Ignorance of the gaps

[Charlemagne_III]

If God set up the universe, then He set it up exactly the way He wanted. He didn’t set it up and then later say “hmm, maybe I could get something interesting if I did this…”.

Please show me where Behe says anything like this about the way God thinks.

Behe doesn’t have to introduce a new type of science that can detect design. Design is commonly detected by all of us as we look at each others works that are the result of design. It is not a new type of science that loooks at a watch found in the desert and says, “Hmm, somebody designed an interestingly complex watch.” Nobody ever says, “Wow! This interestingly designed watch must have just randomly came together by itself!” Nobody ever says of a Dell computer, “This must have come into being all at once without any intelligent design.” So I think you are creating a straw man here.

All Behe is saying is precisely what Aquinas says in his fifth proof. Are you saying that the fifth proof asserts that God created the universe by design and then experimented whimsically with it to see what he could produce? Are you repudiating the fifth proof that I cited above? I think not. So how does the assertion of evidence of intelligent design conflict with Aquinas? Please don’t talk about machines again. That metaphor is not registering on this end.

 

[cfauster]

I will try not to use the word that refers to the general class of things represented by watches and Dell computers!

Anyway, here’s a kind of ID that I think we might all embrace:

“I have argued that the general process of evolution can be seen as evidence for an intelligent creator, though I concede that many, perhaps most, biologists, do not see it that way. But that is largely because they hold a materialist worldview that does not allow the possibility of a conscious supernatural reality. I have also shown that many biologists argue that Darwinian evolution eliminates the possibility of an intelligent designer, holding that any such designer would be lazy, stupid and cruel. But that is only true if we think of a designer directly designing every organism as perfect – in other words, the creationist view that God creates each species directly. As I have stressed, the ID view is not creationist, and sees evolution in terms of mutation, trial and error, and natural selection. The designer of such a process would be extremely intelligent, since the process is both efficient and guaranteed to reach goals of great value. From the unconscious circling of electrons arises the conscious formulation of an Einstein equation. From the value-indifferent interactions of unfelt physical forces arises the transfiguring beauty of a Beethoven symphony. From the blind mechanisms of molecular conflict arises the intelligent formation of future goals and purposes. And from the deterministic processes of atomic interactions arises the creative pursuit of responsible freedom. The basic laws and processes of nature are remarkably, indeed perhaps uniquely, well formed for the arising of conscious intelligent agency by a process of cumulative and progressive development from a primal relatively simple material origin. The process is efficient. That is one vital element of a design explanation.”

Those are the words of Keith Ward, from his 2009 Boyle Lecture, at:
gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-boyle-lecture-%E2%80%93-misusing-darwin-the-materialist-conspiracy-in-evolutionary

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I will try not to use the word that refers to the general class of things represented by watches and Dell computers!

Anyway, here’s a kind of ID that I think we might all embrace:

Yes, I can see this. The “world view” referred to is the notion that we cannot posit any extra-terrestrial source of intelligent design, becasue God is not only not the topic of science, but God does not even exist according to the scientific requirement for proofs of his existence.

Yet how else does science explain the beautiful symphony of life rising out of gross inanimate matter? Pure chance? Or pure necessity? Neither assumption can stand the test of proof, a test that is required throughout the scientific world. What we can stand is what we are told by our senses and right reasoning. It makes no sense that order should arise out of disorder by pure chance. Thoughout nature, and throughout the universe, it is reasonable to infer that God is the Intelligent Designer.

 

[tonyrey]

The fact of the matter is that the universe cannot do anything without God. It can’t even exist without God’s eternal creative act. It seems that (correct me if I am wrong) under ID assumptions creation occurred in the past and the universe therefore can exist on its own but it just won’t produce anything irreducibly complex without tinkering from the designer. The causal series proposed seems to be more of an accidental series in the ID view rather than an essential one in the classical view.

It is unrealistic to believe that in an immensely complex universe ruled by blind laws there has never been any need for divine intervention at any stage of the development of countless individuals in a process that has lasted for billions of years. The Creator is reduced to a passive Observer instead of being regarded as a loving Father who has performed innumerable miracles, answered our prayers, minimised the suffering of His children and on many occasions has prevented disasters, notably the extinction of all life on this planet. That view is at odds with the teaching of Jesus.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Creator is reduced to a passive Observer instead of being regarded as a loving Father who has performed innumerable miracles, answered our prayers, minimised the suffering of His children and on many occasions has prevented disasters, notably the extinction of all life on this planet. That view is at odds with the teaching of Jesus.

Evolution theory for most biologists presupposes that the universe evolves randomly without intervention by a Deity. Therefore, it is imperative that any hint of Intelligent Design (of the universe in general or in part) be anihilated from scientific circles, even when it is reasonable to make an inference that what appears to be designed may well be designed. Yet no scientist for a moment would refer to his own laboratory experiments as random events. He would think of them as intelligently designed. What he attributes to himself, the power of intelligent designing, he refuses to attribute to God, because that would mean the God of the Gaps. This is based, of course, on the arrogant presupposition that there is no God to fill the Gaps in human understanding.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Evolutionist are not unlike physicists (Einstein, for example) who said this:

“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.”

(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)

Again, it is important to all those who deny God (Einstein, Dawkins, et. al.) that there be a seamless cloth covering all scientific thought, that protects such thoughts from the ever threatening rain of intelligent design and divine intervention.

 

[tonyrey]

Evolution theory for most biologists presupposes that the universe evolves randomly without intervention by a Deity. Therefore, it is imperative that any hint of Intelligent Design (of the universe in general or in part) be annihilated from scientific circles, even when it is reasonable to make an inference that what appears to be designed may well be designed. Yet no scientist for a moment would refer to his own laboratory experiments as random events. He would think of them as intelligently designed. What he attributes to himself, the power of intelligent designing, he refuses to attribute to God, because that would mean the God of the Gaps. This is based, of course, on the arrogant presupposition that there is no God to fill the Gaps in human understanding.

In other words such power becomes the inexplicable monopoly of mankind! :yeah_me:

 

[balto]

It is unrealistic to believe that in an immensely complex universe ruled by blind laws there has never been any need for divine intervention at any stage of the development of countless individuals in a process that has lasted for billions of years. The Creator is reduced to a passive Observer instead of being regarded as a loving Father who has performed innumerable miracles, answered our prayers, minimised the suffering of His children and on many occasions has prevented disasters, notably the extinction of all life on this planet. That view is at odds with the teaching of Jesus.

I don’t think you’re reading what I am writing because the passage of my post that you quoted says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming it says. Without God, there universe would not even exist. God is eternally creating and interacting with the world, not just when He wants to produce irreducibly complex structures.

 

[balto]

I will try not to use the word that refers to the general class of things represented by watches and Dell computers!

Anyway, here’s a kind of ID that I think we might all embrace:

Yes, I think there are a lot of good things in the passage you quoted that Thomists would agree with. Part of the problem in this latest series of posts in this thread seems to be equivocation over what the terms “intelligent design” and “evolution” mean to different people.

 

[balto]

All Behe is saying is precisely what Aquinas says in his fifth proof. Are you saying that the fifth proof asserts that God created the universe by design and then experimented whimsically with it to see what he could produce? Are you repudiating the fifth proof that I cited above? I think not. So how does the assertion of evidence of intelligent design conflict with Aquinas? Please don’t talk about machines again. That metaphor is not registering on this end.

I use the word “machines” because that is precisely what ID is comparing life to. When you say this:
Charlemagne III:

It is not a new type of science that loooks at a watch found in the desert and says, “Hmm, somebody designed an interestingly complex watch.” Nobody ever says, “Wow! This interestingly designed watch must have just randomly came together by itself!” Nobody ever says of a Dell computer, “This must have come into being all at once without any intelligent design.”

you are comparing life to a watch or a Dell computer and the word that is commonly used to describe such phenomena is “machine.” A machine is composed of parts that perform a highly specific function, yes, but they are not natural in the sense that the parts comprising the machine do not have an inherent tendency to forming watches or computers. Aquinas’ Fifth Way is arguing that since natural processes tend to final ends, there is a Supreme Intelligence guiding them to their ends. By comparing life to a watch, the ID theorist is saying that if left to its own devices the universe would not produce life, hence a designer has to put the pre-existing pieces together occasionally. That’s why Thomism and ID are incompatible because Thomism accepts that final causes are part of all reality and ID does not.

I have a feeling that you accept all of this but I’m not sure why that entails a rejection of evolution. If it’s because Darwinists tie evolution to materialism, there’s nothing in evolution that in any way suggests that materialism is true. That’s a metaphysical claim and if the Darwinists are intent on making it then they need to provide rational justification for it rather than shouting “evolution” or “science” until they are blue in the face.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I have a feeling that you accept all of this but I’m not sure why that entails a rejection of evolution. If it’s because Darwinists tie evolution to materialism, there’s nothing in evolution that in any way suggests that materialism is true. That’s a metaphysical claim and if the Darwinists are intent on making it then they need to provide rational justification for it rather than shouting “evolution” or “science” until they are blue in the face.

I have difficulty following some of your arguments, probably because I am looking at this from a very different perspective, into which I trying to fit your comments. For me it has nothing to do with materialism, but rather the nature of man.
For clarification, do you believe we all come from the same two original parents?

 

[balto]

I have difficulty following some of your arguments, probably because I am looking at this from a very different perspective, into which I trying to fit your comments. For me it has nothing to do with materialism, but rather the nature of man.
For clarification, do you believe we all come from the same two original parents?

Of course. If I remember correctly I believe it was Humani Generis which stated that monogenism is binding on the faithful.

I think I see where you are going with this. If modern biology claims that humanity descended from something like a pool of 10,000 individuals then how can we reconcile that with our coming solely from Adam and Eve? But this is a metaphysical question rather than a biological one. A human is a living substance that has a material body but the form of a rational animal (i.e. a rational soul) which is essentially immaterial in its highest operations (namely intellect and will which all other animals lack). If you have a human-like body but the form of the body is not rational, then it is not a human being. So Adam and Eve would be solely human even if there were Neanderthals or Cro magnons walking around at the same time.

I don’t see a necessary conflict with this understanding and what I have written up to this point. A Thomist does not see the soul as a separate substance that is conjoined with a body the way a Cartesian dualist would see it. The interesting thing is that Thomists say that anything that is alive has a soul (because they all have forms obviously) but the highest operations of non-human souls are entirely material, hence they do not persist after bodily death.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

By comparing life to a watch, the ID theorist is saying that if left to its own devices the universe would not produce life, hence a designer has to put the pre-existing pieces together occasionally. **That’s why Thomism and ID are incompatible because Thomism accepts that final causes are part of all reality and ID does not. I have a feeling that you accept all of this but I’m not sure why that entails a rejection of evolution. ** If it’s because Darwinists tie evolution to materialism, there’s nothing in evolution that in any way suggests that materialism is true. That’s a metaphysical claim and if the Darwinists are intent on making it then they need to provide rational justification for it rather than shouting “evolution” or “science” until they are blue in the face.

Again, I ask you to provide any passage from Behe or others that rejects final causality, especially when intelligent design is a kind of final causality. Who is rejecting evolution? Is Beh rejecting evolution? I don’t think so! What he is rejecting is the notion that evolution could apply to Abiogenesis, and he has good reason to do so, since life cannot evolve from non-life, only from other life. That is the fundamental principle of evolution and Darwin certainly never said otherwise even if Dawkins does.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For clarification, do you believe we all come from the same two original parents?

This is an good point. If Adam and Eve simply evolved, then there is no special point at which the transmission of the soul from God to to Adam and Eve occurred. Does this mean that nature, rather than God, created the first human souls? Didn’t God intervene in this instance as well and intelligently design Adam and Eve to exist as a decisive breal with the rest of Creation?

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think you’re reading what I am writing because the passage of my post that you quoted says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming it says. Without God, there universe would not even exist. God is eternally creating and interacting with the world, not just when He wants to produce irreducibly complex structures.

You gave the impression that God doesn’t intervene when you rejected “tinkering from the designer”…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You gave the impression that God doesn’t intervene when you rejected “tinkering from the designer”…

Behe never uses the word “tinkering” in his discussion of Intelligent Design. This is a word I think maybe some of his critics have imposed on ID. One would think that Behe views all of Creation as subject to Intelligent Design and that would be in line with Thomistic teaching on final causality and his fifth proof for the existence of God.

The word “tinker” I think is only useful to describe a particularly significant moment in the history of the universe, such as the creation of stars and planets, life on a planet, and the creation of the human soul in Adam and Eve; not to mention, of course, the Incarnation.

 

[balto]

Again, I ask you to provide any passage from Behe or others that rejects final causality, especially when intelligent design is a kind of final causality. Who is rejecting evolution? Is Beh rejecting evolution? I don’t think so! What he is rejecting is the notion that evolution could apply to Abiogenesis, and he has good reason to do so, since life cannot evolve from non-life, only from other life. That is the fundamental principle of evolution and Darwin certainly never said otherwise even if Dawkins does.

Well I don’t think that anyone is claiming that evolution can account for the first organism since it presupposes life existing already. Even Dawkins, despite the number of foolish statements he utters, I don’t think would make that claim. But the point is that however the first organism came about, there’s a natural process underlying it. Of course it is not going to happen randomly but it will have a natural component nonetheless and the naturalists will claim that this proves that God is not needed. “Nature did it all on its own.” It’s all because the way the argument was framed in that we allowed that simple things could be accounted for in purely natural terms but the big things like abiogenesis or irreducible complexity cannot be. Once those natural processes are discovered, they’ll say “see, we told you so.” When they were completely mistaken about God the whole time because even the simple things cannot exist or function completely naturally without recourse to finality. It’s like I said at the beginning, that something like the fact that striking a match leads to fire is no less intelligently designed than a bacterial flagellum.

Although Behe et al. may not directly say “I don’t believe in final causes” if they grant that the naturalists have it right with simple things then they are implicitly conceding that final causes are not inherent and need to be imposed by God on certain aspects of the universe. If evolution is fine as long as it is interpreted in the context of God’s creation, then is there a special way that so-called irreducibly complex structures came about? Darwinists use the term “random” because they want to kick God out of the picture but I don’t think they really believe it was random; they think that the laws of physics predetermined that all of this happen. They say the laws of physics produced the flagellum and then nature selected for it and there’s really nothing ID could say in response to that without getting metaphysical.

 

[balto]

This is an good point. If Adam and Eve simply evolved, then there is no special point at which the transmission of the soul from God to to Adam and Eve occurred. Does this mean that nature, rather than God, created the first human souls? Didn’t God intervene in this instance as well and intelligently design Adam and Eve to exist as a decisive breal with the rest of Creation?

This is not necessarily a problem. Evolution concerns the material body and since the form of a human is essentially immaterial it could not arise via evolution. God has eternally been sustaining humans in this form. Temporal considerations of how long it took matter to reach a human form is irrelevant as far as God is concerned. Establishing that human intellection is essentially immaterial greatly undermines the materialist worldview IMO.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Yeah, it’s somewhat ironic when the atheist falsely claims that we’re hiding behind what we don’t know yet, and saying “God did it” (despite the fact that science can’t tell us how something can come from nothing, any more than it can tell us the shape of purple), while they themselves are often hiding behind future scientific knowledge (something we don’t know); when presented with the fine tuning argument, they often hide behind, “well, maybe someday science will reduce those constants.” Of course, we could just say “and, maybe someday science will increase those constants.” They often present that transparent appeal to ignorance (or, the “future scientific knowledge be there” fallacy, or “argumentum ad scientiam futurorum”) with an irrelevant thesis that science has discredited supernatural explanations for other things, so it’s gonna happen on this particular instance (this is similar to how the Yankees beat the Red Sox in 1949, 1978 and 2003, so they were going to beat them in 2004), to make the fallacy seem even a little bit reasonable.

 

[balto]

You gave the impression that God doesn’t intervene when you rejected “tinkering from the designer”…

It depends on what you mean by “intervene.” God intervenes in the sense that He sustains everything that exists. It does not mean that the universe goes awry, God is surprised by this, and then steps in to fix it when it goes bad. God does not “tinker” with the universe. Everything that exists, exists because He wills it to exist so there’s no need to set up the universe and then later come by to impose order on it because it’s not doing what He wants it to do. Now I know somebody will bring up the Fall and the Incarnation but God is outside of time so He’s eternally sustaining these events as well. All of the timeline is eternally present to Him.
Charlemagne III:

One would think that Behe views all of Creation as subject to Intelligent Design and that would be in line with Thomistic teaching on final causality and his fifth proof for the existence of God.

Agreed, but that’s not the argument he is presenting. And, contrary to their claims, it is not a scientific argument but a metaphysical one. If this works for people, then that’s fine, but Aquinas’ metaphysical proof is much stronger and not subject to the standard criticisms of ID. Plus it gets you to the classical God as understood by Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, et al. To be fair, materialists claiming that evolution “proves” that there is no design is also not a scientific argument and completely begs the question. They can get away with bad philosophy because they have the loudest voice and very few people call them out on it.