U
Usagi
Guest
Your understanding of the claims of the “other side” continues to be lacking, Techno. And when we try to help, you don’t listen.
- Status
M
mVitus
Guest
Like Usagi said, your microevolution is the same process, just in a shorter time. It’s kind of like you’re saying that continuously adding 1 to a number can’t make it hugely bigger because 20+1 is basically 20, 32+1+1 is basically the same as 32, so 15+1+1+1+…+1 could never come out to 1,000,000.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Can the food chain in a ecosystem work if the middle part is missing ?
D
Dan123
Guest
No. If you think that means something, you have yet another misunderstanding.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Lol, I can’t blame it on the “other side” these are my own ideas.
T
Techno2000
Guest
It just means you need a food chain already in place to support life.Techno2000:
No. If you think that means something, you have yet another misunderstanding.
D
Dan123
Guest
A food chain yes, so? As long as there’s something to eat new food can be added to an ecosystem. Creatures could begin eating that food source, and might over time no longer eat the old food source.
T
Techno2000
Guest
All the parts have to be ready to go… it can’t wait for evolution to evolve it.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Other than photosynthesis what did the first organism eat ?
T
Techno2000
Guest
All the components of the first so-called cell had to be in place right from the start for it to work.Techno2000:
That’s the argument of irreducibility but where’s the example?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Sure, you can drive a car painted or unpainted, but you’re going to need those pistons.
Last edited:
U
Usagi
Guest
Given the fairly well-accepted notion that our cells are made out of smaller, formerly independent units (mitochondria, at least), and that we can point to complete living organisms that don’t have nuclei in their cells, the notion that every part of the cell had to be in place from the beginning is demonstrably wrong.
T
Techno2000
Guest
I didn’t read it, but I thought his book was about the first cell.Techno2000:
This is simply the irreducible eye argument repackaged in the form of a cell. The fact that you can’t REMOVE some aspect of a system without affecting its viability, doesn’t mean that you can’t alter some aspect of the system.
T
Techno2000
Guest
bacterial flagellum
T
Techno2000
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
From the link provided from the OP’s post, Feser says:
‘The problems are twofold. First, both Paleyan “design arguments” and ID theory take for granted an essentially mechanistic conception of the natural world.’
This makes no sense. The very reason for the ID proposal is that an essentially mechanistic conception of the natural world does not explain certain beings in the world such as living things like plants and animals or even the design of the elements. What ID proponents are saying is that the unintelligent and inanimate beings of nature such as rocks, soil, and water and the laws that govern them does not explain how highly designed and complex plants and animals came into being. Another cause is at work here, namely, an intelligent cause besides the mechanistic causes of chance or necessity. We don’t observe plants or animals spontaneously arising or emerging out of soil, rocks, or water. This is self-evident.
Feser continues:
‘What this means is that they deny the existence of the sort of immanent teleology or final causality affirmed by the Aristotelian-Thomistic-Scholastic tradition, and instead regard all teleology as imposed, “artificially” as it were, from outside.’
I think Feser is confusing philosophy with the natural sciences here. ID does not claim to be a philosophical theory although it naturally has philosophical implications as any scientific theory. To draw out the philosophical implications is the business of the philosopher but ID is claiming an intelligent cause besides chance and necessity in the field of the natural sciences. ID is not denying immanent teleology or final causality, it seems they consider that belonging to another field of study, namely, philosophy. What the nature or essence of final causality is belongs to the philosopher not to the natural scientist. The natural sciences don’t need the philosophical notion of final causality to do their work even though it is immanent in things. The natural sciences deal with the lowest level of reality, the materiality, accidents, and appearances of things. Philosophy goes beyond the accidents of things and reaches the substance of things, the first principles and ultimate causes of things and even being as being.
Immanent teleology according to Aquinas is imposed from without on all of irrational nature. The very laws by which irrational beings either inanimate or animate behave by on a regular basis involves final causality implanted by an intelligent being, namely, God, in their very natures. This involves Aquinas’ fifth argument of the existence of God.
‘The problems are twofold. First, both Paleyan “design arguments” and ID theory take for granted an essentially mechanistic conception of the natural world.’
This makes no sense. The very reason for the ID proposal is that an essentially mechanistic conception of the natural world does not explain certain beings in the world such as living things like plants and animals or even the design of the elements. What ID proponents are saying is that the unintelligent and inanimate beings of nature such as rocks, soil, and water and the laws that govern them does not explain how highly designed and complex plants and animals came into being. Another cause is at work here, namely, an intelligent cause besides the mechanistic causes of chance or necessity. We don’t observe plants or animals spontaneously arising or emerging out of soil, rocks, or water. This is self-evident.
Feser continues:
‘What this means is that they deny the existence of the sort of immanent teleology or final causality affirmed by the Aristotelian-Thomistic-Scholastic tradition, and instead regard all teleology as imposed, “artificially” as it were, from outside.’
I think Feser is confusing philosophy with the natural sciences here. ID does not claim to be a philosophical theory although it naturally has philosophical implications as any scientific theory. To draw out the philosophical implications is the business of the philosopher but ID is claiming an intelligent cause besides chance and necessity in the field of the natural sciences. ID is not denying immanent teleology or final causality, it seems they consider that belonging to another field of study, namely, philosophy. What the nature or essence of final causality is belongs to the philosopher not to the natural scientist. The natural sciences don’t need the philosophical notion of final causality to do their work even though it is immanent in things. The natural sciences deal with the lowest level of reality, the materiality, accidents, and appearances of things. Philosophy goes beyond the accidents of things and reaches the substance of things, the first principles and ultimate causes of things and even being as being.
Immanent teleology according to Aquinas is imposed from without on all of irrational nature. The very laws by which irrational beings either inanimate or animate behave by on a regular basis involves final causality implanted by an intelligent being, namely, God, in their very natures. This involves Aquinas’ fifth argument of the existence of God.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
Feser continues:
‘The second problem is that Paley and Co. conceptualize this designer on the model of human tinkerers, attributing our characteristics (intelligence, power, etc.) to him in a univocal rather than an analogous way.’
Again, I think Feser is mixing the natural sciences with philosophy. It seems he conceives ID as a philosophy which ID does not claim to be. From my understanding, ID claims to be a scientific explanation or cause why at least some things such as plants and animals are designed the way they are which cannot be explained at least from our observation of the world simply by appealing to the inanimate things of nature and the laws that govern them. Even the elements are incredibly designed which by appeal to their various parts doesn’t explain the whole design of them.
Aquinas himself uses the analogy quite frequently of artifacts made by human beings to the whole of nature as an artifact of God. Feser himself may be taking a too anthropomorphic conception of the ID argument.
Feser continues:
‘The argument from design fails, then, because [as Martin argues earlier in the book] it is an argument from ignorance, because it confuses the final and efficient modes of explanation, and because even if it succeeded it would not prove the existence of God but of some Masonic impostor.’
To say that design and order in the world and among complex organisms and plants is an argument from ignorance is entirely irrational. ID is self-evident and anybody who denies this denies they have a reason or intelligence in which humans are made in the image and likeness of God and by which we can recognize the hand of the Creator in the world. And again, Feser is confusing philosophy with the natural sciences it seems. ID does not claim to be a philosophical system in order to prove the existence of God or what is the nature or essence of efficient and final causes. These sorts of questions belong to philosophy not to the natural sciences.
I have a couple of books by Edward Feser on Aquinas and Scholastic Metaphysics which I think are very good. I think he is a pretty good Thomist but Fr. Michael Chaberek (below) does not agree with him concerning ID and I agree with Fr. Chaberek.
An excellent book in which the author devotes a few chapters concerning ID and that is not against the principles of Thomistic philosophy and metaphysics when ID is correctly understood not as a philosophical theory but a scientific theory, and against the critics of ID is titled ‘Aquinas and Evolution - Why St. Thomas’ Teaching on the Origins is Incompatible with Evolutionary Theory’ by Fr. Michael Chaberek, O.P.
Feser continues:
‘The second problem is that Paley and Co. conceptualize this designer on the model of human tinkerers, attributing our characteristics (intelligence, power, etc.) to him in a univocal rather than an analogous way.’
Again, I think Feser is mixing the natural sciences with philosophy. It seems he conceives ID as a philosophy which ID does not claim to be. From my understanding, ID claims to be a scientific explanation or cause why at least some things such as plants and animals are designed the way they are which cannot be explained at least from our observation of the world simply by appealing to the inanimate things of nature and the laws that govern them. Even the elements are incredibly designed which by appeal to their various parts doesn’t explain the whole design of them.
Aquinas himself uses the analogy quite frequently of artifacts made by human beings to the whole of nature as an artifact of God. Feser himself may be taking a too anthropomorphic conception of the ID argument.
Feser continues:
‘The argument from design fails, then, because [as Martin argues earlier in the book] it is an argument from ignorance, because it confuses the final and efficient modes of explanation, and because even if it succeeded it would not prove the existence of God but of some Masonic impostor.’
To say that design and order in the world and among complex organisms and plants is an argument from ignorance is entirely irrational. ID is self-evident and anybody who denies this denies they have a reason or intelligence in which humans are made in the image and likeness of God and by which we can recognize the hand of the Creator in the world. And again, Feser is confusing philosophy with the natural sciences it seems. ID does not claim to be a philosophical system in order to prove the existence of God or what is the nature or essence of efficient and final causes. These sorts of questions belong to philosophy not to the natural sciences.
I have a couple of books by Edward Feser on Aquinas and Scholastic Metaphysics which I think are very good. I think he is a pretty good Thomist but Fr. Michael Chaberek (below) does not agree with him concerning ID and I agree with Fr. Chaberek.
An excellent book in which the author devotes a few chapters concerning ID and that is not against the principles of Thomistic philosophy and metaphysics when ID is correctly understood not as a philosophical theory but a scientific theory, and against the critics of ID is titled ‘Aquinas and Evolution - Why St. Thomas’ Teaching on the Origins is Incompatible with Evolutionary Theory’ by Fr. Michael Chaberek, O.P.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
An uphill battle to get you to answer simple questions? Yes indeed. And the simple question was:MikeInVA:
It is an uphill battle.
Give any example at all of anyone trying to explain evolution to you that says that it disproves God. Any post from any thread at any time. Whenever you are ready you can link to it. Or admit that no-one has done so.
Your whole raison d’etre for the junk you post is meant to be a bulwark against this claim. So back it up.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Patience is a virtue.
Irreducible complexity is an assembly of parts for a specific purpose that if anyone of them is removed the purpose is lost.
B
buffalo
Guest
Of course this is repeated ad nauseum until it is believed. The problem is it doesn’t happen.
- Status