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

[edwest2]

After a literal spiritual and physical event called The Fall, God intervened in His creation. For example, certain things happened in a world that was ‘good.’

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Matthew 19:12 NIV

Man is more than just another animal. God told us that. Animals do not have human cognition.

And what we have learned in a relatively short period of time is still ongoing, raising valid questions about what else do we not yet know. Junk, or non-coding, DNA, was assumed to be leftovers from a process. That turned out to be an incorrect assumption.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151215185858.htm

sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160408102405.htm

The code in DNA is complex, but scientists recently discovered a second code written on top of the first.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

Best,
Ed

 

[cfauster]

I am merely pointing out that inocente has not explained how the two – God and science – ought to be reconciled if there exists no inherent “design” in nature but God freely creates at every moment in time.

I might be wrong, but perhaps the person with published views on divine action that seem to me most like those inocente articulates on CAF would be Christopher Knight. Here is a blog editor’s summary of Knight’s position:

Christopher Knight defends a version of “strong theistic naturalism” as a way of understanding how God interacts with the world. He is careful to distinguish his version from others that collapse into deism. Some people may be concerned that he is even using the word “naturalism” to characterize his view, but notice the intimate connection between God and the world on Knight’s view that is achieved through the Logos, and the way this removes the difficulty of God acting on a “natural” system from the outside.

This the the latest in an ongoing series of posts on divine action.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The code in DNA is complex, but scientists recently discovered a second code written on top of the first.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

That was interesting. Another pointer to ID.

 

[cfauster]

… perhaps the person with published views on divine action that seem to me most like those inocente articulates on CAF would be Christopher Knight.

Some claim that a Catholic scholar with views similar to those of Knight (who is Orthodox, I understand) would be the late Hugh McCann, who indeed wrote a lot about personal action, human and divine.

Here is McCann’s obituary, and here is something on divine providence that he published.

 

[edwest2]

That was interesting. Another pointer to ID.

Thanks. It adds one order of magnitude to the code.

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, God’s plan is that men and women of all faiths and ethnicities come together to work in harmony.

How good and how pleasant it is,
when brothers dwell together as one!

Like fine oil on the head,
running down upon the beard,
Upon the beard of Aaron,
upon the collar of his robe.

Like dew of Hermon coming down
upon the mountains of Zion.
There the Lord has decreed a blessing,
life for evermore!

Ps. 133

Not sure you answered my question, which was do you agree or disagree with Charles Coulson that “Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all”?

God is in the whole of nature but it doesn’t imply that nature has no** negative** aspects such as defects, anomalies, freaks, aberrations and limitations:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

Anyone who has suffered knows it is not God who inflicts it even though He is in the whole of Nature. Very often it is caused by human ignorance, indifference, malice or carelessness but it is also the result of coincidences, random events or genetic mutations. Hippocrates had a point when he pointed out that one of the main causes of disease is change…

 

[edwest2]

With all due respect for Hippocrates, change isn’t a very good explanation. Unless there is a change in diet, increased stressors in the environment, slavery, drought, floods, etc., disease was not as well studied back then. Certainly, there were some natural treatments, but microscopic parasites, contaminated water, malnutrition, etc., can lead to illness/disease.

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

inocente;13936710:

It has everything to do with it because your belief that persons made in the image of God is inconsistent with your reduction of reason to intelligence shared with animals. The reference to dogs playing and birds singing for the joy of it strengthens the impression that in your scheme of things we are fundamentally no different from animals apart from our higher IQ.

Thank you for confirming that in your scheme of things we are fundamentally no different from animals apart from our higher IQ.

We have no choice in your scheme of things…
I thought the Church teaches that you receive your soul at conception. Is that not sufficient for you?
Do you accept that teaching?

God’s gift of free will enables us to shape our own destiny within the framework of Design which is evident in the order and beauty of nature which reveal His love for all His creatures. Why else did Jesus refer to the lilies in the field?

Let’s not take the sentence out of context. Jesus is teaching about having faith that God will provide (in both Matt and Luke, the NABRE heads it “Dependence on God” and the NIV “Do not worry”). In that context he chooses the flowers to illustrate his message. It makes no difference to his message whether the flowers are designed or evolved, for the message is "If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?"It implies evolution by Design:

“Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.”

It is evidence of God’s power and love that no one can deny if they appreciate the wonder and beauty of nature.

**

QUOTE]Do you believe God has no plan for our life on earth, never intervenes or works miracles and is a passive Spectator of everything that happens on earth - which does indeed imply we are artifacts subject to a fate ordained by a Creator who takes not the slightest interest in human affairs and is concerned only with what happens in heaven?I think Jesus reveals part of God plan in the passage just discussed - God’s plan is have faith that He loves us (Matt 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-34).So you believe God never intervenes or answers prayers? Never prevents accidents or disasters? Never warns anyone of danger? Never inspires or enlightens anyone? Never consoles those who mourn or are afflicted? Never gives strength to those who face temptation. Never guides His Church? Never does anything to help His children on earth and leaves them entirely to their own devices? In other words you don’t believe in the gift of grace?

Jesus reveals many things but nowhere in the NT have I seen Him reveal that God’s plan is we must find evidence God intervenes or we won’t be saved.

“Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.…”

God expects us to believe the words of Jesus that He came into the world to deliver us from evil, i.e. to fulfil His plan of salvation for us, to fulfil the prophecies and perfect the Law, to establish His Church, work miracles in His name and spread His teaching throughout the world. We have to accept the evidence of His apostles, saints and martyrs who have borne witness over the last two thousand years to the power of His love and sacrifice for us on the Cross. Like St Francis of Assisi we are expected to appreciate God’s glory in all His works:

“Most High, all powerful, good Lord,
yours are the praises, the glory, the honour
and all blessing.To you alone, Most High, do they belong
and no human is worthy to mention your name.Praised be you, my Lord, with all your creatures,
especially Sir Brother Sun,
who is the day and through whom you give us light. And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour;
and bears a likeness of you, Most High One.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars:
in heaven you formed them clear and precious and beautiful. Praised be you, my Lord, through Brother Wind;
and through the air, cloudy and serene, and every kind of weather,
through which you give sustenance to your creatures.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Sister Water,
who is very useful and humble and precious and chaste.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Brother Fire,
through whom you light the night:
and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong.
Praised be you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth,
who sustains and governs us
and who produces various fruit
with coloured flowers and herbs.
Praised be you, my Lord,
through those who give pardon for your love
and bear infirmity and tribulation.
Blessèd are those who endure in peace:
for by you, Most High, shall they be crowned.
Praised be you, my Lord, for our Sister,
Bodily Death,
from whom no one living can escape:
woe to those who die in mortal sin.
Blessèd are those whom death will find
in your most holy will,
for the second death shall do them no harm.
Praise and bless my Lord and give him thanks
and serve him with great humility.”

And particularly in the month of May we ask Mary to pray for us at the hour of our death in accordance with our belief in the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. We also pray for our loved ones and all those who have gone before us that they may rest in peace. Amen

 

[tonyrey]

With all due respect for Hippocrates, change isn’t a very good explanation. Unless there is a change in diet, increased stressors in the environment, slavery, drought, floods, etc., disease was not as well studied back then. Certainly, there were some natural treatments, but microscopic parasites, contaminated water, malnutrition, etc., can lead to illness/disease.
Ed

Hippocrates was mistaken in various respects but it is a fact that even happy events like a wedding can cause stress for our nervous system - as I know to my cost but I shan’t go into details apart from saying I thought I couldn’t arrive in time! We are definitely creatures of habit and the older we get the harder it is to adjust to changes in our routine. I make a point of trying to be flexible and adapting to new situations but mental habits are the hardest to overcome simply because they’re invisible and therefore pernicious if they’re negative. That’s where an examination of conscience is useful…

 

[tonyrey]

After a literal spiritual and physical event called The Fall, God intervened in His creation. For example, certain things happened in a world that was ‘good.’

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Matthew 19:12 NIV

Man is more than just another animal. God told us that. Animals do not have human cognition.

And what we have learned in a relatively short period of time is still ongoing, raising valid questions about what else do we not yet know. Junk, or non-coding, DNA, was assumed to be leftovers from a process. That turned out to be an incorrect assumption.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151215185858.htm

sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160408102405.htm

The code in DNA is complex, but scientists recently discovered a second code written on top of the first.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

Best,
Ed

If that isn’t evidence of Design what is?

 

[inocente]

It would seem to me that the causal “givens” regarding animal and human biology were “pre-planned” intelligently, but the reality of free will and moral agency require the possibility of an “open” architecture with regard to God’s design such that his intervention at any moment is always a possibility.

Inocente always dodges this issue as if it doesn’t apply to his position.

Not dodging it, just don’t know what you mean by open architecture, a term I’ve only ever seen used to mean a system which can use components from various vendors.

Actually, the bold-faced statement is logically incorrect. The “tweaking phase” does not imply the design is imperfect, unless you limit yourself to speaking of 19th century industrial design. I see no need to limit what God does to such a “type.”

What it could also mean is that part of what God did add into HIS initial design was the capacity of some created aspects of the design to exhibit free will choices and transcend the causal (designed) order by so doing. That leaves open the possibility of God “tweaking” the causal order in response to the freely made choices of those agents as he wills and determines after the fact.

There is no “imperfection” to be appealed to here. The real issue, for you, is that your limited view of what “design” means impales you on its built-in limitations.

I sense that a reference to a dictionary definition will be forthcoming as if the writers of dictionaries are also the definers of reality and that God MUST restrict his working to what has been pre-ordained by those writers.

Point me at the chapter and verse which says God tweaks His open architecture.

No offense but this all reads like you’re improvising it on the hoof, what with home-grown definitions and a design which needs add-ons that leave open mere possibilities, etc. Sounds likes there’s a lot of clauses in the small print. Do you think it’s really ready for publication yet?

Yes, in the sense that everything is explained away and needs no explanation because GODDIDIT becomes the explanation.

Wasn’t it you who was drumming on about the God of the Gaps argument?

Doesn’t “everything is much more simple and easier to defend” simply mean that “everything” is a gap that does NOT need explaining BECAUSE God is the creator of everything that unfolds and evolves as he sees fit and we don’t need to explain any of it?

Everything is much more simple and easy to defend when, if no reasoned explanation exists, we admit uncertainty rather than saying GODDIDIT. Everything is much more simple and easy to defend when we don’t see tested explanations as an alternative to God. “Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all”. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?

 

[inocente]

God is with us in time, but is transcendent, tweaking all parts of the system in all times and all places from His seat in eternity, outside of time. It isn’t a matter of “getting it wrong” and “getting it right”, but rather universal interaction between God and what is in time. This involves all that is, but specifically us, we who go astray and need our Shepherd to guide us back. At any rate the tweaking, although it occurs in time, arises from outside time. Ultimately, as “designed” in each and every moment through God’s relationship with all moments, the universe as the Beatific Vision is perfect.

I lost you when you got into the IT analogy, which fails almost immediately because programming is about control and getting things to do what you want. Life is about love.

In have no intention of defending any position that leads me astray. I am here to grow in faith. Whatever facilitates that process and brings me closer to God is really all that matters.

There is no “design phase” as far as I can see other than that which covers all creation, all times and all places. All beings have their specific attributes which define and govern their relationships with everything else. It all arises from and is centred around God the Father. Of these natural tendencies and interactions, He as their Cause, permits what He wills to permit.

Well, if you can see no design phase then no designer is needed, and the more biblical word creator would apply. You could also drop “tweaking” as it’s not exactly a word used on vatican.va to describe God. If that then means you’re in a standard position, that God is alive and is creator of all, then you and I may agree on quite a lot.

 

[inocente]

I suppose that would include those whose “faith” is to behead others on beaches so that not only fine oil but streams of blood run down upon their beards. Yes, how “good and pleasant” it is for men and women of all ethnicities and beliefs to execute those beliefs upon others even against the wills of those others.

Tell me, do you think forced “submission” to what is purported to be “God’s will” is also an integral part of “God’s plan?”

It is God’s plan, I suppose, for some to kill others even while God’s command is that they do not. Perhaps those faiths which are completely contrary to the commands of God are also part of God’s plan?

No explanatory gaps there, I guess.

NOSTRA AETATE, PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.” - vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

 

[Aloysium]

Well, if you can see no design phase then no designer is needed, and the more biblical word creator would apply. You could also drop “tweaking” as it’s not exactly a word used on vatican.va to describe God. If that then means you’re in a standard position, that God is alive and is creator of all, then you and I may agree on quite a lot.

The “design phase” (your term, which I am trying to integrate into the way I would express my understanding, in the hope of facilitating some sort of communication) would be “ontological”, it would be “built into” God’s ongoing loving relationship with His creation.

You dislike the word “tweaking”. So, how about “responding”. God responds to our actions in order to bring about the good He wills.

Something I posted on another thread:

The Devil, before his fall, was Lucifer, the shining one, the light-bearer, the bringer of dawn, the light-bringer.
It goes to show how, try as one might to thwart God’s will, one’s very attempt to do so, as much as it brings evil into the world, cannot, because of God’s intervention, but result in good.
Out of pride and hate for mankind and God, Satan seduced us; in response God brought about the greatest demonstration of His love - Jesus Christ.
Though intent on bringing us his “knowledge”, which is but illusion and lies, the Devil’s actions brought us the revelation of the Light of the world.

We would agree more, if you weren’t out to argue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Everything is much more simple and easy to defend when, if no reasoned explanation exists, we admit uncertainty rather than saying GODDIDIT. Everything is much more simple and easy to defend when we don’t see tested explanations as an alternative to God. “Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all”. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?

So how does this argue against an intelligently designed universe?

If God is in the “whole of Nature,” then surely he is also in the designed aspects of nature – the ones which are clearly ordered towards obvious ends and where those ends are not obvious to us, very likely (since God is in the whole of Nature) those bits are also ordered towards preordained ends.

You seem to have forgotten that I am not much of a supporter of “random” mutations consistently bringing about beneficial adaptations. That was your schtick – or so you seemed to have been arguing. My position has always been that God is in the whole of Nature even in those aspects that we haven’t yet been able to figure out how they fit into the whole schema.

I have – as far as I know – always held the position that the schema is designed and ordered by God and that he is in “the whole of Nature.” Where we appear to disagree is that I would insist that the “whole of Nature” also includes moral agency and human free will, which entails that the “whole of Nature” is not as mechanical or predetermined as, perhaps, your Baptist affiliation might insist it has to be.

“Open architecture” is a computing term meaning that hardware is designed to be open to the “imprinting” of new capacities after the fact. I would suggest that if human engineers can do this with regard to silicone, aluminum, etc., God must surely be capable of doing so with regard to flesh, blood, genetics, and neurology, especially if autonomous moral agency is a reality to be “fit” into “the whole of Nature.”

 

[inocente]

The code in DNA is complex, but scientists recently discovered a second code written on top of the first.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

That sounded interesting and as it’s dated 2013 I looked at what happened to it since. Seems to have sunk without trace except for a few blogs calling it “hype”.

The team may have exaggerated just a tiny bit, as they went to press in December, round about when they might be trying to get funding for the next year .

 

[Peter_Plato]

NOSTRA AETATE, PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.” - vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Again, you deflect. Who was talking about “Moslems,” generally?

It was you who said “all faiths” should be respected. My question was about the “faith” of those Moslems who behead and seek to subjugate those who don’t submit to their version of their faith. Are you now backtracking away from your claim that ALL faiths should be respected to a claim that only the acceptable ones ought to be and that those whose faith leads them to behead and subjugate others ought not be respected?

You seem unable to bring yourself to that conclusion and instead deflect to a definitional “out” by arbitrarily dismissing the radicals as if they don’t have religious faith or zeal. How about providing a definition for what does pass as “faith” so we know the qualifications which need to be applied to ALL, since apparently ALL does not really mean ALL as far as you are concerned.

 

[inocente]

Again, you deflect. Who was talking about “Moslems,” generally?

It was you who said “all faiths” should be respected. My question was about the “faith” of those Moslems who behead and seek to subjugate those who don’t submit to their version of their faith. Are you now backtracking away from your claim that ALL faiths should be respected to a claim that only the acceptable ones ought to be and that those whose faith leads them to behead and subjugate others ought not be respected?

You seem unable to bring yourself to that conclusion and instead deflect to a definitional “out” by arbitrarily dismissing the radicals as if they don’t have religious faith or zeal. How about providing a definition for what does pass as “faith” so we know the qualifications which need to be applied to ALL, since apparently ALL does not really mean ALL as far as you are concerned.

No I am not backtracking, they don’t represent Islam or have anything to do with the vast majority of Muslims, and Muslims tell me they act against the Quran.

Didn’t join this thread to hear about your politics, so not discussing it further, start a thread and no doubt others will.

 

[inocente]

God is in the whole of nature but it doesn’t imply that nature has no** negative** aspects such as defects, anomalies, freaks, aberrations and limitations:

As you agree God is in the whole of nature, I take it we’re agreed that God can be found in what we know about nature.

inocente;13936710:

I thought the Church teaches that you receive your soul at conception. Is that not sufficient for you?

Do you accept that teaching?

You answer my question then I’ll answer yours: if you accept your Church’s teaching that you receive your soul at conception, then is that not sufficient to separate humans from other animals?

It implies evolution by Design:

Please define what you mean by “evolution by Design”.

So you believe God never intervenes or answers prayers? Never prevents accidents or disasters? Never warns anyone of danger? Never inspires or enlightens anyone? Never consoles those who mourn or are afflicted? Never gives strength to those who face temptation. Never guides His Church? Never does anything to help His children on earth and leaves them entirely to their own devices? In other words you don’t believe in the gift of grace?

What a strange conclusion. If you have a relationship with God then that’s more than enough to prove his grace. I’m not the one arguing for a designer who designed everything in the past, so I don’t need God to intervene periodically to prove He’s still here. To me, He’s here because I know Him personally. Those who’re not born again might call that subjective, but I’ll take it any day compared with a God who only exists in theories. Don’t you agree?

 

[Aloysium]

That sounded interesting and as it’s dated 2013 I looked at what happened to it since. Seems to have sunk without trace except for a few blogs calling it “hype”.

The team may have exaggerated just a tiny bit, as they went to press in December, round about when they might be trying to get funding for the next year .

The people who brought you that research:
scholar.google.ca/citations?user=ucZ0JxQAAAAJ&hl=en
encodeproject.org/tutorials/encode-users-meeting-2016/
stamlab.org