Intelligent Design, Edward Feser's views

[Aloysium]

what’s your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth?

First of all, life does exist, and is more than the activity of material substances, although they are the necessary bricks and mortar that go into the making of the home that is the individual creature.

A living organism is ontologically itself in relation to the world. In addition to its having material structure, it is organized on the basis of a “psychology”. Both these dimansions express the soul of the organism. In plants, we see it in the way they grow and reproduce. Comparing the simplest of animals to the most complex, for example amoebas to elephants, we see a tremendous elaboration of how living things perceive, feel and act within their environment.

The organization of matter into the various forms we observe today around us and in the fossil record, is centred around the soul of individual creatures, an organizing principle one with their material being. Each kind of animal had a beginning in time, with the creation of its soul bringing together matter into a new form - one psychological-physical being.

I don’t want to get weird going into how sin, rooted in the eternal relationship of creation to God, may have impacted on all time and space, so let’s just say that all creatures originated from a state of perfection, narrowing our focus to humanity’s physical make up.

We began as Adam. As part of the grace bestowed upon him was a genome free of the troubling genes that have been the source of many disorders. These have occured with the passage of time and the accumulation of random genetic changes. In the temporal sequence of events, hominids which are a kind of ape, had accumulated a series of genetic abnormalities and could not therefore have led to the creation of mankind. I would also remark that ensoulment does not happen to a pre-existing creature, but is the oneness that brings matter together into a particular being. Both physically and metaphysically, hominids did not evolve into human beings.

I guess I can’t help but get weird. Here goes. God creates from eternity, an eternal Now that is at the centre of each moment and encompasses them all. We committed the original sin, at our creation, which is our (name removed by moderator)ut through our free will in defining who we are. This happened at the same “now” from which all creation springs, everything in time and space, and altered the course of everything of this world. The corruption that affected our passage through time, affected the passage of all creatures, having also been created perfect, in their time. As the crown of creation, determining our own lives, at the beginning of time, we determined the course of all life.

Something like that anyway.

 

[mVitus]

I’m looking at what I’m going to say. And the internet is bad at conveying tone. So I apologize if some things sound offensive. They’re not meant to.

I know we debated this once a few threads ago, but just to reclarify your position, let me know if this is a correct reading: Humans didn’t bodily evolve. They were a special creation. Regular animals weren’t meant to evolve, but original sin caused them to, being something that struck the timeline forwards and backwards. And the reason evolution is wrong is because of a concept of “being” wherein something, let’s call it A, is A and can never be B. (I’m pretty sure I butchered it a bit, but that’s essentially what I’ve got as what you’re saying.)

One thing about your position, in my view, is that it’s a lot more philosophy than science. Now I’ll agree that philosophy has it’s place because it’s helped us explain thinhs like how bread and wine become the Body and Blood. Or how God can exists as the Trinity. But there are times when philosophy is not the best fit,namely with the observable world.

If I were to ask, “How does titration of Sulfuric Acid with Barium Hydroxide work?” I would not be looking for an answer of

Sulfuric acid is a special organization of matter with unique properties. And barium hydroxide is another special organization of matter with its own unique properties, some of which are in opposition to sulfuric acid. They come together and by the beauty of nature’s laws create new substances with different arragements of matter and unique properties.

That answer may have truth in it, but it doesn’t really help explain much. (And in this case I might’ve based it too much in knowing the process.) I’d rather an answer an answer of

The hydrogens of sulfuric acid combine with the hydroxide of barium hydroxide, creating water in the reaction
H2SO4(aq) + Ba(OH)2(aq) 2H20(l) + BaSO4(s)

It’s great for us to remeber that we’re children of God and marvel at His creation. But when understanding how some parts of it work, philosophy isn’t a great tool. Medicine, for example, was much less sophisticated when the philosophy of the humors was used compared to when more science-based analysis of medicine came in to play. Because the philosophy of what a human is has little use in learning how a human body works.

To bring that to evolution, philosophy is a terrible tool in understanding the process God made life with. The philosophy helps us with why God did it, why we should be good stewards, and many of those questions. But it doesn’t help us understand how He made them. And when we look at how animals came about through our scientific lens, we find evolution. And if you ask me, it’s beautiful how God did it and amazes me with His power. (And there’s me getting philosophical.)

 

[mVitus]

I would also remark that ensoulment does not happen to a pre-existing creature, but is the oneness that brings matter together into a particular being.

I assume creature = individual.
To be fair, I don’t think any of the evolutionists in this thread have said that. I don’t think God took an already living hominid and gave it a human soul. Rather, that when two of said hominids took to bedding each other, that God created Adam with a human soul from his conception and that he was always true human.

 

[MikeInVA]

And when we look at how animals came about through our scientific lens, we find evolution.

Maybe you see evolution, but when I look out at all of the diversity of flora and fauna I see what God created.

Again, there is no direct evidence of evolution. Evolution tries to explain how there are so many similar species, believing that everything developed from a common starting point. I think that survival of the fittest explains why some species are extinct, but I haven’t seen a compelling argument for how something new can evolve.

 

[Dan123]

I think that survival of the fittest explains why some species are extinct

Does this mean God created animals that weren’t fit for their environment then?

I find the problem in these discussions is when you explain evolution in large time scales people don’t see how it could occur in small steps, but when you show small steps they in turn don’t see how those small steps could turn into big changes over large time scales.

 

[MikeInVA]

How does ID not point to the necessity of a divine creator? Who does the “I” in ID?

 

[Dan123]

How does ID not point to the necessity of a divine creator? Who does the “I” in ID?

Interesting because the ID movement originally started to try and ‘science up’ creationism after creationism wasn’t allowed to be taught in schools. It’s the same theory but with God replaced by some unspecified intelligence. This thin excuse was of course recognized just as you have to be what it was, an unnecessary repackaging.

 

[MikeInVA]

Interesting because the ID movement originally started to try and ‘science up’ creationism after creationism wasn’t allowed to be taught in schools

I don’t know anything about the “movement” (but I’m leery of movements or camps in the science community).
Could the ID theory have been developed to create a little distance between those who believe in a first mover and those who believe that the Earth was created in six 24-hour days?

 

[MikeInVA]

No. Maybe God only wanted the species to exist for a certain time. God doesn’t make mistakes.

I guess I just don’t buy the concept that something new can come from nothing. How did birds evolve? Wouldn’t pre-birds who couldn’t fly but had large ungainly proto-wings have been hunted to extinction by other animals? And how did their species decide that flying was a good idea anyway?

 

[Dan123]

Flightless birds use their wings to climb inclines they can’t otherwise climb.

There are plenty of tree dwelling animals that can glide. Can you imagine an adaptation that let a gliding animal glide slightly further?

 

[MikeInVA]

Can you imagine an adaptation that let a gliding animal glide slightly further?

Not without divine/intelligent intervention.

This is probably old news here, but I think it is an interesting example that supports ID:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

 

[buffalo]

Again, there is no direct evidence of evolution. Evolution tries to explain how there are so many similar species, believing that everything developed from a common starting point. I think that survival of the fittest explains why some species are extinct, but I haven’t seen a compelling argument for how something new can evolve.

Evolution is not empirical.

What we classify as species have common descent form several starting points. Some call them kinds as the Bible does.

Common descent from the beginning kinds is not at issue. Universal Common descent, molecules to man is.

 

[mVitus]

I think that survival of the fittest explains why some species are extinct, but I haven’t seen a compelling argument for how something new can evolve.

I’m going to make a very simple and sped up example in hopes of getting a basic idea across.

If you know punnet squares, I’m using those to base my generations off of.

Let’s imagine a trait that’s decided by two genes, A and a. A is a dominant trait that gives our species, let’s call them Hupuplus, a long snout. a is a recessive trait that causes a short snout. So AA and As are long snouts. aa is short snout.

Martha has AA
Bill has Aa
They mate and have four children with AA, AA, Aa, and Aa. Those children each mate with Aa partners, each having four children to make 6 AA, 8 Aa, and 2 aa. Now for whatever reason, having a short snout is more beneficial so the two aa’s end up breeding with 2 Aa’s and an AA each. The remaining long snouts die. The next generation is 8 aa, 16 Aa. Now in the next generation, 2 aa’s breed with Aa’s and the remaining 6 aa’s breed with each other while 14 Aa’s die. The next generation is 15 aa, 4 Aa, And as it turns out, a random,mutation made an a@ where @ is for a shirt snout but also makes a red belly, which the females find attractive. So lets say the a@ breeds with 5 aa’s and 2 Aa, 2 of the Aa’s die, and the remaining 10 aa’s breed with each other to make 32 aa, 10 a@, 2 A@, 4 Aa.

Something splits the population and in one area, long snouts are better. And some mutation of A called Æ makes the snout have better smell. You might eventually see each population come to @@ and Æ@ (mostly) on their respective sides.

Our hupuplus started out with long snouts and non-red bellies. At the end, different populations have characterestics different from our original hupuplus that have become dominant. Add in some other changes occurring at the same time and they may in fact be different enough to warrant classification as a new species.

Now again, this was a simple example and sped up but it does illustrate some basic principles if change over time.

 

[buffalo]

Not so.

ID the science is different from ID the philosophy.

We recognize design when we see it because it was cognized by a mind. ID the science, stops there. ID, the philosophy says this mind is the mind of God.

 

[buffalo]

Does this mean God created animals that weren’t fit for their environment then?

I find the problem in these discussions is when you explain evolution in large time scales people don’t see how it could occur in small steps, but when you show small steps they in turn don’t see how those small steps could turn into big changes over large time scales.

The Garden of Eden was a special place.

God created the different kinds with superb environmental adaptive abilities. Plus one other thing- the desire to strive to live.

These micro-evolution small steps are bounded by the specific type they started out as. Take away environmental pressures and they bend back toward the mean,

 

[buffalo]

An Intelligent Designer isn’t by necessity what theists refer to as God.

Right, but it just pushes the question back. Who created the Intelligent Designer. Even Dawkins accepts that, as long as we believe the original evolved.

 

[MikeInVA]

I understand that, we used fruit flies in high school to demonstrate the concept.

How can new features, e.g. wings and feathers, develop, especially when the intermediate evolutionary steps are not as effective/survivable as the predecessors or their progeny?

 

[buffalo]

Interesting because the ID movement originally started to try and ‘science up’ creationism after creationism wasn’t allowed to be taught in schools. It’s the same theory but with God replaced by some unspecified intelligence. This thin excuse was of course recognized just as you have to be what it was, an unnecessary repackaging.

Baloney detector going off!

Separate ID the science from ID the philosophy.

Catholics always thought the world had an intelligent agency behind it. That is why modern science developed, because Catholics understood the world to be intelligible and worthy of study.

 

[buffalo]

How can new features, e.g. wings and feathers, develop, especially when the intermediate evolutionary steps are not as effective/survivable as the predecessors or their progeny?

They don’t. Usually these abberrations are useless and kill the organism.

 

[mVitus]

Well, it’s been mentioned before how some features were beneficial for other reasons. And some mutations aren’t beneficial or harmful right away, but may, by chance, have a benefit later.