In which buffalo schools Touchstone on CSI

[rossum]

If God sustains evolution then it is not unguided or random.

Why not? If God wants something to happen through randomness then it happens through randomness.“The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency”

– St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa

Remember, God looked upon His creation and called it good. Corruption came after the fall.

Good but not perfect. It was “not good” that Adam did not have a companion and that was before the Fall.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Were the oceans that feed us and the lakes that give us drink designed?

Oceans and lakes were present before life appeared on Earth. Life has adapted to their presence and to use them. Were they designed? How can we tell? What we can say at the moment is that Dr Dembski’s proposal of using CSI as an indicator of design is flawed so you are going to have to propose a different method.

Was the atmosphere designed for us to breathe in?

We have adapted to it at great cost. Learn about the Oxygen Catastrophe.

Was our very convenient distance from the sun designed?

Learn about the Anthropic Principle. Liquid water appears to be required for life. If we had been too close or too far from the Sun then we would not be here. The very fact that we are here at all places restrictions on what properties ‘here’ has.

What is the point of your question?

To show that you are selectively recognising design. You recognise design in the watch but fail to recognise design in the sand of the desert. Hence either you have a faulty, and hence unreliable, detector or the designer whose work you are detecting did not design the sand of the desert. Faulty detector or finite, limited, designer? My question is intended to show up one of the weak points of Paley’s argument.

rossum

 

[wanstronian]

Learn about the Anthropic Principle.

Don’t forget that many theists and IDers wrongly assume that the Anthropic Principle supports their beliefs. I don’t mean to patronise or condescend to anyone, just thought I’d point it out in case someone picks this up and runs in the wrong direction!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

To show that you are selectively recognising design. You recognise design in the watch but fail to recognise design in the sand of the desert. Hence either you have a faulty, and hence unreliable, detector or the designer whose work you are detecting did not design the sand of the desert. Faulty detector or finite, limited, designer? My question is intended to show up one of the weak points of Paley’s argument.

But I did recognize design in the sand. Did you read post # 58? In fact, I recognize design everywhere from the astronomical and geological angles. Even the oil that lies under the earth and the sea and the deserts, and the coal in the mountains, are there for our use, as God prepared them for us at this time in our history when we need them to keep us warm and fuel our technology. Imagine if they never existed. Even science would not have been able to propel us to the moon and beyond.

 

[rossum]

But I did recognize design in the sand.

Then the detection of design is useless. The description “designed” is equivalent to the description “exists” and tells us nothing useful. Whatever I point my design detector at the green light comes on. All I have to do is to wire up a battery, a switch and a green light and I have a working design detector. Fun, but scientifically useless. Why do you think that Dr Dembski went to all the trouble of devising CSI when he just needed a battery, switch and bulb? Science needs more than this and Dr Dembski knows it.

In fact, I recognize design everywhere from the astronomical and geological angles.

You really do need to learn about the Anthropic Principle. Legend has it that there was a medieval monk who said that the existence of God was shown by the fact that He had placed a river through the middle of most large cities to supply them with water. You are effectively making the same argument.

rossum