaw in the Chance hypothesis.

Speculation leads nowhere. *

This is a total misunderstanding of the science, but I won’t discuss it due to the ban.

 

[inocente]

Again, “insincere, deceitful and dishonest” are your words, not mine.

I’m not the only person who has found you confused. I prefer “confused” because your thought processes are frequently not consistent, and the fact that you are not aware of this shows you are confused. I could go back and make a documented case for this, but it would involve lots of tracking of your posts and I think the matter is too busy, not to mention petty, to be worth the bother. I will, as you request, leave it alone.

Deceitful and dishonest are synonyms for insincere, which you called me when you said in post #193: “You think like an agnostic. You just refuse to put that word after your name.”

Now you say you’re leaving it alone but use that as an opportunity to sling more mud my way, and you don’t even have the guts to provide any evidence for your witch hunt. I’m not confused, although as per the only thread I ever started, my wife died young two years ago, which was a big blow and may have affected some of my posts since then. Sorry if that’s inconvenient for you.

This is perhaps not your finest hour in your walk with Christ. Now please have the grace to leave it alone.

 

[inocente]

The “Fiat lux” of Pius XII was simply pointing to a consistency between the bible and the Big Bang, which was still being hotly disputed though it was, by 1951, more than a mere hypothesis since Hubble had already established the expanding universe through his telescope. The smoking pistol for the Big Bang was found in the early 60s when the echo of the Bang was detected throughout the universe. At that point Lemaitre had been completely vindicated, and should have no longer had any reason to be upset with Pius.

Certainly Pius, astute student of science that he was, would have known that science cannot prove the existence of God. Yet the Big Bang has made atheists decidedly uncomfortable since it was first proposed, because it argues an origin to the universe that is beyond the reach of science to explain. Hence the rush by atheists in later decades to find a Big Crunch or a Multiverse (both of these are No-god-of-the-gaps hypotheses) that would explain away the Big Bang as a true creation event.

I call that the No-god-of-the-gaps hypotheses.

Just to clarify something for my benefit: do you oppose the idea that the Big Bang was an event consistent with God’s creation of the universe?

Another question: Do you believe miracles are possible?

On this Lemaître said “As far as I can see, such a theory [his big bang] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

On your first question: Some have a tendency to only acknowledge science when it appears to confirm their beliefs, while fighting against science when it contradicts them. But truth cannot contradict truth. That said, all scientific knowledge is provisional, so while science may highlight wrong beliefs, I think it’s not a good foundation for belief. New observations could cause the big bang theory to be replaced tomorrow, it’s happened to other grand theories, and then all those big-bang-proves-god people will have to back-peddle like crazy.

Re miracles: sure, they’re possible, but not very important to anyone I know.

On both questions, surely a personal relationship with Christ is far more meaningful and reliable than theories? Play full screen and watch out for the drum cam: youtube.com/watch?v=e33zCUm1ZnY

How do you distinguish blind forces from chance?

One of us is confused

Gravity is a blind force and gravity doesn’t work by chance, it doesn’t sometimes keep the Earth in orbit and other times let it wander off, does it? Gravity is absolutely dependable and predictable, the exact opposite of chance.

 

[Michael96]

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!)

As a biologist and Christian I see evolution as having very good explanatory power for both the brilliance of life and also the ‘quirks’. It’s a fantastic mechanism that allows for developing and adapting life. It’s a pretty smart design principle!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is perhaps not your finest hour in your walk with Christ. Now please have the grace to leave it alone.

This is probably your finest hop, skip, and jump to the judgmentalism you pretend to despise in others. I will leave it alone if you will leave it alone.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Re miracles: sure, they’re possible, but not very important to anyone I know.

Are they also not very important to you? Such a miracle, for example, as the Resurrection of Jesus?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

On your first question: Some have a tendency to only acknowledge science when it appears to confirm their beliefs, while fighting against science when it contradicts them. But truth cannot contradict truth. That said, all scientific knowledge is provisional, so while science may highlight wrong beliefs, I think it’s not a good foundation for belief. New observations could cause the big bang theory to be replaced tomorrow, it’s happened to other grand theories, and then all those big-bang-proves-god people will have to back-peddle like crazy.

Yes, all science is provisional. For example, Natural Selection could give way to Intelligent Design. Then all those atheists-of-the-gaps will have to back peddle like crazy.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

**Gravity is a blind force **and gravity doesn’t work by chance, it doesn’t sometimes keep the Earth in orbit and other times let it wander off, does it? Gravity is absolutely dependable and predictable, the exact opposite of chance.

Gravity was created by God for a reason, and God is not blind.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here’s Schoenberg’s Suite Op.29. Play loud. Some like it, others don’t. What’s your opinion of its beauty and harmony?

It is the expression of a diabolically confused mind that revels in its confusion.

 

[inocente]

Are they also not very important to you? Such a miracle, for example, as the Resurrection of Jesus?

Obviously I’m fine with that. It’s the chance random grandma’s-knee-got-better kind of miracle, because finding out why the knee got better by understanding the biology offers the chance of treating others, whereas throwing our hands in the air doesn’t.

Yes, all science is provisional. For example, Natural Selection could give way to Intelligent Design. Then all those atheists-of-the-gaps will have to back peddle like crazy.

Remarkable how you intelligent design fans keep forgetting not all Christians share your opinions. Have a look at post #246, you just called another Catholic an atheist. But then he’s only trained and works in the life sciences, while you’re an expert owing to you sitting in an armchair. And you guys only question the science when it doesn’t agree with your ideas, but accept it unquestionably when you think it agrees, as with big bang. Then you call others confused. Couldn’t make it up.

inocente;13868686:

Charlemagne III;13867067:

How do you distinguish blind forces from chance?

One of us is confused .

Gravity is a blind force and gravity doesn’t work by chance, it doesn’t sometimes keep the Earth in orbit and other times let it wander off, does it? Gravity is absolutely dependable and predictable, the exact opposite of chanceGravity was created by God for a reason, and God is not blind.

Are you confused?.

inocente;13868332:

Here’s Schoenberg’s Suite Op.29. Play loud. Some like it, others don’t. What’s your opinion of its beauty and harmony?

youtube.com/watch?v=lxlw40Cqd30

It is the expression of a diabolically confused mind that revels in its confusion.

Thanks, Tony claims beauty and harmony are objective, you just proved my point that they’re not.

Although you seem to be finding diabolical confusion everywhere you look, which perhaps reflects your own state of mind, as Schoenberg seemed to be very clear headed when he wrote the piece:

“The cheerful, vibrant character of the Suite, which was completed on 1 May 1926, is a perfect reflection of Schönberg’s enjoyment of life at the time. He was newly married and dedicated the work to his “dear wife” Gertrud, whose musical monogram “eS-G” [E flat-G] is integrated into the music at the beginning and end of each movement. The sequence of the four-part Suite, which incorporates elements of the old tonality into dodecaphony (in the third movement, for example, where references to the song “Ännchen von Tharau” can be heard), combines three movements of the traditional Baroque suite with a set of variations on a song.” - google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi9m-2_3rnMAhWKvBQKHRC1Am8QFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.schoenberg.at%2Findex.php%2Fen%2Fjoomla-license-sp-1943310036%2Fsuite-op-29-1925-1926&usg=AFQjCNFUYkkpfucNBzNaqJ17WfphMEQK0A&sig2=7cGz1kZFV9B_vqIqQo7KPA

So it’s ninety years old today. I don’t know it well, you probably have to hear it a few times. But as you agree, beauty is in the ear of the beholder.

 

[tonyrey]

As a biologist and Christian I see evolution as having very good explanatory power for both the brilliance of life and also the ‘quirks’. It’s a fantastic mechanism that allows for developing and adapting life. It’s a pretty smart design principle!

The false dilemma is rampant these days!

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks, Tony claims beauty and harmony are objective, you just proved my point that they’re not.

There are many types of harmony discovered by philosophers and scientists which are not subjective. If objective harmony didn’t exist not only would reasoning would be impossible life wouldn’t exist…

 

[tonyrey]

Gravity was created by God for a reason, and God is not blind.

There is no evidence that the laws of nature are the product of physical necessity. The onus is on the sceptic to explain why there is a framework of order rather than absolute chaos…

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, all science is provisional. For example, Natural Selection could give way to Intelligent Design. Then all those atheists-of-the-gaps will have to back peddle like crazy.

Even though scientific theories are provisional the principles on which it is based are objective. Total subjectivity would lead precisely nowhere and intelligent communication would be impossible!

 

[tonyrey]

…Gravity is a blind force and gravity doesn’t work by chance, it doesn’t sometimes keep the Earth in orbit and other times let it wander off, does it? Gravity is absolutely dependable and predictable, the exact opposite of chance.

The very fact that gravity is absolutely dependable and predictable invalidates the hypothesis that everything is fortuitous. Order is more fundamental than chaos: otherwise science wouldn’t exist…

 

[tonyrey]

There is no doubt whatsoever that disease and disasters are destructive and undermine the harmony in nature without which survival and development would be impossible. Beauty is not solely in the eye of the beholder because it is often based on the Golden Ratio and functional success.

Science is defective because it is necessarily amoral. No rational person would base every conclusion solely on a scientific explanation.

Your formatting went astray there so I don’t know if I missed anything. Well yes, I too like Bauhaus, form following function. Others like Baroque ornamentation or go-faster stripes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Many people don’t like wolves, and they were killed off in Yellowstone, and absent for many years. The science indicated strongly that was harmful to the habitat, and so wolves were reintroduced, and straight away vegetation recovered, there was less soil erosion, more plants, more animals, more song birds, and even the course of rivers changed. - youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

The science works. Your proposal doesn’t.

The fact that the basic harmony in nature had been disrupted is evidence that is not fortuitous but a rational system.

When the vast majority of coincidences lead to the development and fulfilment of living beings they are clearly evidence of Design because blind forces are notoriously inconsistent and spasmodic. “By their fruits you shall know them…”

In a violent universe the odds against the survival of immensely complex living organisms are understandably immense. Amoeba and dinosaurs are incontestable evidence of the biological value of simplicity. Nor has the increase in complexity at the outset ever been explained. The astounding leap from inorganic molecules to purposeful entities remains a scientific mystery and a fundamental flaw in the Chance hypothesis.

Speculation leads nowhere.

This is a total misunderstanding of the science, but I won’t discuss it due to the ban.Agreed.

The origin of life is distinct from its subsequent development. The issue of blind forces being inconsistent and spasmodic is a metaphysical issue. So are the questions of complexity and purposefulness…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thanks, Tony claims beauty and harmony are objective, you just proved my point that they’re not.

Well, no he hasn’t proved your point.

If simply NOT seeing things the same makes the truth behind them relative and “in the eye of the beholder,” then what has also been “proven” is that differing views on the origin and development of life on earth are likewise rendered NOT objective by the fact that evolutionists and ID people don’t agree on what to make of those.

There has to be a whole lot of presuming going on in your mind to make that kind of logically unwarranted leap of faith into the mental bog called Non Sequitur.

 

[cfauster]

The original question of this thread, regarding apparent imperfections in the created world, lies within the broader question of natural theology: does the natural world provide evidence for the existence of a creator, and even some basic information about the characteristics of the creator?

Within science, certainly, hypotheses invoking an actor or creator that might act supernaturally are problematic because they are untestable via science. But what about outside of science? “Natural evil” (apparent flaws or imperfections in nature) notwithstanding, does the harmony, beauty, and rationality of the world suggest the need for something or someone beyond nature? Do they raise worthwhile metaphysical questions that science cannot answer?

For a couple of thoughtful pieces on the more general question of whether nature “is enough,” i.e. whether the idea of a creator-god is really nothing more than Russell’s teapot, here are two thoughtful pieces.

Tom Clark answers that nature (naturalism, actually) is enough.

In the above essay, Tom Clark reviews (critically, of course) a book by John Haught that argues for the opposite view. Haught also published a shorter version of his argument in his essay "Is Nature Enough? No."

Alas, the above might not be available free of charge. Part 1 of a somewhat similar essay by another author was just published today.