If you don't believe in ID after this you will

[edwest2]

Looking at it from a Biblical perspective, I think it is quite clear that life was made and called good by God as having this characteristic. After an actual event in man’s history, all of Creation was affected. Your post provides the Catholic Answer in a world that desires a universal answer that will cross all lines – religious and non-religious. I can understand why some Catholics cannot accept a God who intervenes, but God has been intervening throughout human history. He communicated with the prophets, He sent his Son physically. For all of the Catholics who want to defend what is called science today, and protect it from all ideology, what about God?

It has nothing to do with science is not an acceptable answer. God, personally, had everything to do with us. Jesus sent the Blessed Virgin with messages, or has that stopped being acceptable?

Instead, materialists come here and say, No evidence. No God. Our evidence is the only evidence there is. Accept it.

We’re here to spread the Gospel and to live it out. What are the science supporters here for? You gotta accept it. Evolution, the new circumcision? I can’t join your Church if you don’t accept it?

Instead, they prefer the Stephen Jay Gould formula that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently. God made everything out of nothing. Intention was behind all we see.

It’s in the title of Cardinal Schoenborn’s book: Chance or Purpose?

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

But it’s not a matter of whether or not God would’ve chosen to design it a particular way-who could know?-it’s simply a matter of whether or not intelligence was required to design it. It’s also a question of, does it make more sense-is it more or less probable- that, given all that exists, intelligence should precede design?

In the SETI experiments we postulate, that, without knowing beforehand if any rational beings exist outside of earth, such beings would be capable of producing, depending on their level of technological advancement, radio signals that could only result if their own intelligence were utilized to design them. We’d have no qualms with simply recognizing the need for a designer in this area, why would we in any other area where we observe the evidence of apparent design?

Even Dawkins agrees that life on earth could be intelligently designed as long as you believe that it evolved somewhere else.

 

[buffalo]

Looking at it from a Biblical perspective, I think it is quite clear that life was made and called good by God as having this characteristic. After an actual event in man’s history, all of Creation was affected. Your post provides the Catholic Answer in a world that desires a universal answer that will cross all lines – religious and non-religious. I can understand why some Catholics cannot accept a God who intervenes, but God has been intervening throughout human history. He communicated with the prophets, He sent his Son physically. For all of the Catholics who want to defend what is called science today, and protect it from all ideology, what about God?

It has nothing to do with science is not an acceptable answer. God, personally, had everything to do with us. Jesus sent the Blessed Virgin with messages, or has that stopped being acceptable?

Instead, materialists come here and say, No evidence. No God. Our evidence is the only evidence there is. Accept it.

We’re here to spread the Gospel and to live it out. What are the science supporters here for? You gotta accept it. Evolution, the new circumcision? I can’t join your Church if you don’t accept it?

Instead, they prefer the Stephen Jay Gould formula that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently. God made everything out of nothing. Intention was behind all we see.

It’s in the title of Cardinal Schoenborn’s book: Chance or Purpose?

Peace,
Ed

God upholds and sustains creation.
301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:

For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made; for you would not have made anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured, if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.160
**V. GOD CARRIES OUT HIS PLAN: DIVINE PROVIDENCE ** 302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161 303 The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. The sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events: "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases."162 And so it is with Christ, “who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens”.163 As the book of Proverbs states: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will be established."164
304 And so we see the Holy Spirit, the principal author of Sacred Scripture, often attributing actions to God without mentioning any secondary causes. This is not a “primitive mode of speech”, but a profound way of recalling God’s primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world,165 and so of educating his people to trust in him. The prayer of the Psalms is the great school of this trust.166
305 Jesus asks for childlike abandonment to the providence of our heavenly Father who takes care of his children’s smallest needs: "Therefore do not be anxious, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?”. . . Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well."167
Providence and secondary causes 306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.
http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/308.htm');

 

[buffalo]

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.170
http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/308.htm');
The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."171 Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for "without a Creator the creature vanishes."172 Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace.173**[308](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/308.htm’)**

 

[tonyrey]

A Catholic cannot accept that there is any such thing as “mindless natural processes”. Nothing can happen apart from the will of God, and hence the mind of God, in Catholicism.

In this context the phrase “mindless natural processes” is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as “natural processes without a mind” or “natural processes without the mind of God”. The first interpretation is clearly compatible with belief in God.

The only room for “chance” in Catholicism is the contingent things God happens to will, which remain a matter of unexplained brute fact.

There is no obvious reason why God should not will the occurrence of random events. It is not logically impossible.

The default hypothesis (no “design”) would need a little more explication. I don’t see how a Catholic could be completely satisfied with this portrayal of intelligent design.

Why is the non-design the default hypothesis? At the outset there is no reason to favour any metaphysical explanation. Idealism, for example, is as possible as materialism.

As a scientist, I am going to object to the conclusion that because the probability of, say, a functional protein arising by “chance” is very low that this makes the probability of design by intelligence very high. This is simply stated in the video and it is a fallacy. Yes, no doubt the probability that a sufficiently intelligent agent could design the protein is 1. But the relevant factor is a probability or a reason to think that a sufficiently intelligent agent actually would do so. Let D = designer who designed the protein, and P be the protein. From Bayes’ Theorem

P(D|P) = P(D)*P(P|D)/P(P) = P(D)*P(P|D)/(P(D)*P(P|D)+P(~D)*P(P|~D))

I’ll grant that P(P|D) = 1, and that P(P|~D) is very small. Even so we need P(D), a prior belief or probability that such a designer would exist and design the protein. Now in the case of archaeological digs and artifacts, etc., we know that designers lived then and had a motivation to design spears, etc. But here, in the case of a finite designer, we’re just flying blind. Is it more “improbable” that life arose by “chance” then that a finite designer just happened to be around in the right place at the right time. And where did **his **intelligence come from, and where did that life get started from, if it took billions of years for human intelligence to evolve (assuming standard evolutionary theory is correct).

Once again there is no default explanation. If we accept the immense value of existence as opposed to non-existence it is more reasonable to believe life is not a fortuitous event. Anyone who claims that its value is merely a subjective opinion is adopting an intellectual pose which is falsified by his constant acceptance and enjoyment of the benefits of life.

So you say, postulate an infinite designer (God). Here it becomes impossible to get anywhere at all. What is the prior probability God would design a functional protein? Who knows? If He wanted life on earth there are many other ways He could have done so without bothering with proteins. The notion of probability is simply unusable with an infinite, omnipotent being. This “Argument from Design” (completely different from Aquinas’ Fifth Way) is a non-starter. Catholics are right to reject it.

It is unnecessary to assess the probability of any particular method of creating life. We are faced with the reality of life and a choice between Design and non-Design. The most important aspects of life are not adequately explained as the result of mindless, purposeless, valueless evolution. To use our power of reason to “prove” that everything exists for no reason is a bizarre enterprise. It is a logical possibility that rationality has emerged from irrational processes but the best test of any philosophical explanation is whether it corresponds to the way we live. In daily life do we regard and treat persons as biological machines without free will or responsibility or a right to life and happiness? It is the sterility of atheism that is its outstanding defect. By any standards the development of rational, autonomous beings from the Big Bang is an outstanding achievement…

 

[MickMannock]

Dude seems to be baffling a lot of people with computer jargon, if i was there i would of had one word for him… emergence.

When will the likes of computer scientists and engineers realize that there discipline has nothing to do with biology???

 

[shannyk]

But the concept behind the notion of ID is simply that intelligence must ultimately be the cause behind the design of all things. I’m don’t see why a Catholic would believe otherwise, whether or not we think it should be promoted as science at this point.

but referring to God as an ‘intelligent’ creator is an enormous understatement.

Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says

Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.”

He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.”

He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

 

[buffalo]

but referring to God as an ‘intelligent’ creator is an enormous understatement.

Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says

ID cannot arrive at a complete explanation of God. No one expects it to. The results of ID will resonate in philosophy as God’s beauty is further comprehended. The fact that we can understand the intelligibility of creation in our small way does not dis God.

His evidence of creation is all around us. To claim it cannot be found in biology is nonsense.

Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate

and

• The Pope, the Cardinal, the Jesuit & the Evolving Debate About Origins*
  *by *Martin Hilbert
  It makes no obvious difference to our salvation whether the geometry of our universe is Euclidian, whether quantum mechanics is the last word in atomic physics, or whether the Big Bang is the correct model for the development of the universe. These theories witness to the power of the human intellect, but few would claim that they bear on questions of faith and morals.
  Evolution, on the other hand, says something about the origin of man, and in this way can, at least in theory, conflict with religious dogma. And so, although the Catholic Church seldom speaks about scientific theories, from time to time it breaks the silence to address the question of biological evolution. It does so when it perceives that some Catholics accept as true a scientific theory that denies some important Christian teaching about man and his origins.

more…

 

[reggieM]

He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”

Apparently, engineers cannot be lovers. They’re a diminished class of human beings, also, supposedly.

In spite of Fr. Coyne’s anti-engineering prejudice – I say, love an engineer today. They make your bridges and airplanes and computers. And God is happy to model their great work in His own design and construction of systems. He loves them also – even if Fr. Coyne doesn’t.

 

[buffalo]

Apparently, engineers cannot be lovers. They’re a diminished class of human beings, also, supposedly.

In spite of Fr. Coyne’s anti-engineering prejudice – I say, love an engineer today. They make your bridges and airplanes and computers. And God is happy to model their great work in His own design and construction of systems. He loves them also – even if Fr. Coyne doesn’t.

And we should study God’s creation to show us how to engineer things that help mankind. Too often we are working against it.

 

[Detales]

I tried to sit through the video of Kirk Dunston’s presentation, but couldn’t do it. So I went to his paper and came to the same conclusion after reading it. I am more convinced now than ever that ID is so much balderdash. That is not to say I agree with Darwinism. I dont. But Durstons inherent falacies and apples/oranges non sequiturs brought me away disappointed that even a scientist with his training couldn’t come up with something more consistent.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Aww darn -I thought your name was going to be formeragnostic after this.

As the video showed the clear demarcation point of science and philosophy. Science should be committed to good science without bias. I do not see any conflict with Catholic teaching here.

I’m perfectly clear on the demarcation point. Empirical science deals with contingent truths, philosophy with necessary ones. Philosophy can say A is possible but cannot say whether A obtains or not in the actual world.

Let’s assume that everyone agrees with the formula and we can objectively agree that the probability of design is high (almost certain). So be it.

But that’s just the problem. The formula doesn’t show that. The formula shows the probability of design is not calculable or estimable.

 

[NowAgnostic]

In this context the phrase “mindless natural processes” is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as “natural processes without a mind” or “natural processes without the mind of God”. The first interpretation is clearly compatible with belief in God.

Not understanding you here. If it’s without a mind, it’s without the mind of God.

There is no obvious reason why God should not will the occurrence of random events. It is not logically impossible.

What is “random”? I think it is logically impossible for God to not be First Cause of everything under orthodox theism. I’m with Einstein, I don’t see how God can really “play dice”.

Why is the non-design the default hypothesis? At the outset there is no reason to favour any metaphysical explanation. Idealism, for example, is as possible as materialism.
Once again there is no default explanation.

Well ask the speaker on the video that. He is the one saying non-design is the “null” hypothesis that needs to be disconfirmed by evidence.

If we accept the immense value of existence as opposed to non-existence it is more reasonable to believe life is not a fortuitous event. Anyone who claims that its value is merely a subjective opinion is adopting an intellectual pose which is falsified by his constant acceptance and enjoyment of the benefits of life.

Is it just a matter of “luck” that God decided to create life then? Or was it somehow necessary or inevitable that God do so?

It is unnecessary to assess the probability of any particular method of creating life.

Yes it IS necessary if you want to make inductive inferences.

We are faced with the reality of life and a choice between Design and non-Design. The most important aspects of life are not adequately explained as the result of mindless, purposeless, valueless evolution.

And they aren’t adequately explained by design either!

To use our power of reason to “prove” that everything exists for no reason is a bizarre enterprise. It is a logical possibility that rationality has emerged from irrational processes but the best test of any philosophical explanation is whether it corresponds to the way we live.

Not disagreeing here. But note this is an entirely different argument than attempting to make an inductive inference to design.

In daily life do we regard and treat persons as biological machines without free will or responsibility or a right to life and happiness? It is the sterility of atheism that is its outstanding defect. By any standards the development of rational, autonomous beings from the Big Bang is an outstanding achievement…

I agree mostly, and yet…

Well it’s late and it would take a new thread to fully explicate myself.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

Only for an atheist! Theists believe everything is sustained by God but not everything has a mind.
There is no obvious reason why God should not will the occurrence of random events. It is not logically impossible.

What is “random”? I think it is logically impossible for God to not be First Cause of everything under orthodox theism. I’m with Einstein, I don’t see how God can really “play dice”.

I’m using “random” in the sense of “uncaused”. I don’t see why it is impossible for God to create a world with uncaused subatomic events. He could even create a chaotic world but it would obviously not sustain life.

Why is the non-design the default hypothesis? At the outset there is no reason to favour any metaphysical explanation. Idealism, for example, is as possible as materialism.

Once again there is no default explanation.

Well ask the speaker on the video that. He is the one saying non-design is the “null” hypothesis that needs to be disconfirmed by evidence.

**At the outset **all hypotheses are equally possible.

If we accept the immense value of existence as opposed to non-existence it is more reasonable to believe life is not a fortuitous event. Anyone who claims that its value is merely a subjective opinion is adopting an intellectual pose which is falsified by his constant acceptance and enjoyment of the benefits of life.

Is it just a matter of “luck” that God decided to create life then?

I don’t know why you ask that question.

Or was it somehow necessary or inevitable that God do so?

If we can do things that are not necessary it follows that God certainly can.

It is unnecessary to assess the probability of any particular method of creating life.

Yes it IS necessary if you want to make inductive inferences.
I should have been more precise. It is unnecessary to assess the probability of any particular method of creating life if you believe it was created by God. What matters is the improbability of the fortuitous origin of life.

We are faced with the reality of life and a choice between Design and non-Design. The most important aspects of life are not adequately explained as the result of mindless, purposeless, valueless evolution.

And they aren’t adequately explained by design either!
Why not?

To use our power of reason to “prove” that everything exists for no reason is a bizarre enterprise. It is a logical possibility that rationality has emerged from irrational processes but the best test of any philosophical explanation is whether it corresponds to the way we live.

Not disagreeing here. But note this is an entirely different argument than attempting to make an inductive inference to design.I agree but it is a very strong argument.

In daily life do we regard and treat persons as biological machines without free will or responsibility or a right to life and happiness? It is the sterility of atheism that is its outstanding defect. By any standards the development of rational, autonomous beings from the Big Bang is an outstanding achievement…
I agree mostly, and yet…
Well it’s late and it would take a new thread to fully explicate myself.

I look forward to your next post. TTFN!

 

[NowAgnostic]

Only for an atheist! Theists believe everything is sustained by God but not everything has a mind.

Of course. “Mindless natural processes” must therefore be sustained by God and can’t be “mindless” strictly speaking. For a theist the question “could mindless natural processes have created X” must be meaningless.

There is no obvious reason why God should not will the occurrence of random events. It is not logically impossible.
I’m using “random” in the sense of “uncaused”. I don’t see why it is impossible for God to create a world with uncaused subatomic events. He could even create a chaotic world but it would obviously not sustain life.

Under theism God is the First Cause of everything.

I should have been more precise. It is unnecessary to assess the probability of any particular method of creating life if you believe it was created by God. What matters is the improbability of the fortuitous origin of life.

Yes what also matters is the improbability of God creating life. And that’s what is impossible to ascertain.

 

[James_S_Saint]

There is no obvious reason why God should not will the occurrence of random events. It is not logically impossible.
I’m using “random” in the sense of “uncaused”. I don’t see why it is impossible for God to create a world with uncaused subatomic events. He could even create a chaotic world but it would obviously not sustain life.

Careful, “random” does NOT mean “uncaused”. God most certainly sees absolutely nothing as random nor uncaused.

Randomness and probability both refer to the ability to predict from a state of ignorance.

Given the logical options of state yet unaware of the condition of state, a probability can be derived. But if the distribution of probability is totally even, then the predictability of the event becomes completely unknown and thus the event that “is caused” cannot be predicted and is said to be “random”.

In all cases, all events are assumed to be caused (and indeed must be).

Randomness is for humans to deal with, not God. And knowing enough of God removes the existence of randomness entirely.

 

[wallstreeterww]

This seems like an interesting video. Its late here so I will probably sit through it tomorrow if I dont have any work after church. When it comes to intelligent design I prefer an even bigger scale then the living organism and that is the creation of the universe, and it is in this field that science is marching closer and closer in towards gods existence.
During the big bang the 4 natural forces (electromagnetism,gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces) were fine tuned to an amazingly precise degree. Not only this but there are many constants introduced that simply arent supposed to be there. Combine all of these aspects together and it becomes apparent that some intelligent, purposeful force (or guiding hand) was in on this.

When I win the state lottery the first time you guys will consider me lucky. The second time even luckier, but when I win every state lotrery every month in my lifetime you guys will start to feel something is rigged and we have a riggor. This analogy doesnt even come close to representing the kind of astromical fine tuning needed to not only create this universe but to create a universe that would sustain life. 100 years ago many naturalists believed that the universe was beginningless, meaning that it was always here (eternal). Advances in modern science, astronomy and mathematics have shown that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

If there was an intelligent force or guiding hand that created this all, that force would have to be immaterial and metaphysical, and it doesnt need a cause. The alternative would be believe in infinite regression which is simply implausable at this point.

At this point we are inside the deist mind (Dr.Antony Flew, Sir frederick Hoyle) as he makes the conversion from atheism-agnostism to deism. To me the only difference between a deist and a theist is that theists believe in a personal god and deist dont. Then it simply becomes a moral and philosophical debate.

 

[tonyrey]

Careful, “random” does NOT mean “uncaused”. God most certainly sees absolutely nothing as random nor uncaused.

There are two classes of events not caused by God: mental and physical. No acts of free will are caused by God. Quantum theory holds that certain subatomic events are uncaused. Coincidences like physical disasters are not directly caused by God but obviously He is the ultimate Cause of everything.

 

[JDaniel]

There are two classes of events not caused by God: mental and physical. No acts of free will are caused by God. Quantum theory holds that certain subatomic events are uncaused. Coincidences like physical disasters are not directly caused by God but obviously He is the ultimate Cause of everything.

Tonyrey:

As much as I hate to, I have no choice but to disagree. On the “physical class”, all motion or change is caused. Since the physicist tends not to push on to “causes”, in his investigations of mobile being, but rather to limit them only to what can be mathematically concluded, he cannot pronounce on anything from a causal point of view, except from a “diner table conversational” aspect.

A “coincidence,” also known as, a chance occurrence, is a plural cause. It consists of proper causes, in their own respective orders, that intersect by chance. In this sense, chance is a cause, but only because the event consists of two (or more) properly ordered causal streams. In other words, both were intended (had final causes or purposes), but, the final causes were not related to the accidental intersection of the causal streams. Physical disasters are examples of chance occurrences, even though they may occur with some regularity, in some places.

Free will is an exigency of special awareness. It is an awareness of that which " I ought" to choose. or do, not an exigency of “I must” choose this rather than that. Even if one thinks of it in terms of a “moral compunction,” it is not an inevitability, nor is it moral coercion. Furthermore, “I ought” imposes no obligation by me on myself. If it did, then as the authority for the obligation, I can abrogate it. When I admit of “I ought”, I imply that there is an Authority that has a right to impose an obligation on me, and the freedom in me to disregard the imposition if I so choose. If God is this Authority, it does not mean, or logically follow - in these circumstances, that He compels me to choose A or B even though He knows beforehand what I will do.

jd

 

[wallstreeterww]

JDaniels, incredible post. Do you happen to know of any theological or philosophical books or links that I can study in order to better understand this?
Thanks a bunch