Intelligent Design, most scientific

[Sideline]

The cell membrane is a remarkably simple thing, a phospholipid bilayer. Eukaryotic membranes are considerably more complex, with a lot of transport proteins inserted into the layer, but the layer itself remains the same as it is in bacteria.

I have to admit that I slept through most of the stuff on cell walls and cell membranes when I was in school. I learned enough to pass the test, and then I shimmied on into classes about primates. You are right, that is a remarkably simple structure.

Learn about it here:
student.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit1/prostruct/cm.html

Thanks for the link!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But you didn’t alter what I said to make it appear so. That is the difference. That is compelling evidence that he understood what I meant, and changed it, so as to make it appear otherwise. I went back and looked, and it turns out that it wasn’t the first time.

I don’t think he did that either, Barbarian.

Sorry. It’s there for everyone to see. If one alters someone’s statements like that, there are consequences.

You’ve made quite a strong accusation against him that I think deserves an apology.

Of course it’s a strong accusation. I wouldn’t say it if I couldn’t back it up. I don’t want an apology. I want it to stop. It’s time to stop the excuses and do better.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But if God regularly set aside the laws of nature, we would have the disaster of an unpredictable and unknowable universe, in which we could count on nothing. Notice that the gift of the soul and transubstantiation are done in such a way that they cause no such difficulties. While He does intervene in a way that directly shows His touch from time to time, it is not common.

How do you know how common it is?

See above. If God did this as an everyday thing, we couldn’t count on nature’s laws. So if He decided to adust the speed of light a bit, then chemical factories start exploding as various physical constants start shifting. And that’s just the beginning. If God was tinkering with nature on a regular basis, a lot of that would be happening, and we have no sign that it does.

It could be happening every day all around us.

Ah, maybe it’s “He does it, but He does it so that you can’t tell He’s doing it.” Orange leprechauns may be hiding in your attic, too. But the evidence…

Would science be able to detect it?

Not just science, anyone living in the universe.

Not if it only looks for repeatable results

The failure of repeatable results is exactly what would tip us off that something was wrong.

 

[The_Barbarian]

On last observation about cell membranes:

**The cytoplasmic membrane is a selectively permeable membrane that determines what goes in and out of the organism. All cells must take in and retain all the various chemicals needed for metabolism. Water, dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and oxygen, and lipid-soluble molecules simply diffuse across the phospholipd bilayer. Water-soluble ions generally pass through small pores - less than 0.8 nm in diameter - in the membrane . All other molecules require carrier molecules to transport them through the membrane. **
student.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit1/prostruct/cm.html

As such, all essential nutrients for an autotrophic prokaryote can be transported passively across the cell membrane, and all wastes can be diffused out. Later, more complex living things added features to make it more versatile, but because an organism can’t do without a cell membrane while evolving a better one, cells have been so far unable to replace it. Evolution merely took the amazingly simple membrane and added features.

 

[reggieM]

While He does intervene in a way that directly shows His touch from time to time, it is not common.

How do you know it is not common? You assume that the laws of nature do not require “tinkering” to keep them constant. That would be the constant intervention by God.

On a more practical note, prayers often result in small miracles that change things. Science would say that certain illnesses cannot be cured, but God works miracles commonly to cure them. Everytime that happens, science is proven to be unpredictable.

Additionally, with the infusion of the soul in a human body at conception (a miracle) evolution does not account for the effect that this miracle has on the growth of a human being.

The same is true of the origin of life itself. It makes a big difference if it came about by abiogenesis or by the direct action of God. If God created life by a miracle, then there’s good reason that he created a miracle in the creation of human life also. This would go against evolutionary theory.

 

[reggieM]

While He does intervene in a way that directly shows His touch from time to time, it is not common.

This is another interesting point. If he intervenes in a way that “shows his touch” then we can see the effects of the supernatural by simple (scientific) observation.

We could talk about the scientific studies on the Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Shroud of Turin. Or we can just look at Christ walking on the water, or His resurrection. So, the effects of supernatural power can be observed.

This is not different from saying that design found in nature is evidence of the supernatural power of God.

 

[reggieM]

What about miracles where random events occur in an unlikely way. For example, events that are unpreditable in quantum theory or chaos theory, which God might work through to influence the natural world without actually breaking any natural laws. Are those minor or major miracles? (Consider this could range from very subtle things to amazing co-incidences that would appear to break the laws of physics).

I would view those as evidence that God is directly shaping the universe. This would mean that God’s involvement would be necessary to acknowledge in any true understanding of the nature of the universe.

 

[The_Barbarian]

How do you know it is not common? You assume that the laws of nature do not require “tinkering” to keep them constant. That would be the constant intervention by God.

If so, then nature is indistinguishable from God. No, we know He does miracles. It’s just that there is no example of Him doing this except to show us a truth of some sort.

On a more practical note, prayers often result in small miracles that change things. Science would say that certain illnesses cannot be cured, but God works miracles commonly to cure them. Everytime that happens, science is proven to be unpredictable.

Sorry, that’s false. For example, the shrinking of a cancer might be miraculous, but also can come about by a change in the immune system. What illness does science say never can be cured?

Additionally, with the infusion of the soul in a human body at conception (a miracle) evolution does not account for the effect that this miracle has on the growth of a human being.

What effect is that, and how did you measure it?

The same is true of the origin of life itself. It makes a big difference if it came about by abiogenesis or by the direct action of God.

So you feel let down, because your body was created by nature instead of a miracle? BTW, Genesis says that life was brought forth by the earth, not created directly by a miracle.

If God created life by a miracle, then there’s good reason that he created a miracle in the creation of human life also. This would go against evolutionary theory.

Two major errors there, one scientific, one theological. First, evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life, and makes no claims about that. Darwin, for example, just wrote that God did it. The second, of course, is that it doesn’t matter in the least whether He did it by the agency of nature or by an intervention against nature.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is another interesting point. If he intervenes in a way that “shows his touch” then we can see the effects of the supernatural by simple (scientific) observation.

Let’s say you want to scientifically observe Jesus walking on water, or the Resurrection. How will you do that? Set aside for a moment the fact that it’s blasphemous to test God. How will you do it?

We could talk about the scientific studies on the Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Shroud of Turin.

And did the studies confirm something supernatural? Only to those already with faith in Him. The Shroud remains scientifically undecidable.

This is not different from saying that design found in nature is evidence of the supernatural power of God.

Except, of course, no one has yet found design in nature. All those things formerly assumed to be designed have so far, when we found their cause, turned out to have natural causes.

God isn’t testable, nor should He be, except by the testimony of our faith in Him.

 

[edwest2]

What do you have faith in? The living God that exists at this moment? Those who are recommended for sainthood need two miracles attributed to them. Two violations of the laws of nature. The Church does not bat an eyelash when it sees these things because God exists now, not 2,000 years ago. Now.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10436

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Sorry. It’s there for everyone to see. If one alters someone’s statements like that, there are consequences.

Yes. Unfortunately, you seem to be the only one who’s actually seeing it.

Just saying.

Anyway, maybe we could get back to the discussion in various distinctions between theistic evolution and intelligent design.

You said before that you were not a theistic evolutionist, which has puzzled me.

What exactly is your position?

Admittedly, I think most of us would ultimately consider ourselves Catholic (or Christian)-- and that these other views, such as theistic evolution, intelligent design, etc. are more peripheral than essential to the faith.

But what exactly is your position in this creation-evolution discussion?

 

[reggieM]

Let’s say you want to scientifically observe Jesus walking on water, or the Resurrection. How will you do that?

The apostles saw Jesus walking on the water. That was a simple observation.

St. Thomas scientifically tested the resurrection by not only observing Jesus, but by placing his hand in his hands and side.

As just mentioned, the Church regularily tests for miracles.

 

[reggieM]

You said before that you were not a theistic evolutionist, which has puzzled me.

What exactly is your position?

Admittedly, I think most of us would ultimately consider ourselves Catholic (or Christian)-- and that these other views, such as theistic evolution, intelligent design, etc. are more peripheral than essential to the faith.

But what exactly is your position in this creation-evolution discussion?

Both excellent questions and I agree that most of us consider ourselves Catholic first. This means that God’s divine revelation, through supernatural means, is the most important thing in our lives. The various scientific theories are less essential.

I do not understand Barbarian’s views thus far.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

What about miracles where random events occur in an unlikely way. For example, events that are unpreditable in quantum theory or chaos theory, which God might work through to influence the natural world without actually breaking any natural laws. Are those minor or major miracles? (Consider this could range from very subtle things to amazing co-incidences that would appear to break the laws of physics).

Good question. I have my thoughts, but I honestly don’t know.

I guess within the whole spectrum of creation discussions there’s a few views regarding evolution…

1: Evolution is the supernatural way in which God speciated life on earth. Only something miraculously and intimately guided by God could have caused it to happen-- which roughly corresponds to my own view.

2: Evolution is the natural way in which God speciated life on earth. It was inevitable given the fine-tuned initial parameters of the universe’s miraculous origin that life would eventually speciate into our human origins according to God’s will from eternity.

3: Evolution is simply too unnatural of a way for God to have speciated life on earth. God most certainly used miracles to supercede his creation and amplify it more toward his own will ultimately culminating in his creation of man.

 

[reggieM]

If so, then nature is indistinguishable from God. No, we know He does miracles. It’s just that there is no example of Him doing this except to show us a truth of some sort.

If God uses His power continuously in order to sustain, for example, the law of gravity (because without his miraculous intervention, gravity would be changed by other forces), then it does not follow that nature is indistinguishable from God.

Nature remains one thing and God is entirely different. God works a miracle at the conception of each child but this does not mean that God is indistinguishable from that action.

Additionally, you are judging all miracles based on what you know as “examples” of God working miracles. This assumes that you’re familiar with all of the workings of God and you’re certain that He does not work miracles except under the conditions you specify. I can’t see any evidence that you know such a thing.

I think your view would make it seem foolish to pray to God to protect the earth from natural disasters, for example. In order for God to cause a tsunami to avoid hitting land, He could work a miracle. But nothing would be taught by that.

Are you saying that our prayers are useless because God will not intervene in nature and cause miracles to happen?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The apostles saw Jesus walking on the water. That was a simple observation.

St. Thomas scientifically tested the resurrection by not only observing Jesus, but by placing his hand in his hands and side.

As just mentioned, the Church regularily tests for miracles.

Good point.

This comes back to the Ignatian Spirituality that I was alluding to before. If we can place ourselves within the Scriptures and observe these events from the apostolic point of view, we can certainly see that people were “testing God” in a good way.

Even the apostle Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to test everything and then hold on to the good.

Even God himself says in Malachi 3:10 after ordering to bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house…

“Test me in this, and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.”

God indeed does demand us to test him in a positive way by discerning his good and holy will from that of the pagans for example-- testing in a way unlike the negative way of testing God-- which is more akin to “tempting God” in my opinion.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

If God uses His power continuously in order to sustain, for example, the law of gravity (because without his miraculous intervention, gravity would be changed by other forces), then it does not follow that nature is indistinguishable from God.

Nature remains one thing and God is entirely different. God works a miracle at the conception of each child but this does not mean that God is indistinguishable from that action.

Additionally, you are judging all miracles based on what you know as “examples” of God working miracles. This assumes that you’re familiar with all of the workings of God and you’re certain that He does not work miracles except under the conditions you specify. I can’t see any evidence that you know such a thing.

I think your view would make it seem foolish to pray to God to protect the earth from natural disasters, for example. In order for God to cause a tsunami to avoid hitting land, He could work a miracle. But nothing would be taught by that.

Are you saying that our prayers are useless because God will not intervene in nature and cause miracles to happen?

Those are excellent points.

Even more importantly, though, I’m wondering if Barbarian actually believes that God has a free-will at all.

Did God have any choice in creating the universe?

Albert Einstein​

I mean no offence Barbarian. It’s just that you seem to be stressing God’s omniscience to the point that God himself can’t even actually change his mind since he alreay knows what he will think in the future-- and, hence, cannot actually change what he already knows he will do.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Even more importantly, though, I’m wondering if Barbarian actually believes that God has a free-will at all.

That would be anthropomorphizing God down to human size. What does free will mean when applied to an omnipotent creator of all things? That’s not a rhetorical question, BTW.

Did God have any choice in creating the universe?

Can “choice” mean anything to an omnisicent God? That would involve considering the alternatives, and deciding. How would He do that?

It’s kind of like asking if God has five digits on each hand.

I mean no offence Barbarian. It’s just that you seem to be stressing God’s omniscience to the point that God himself can’t even actually change his mind since he alreay knows what he will think in the future–

What then, do you make of His conversation with Lot?

and, hence, cannot actually change what he already knows he will do.

An omnipotent being can, if He intends, limit Himself. Shall we discuss whether He can make a rock so big that He can’t pick it up?

Do you see what I mean?

Yep. BTW, I’m not (just) making fun. I can see why this kind of think is important to people. But I just trust Him and let Him take care of that sort of thing Himself.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Barbarian observes:
But if God regularly set aside the laws of nature, we would have the disaster of an unpredictable and unknowable universe, in which we could count on nothing.

I guess this is a matter of perception then.

Me personally, I think that if God regularly set aside the laws of nature, we would have the blessing of an highly ordered and highly predictable and highly knowable universe, a universe in which we could count on everything that God does through his creation.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that God performing miracles leads to total chaos, If anything, it was a miracle of God that the primordial nothingness of chaos was indeed ordered by God ex nihilo into something tangibly concrete. In other words, God’s miracles bring forth order from disorder-- not the other way around.

Notice that the gift of the soul and transubstantiation are done in such a way that they cause no such difficulties.

I am deeply puzzled by this statement. I think it’s precidely because people have a hard time discerning one’s soul from one intellect that they are left confused as to their very meaning and purpose of life.

While He does intervene in a way that directly shows His touch from time to time, it is not common.

How do we know that?

See above. If God did this as an everyday thing, we couldn’t count on nature’s laws.

I thought we were supposed to count on God and not nature?

So if He decided to adust the speed of light a bit, then chemical factories start exploding as various physical constants start shifting.

Couldn’t he adjust all the physical constants in tandem so much so that we would not be able to differentiate the difference?

And that’s just the beginning. If God was tinkering with nature on a regular basis, a lot of that would be happening, and we have no sign that it does.

No. I guess I flat out disagree with this assertion. 1 Corinthians 14:33 alone says that God is not a God of disorder but of peace. Therefore, even if he were to intervene “all the time”, so much so that his miracles are not necessarilly easilly distinguished by humanity, this would in no way imply that total chaos would result. Quite frankly, I think the opposite would result.

Ah, maybe it’s “He does it, but He does it so that you can’t tell He’s doing it.” Orange leprechauns may be hiding in your attic, too. But the evidence…

Orange leprechauns? What do orange leprechauns have to do with God intervening via miracles all the time?

Not just science, anyone living in the universe.

The failure of repeatable results is exactly what would tip us off that something was wrong.

I thought the failure of repeatable results was exactly what would tip us off that something was right-- that is, if one is using the scientific method to test an assumption in order to lead someone closer to the truth.

Doesn’t the failure of a repeatable result actually indidate that something is wrong with our intial scientific assumptions and lead us to the truth?

If so, why would the failure of repeatable results necessarilly be exactly what would tip us off that something was wrong?

I’m not trying to splice words here. But I really do think some of these arguments really do add up to nothing more than the perception of events, such as whether one sees the glass of water half-empty or half-full for example.

We’re not necessarilly proving anything about God’s intentions here. We’re merely proving to others that we do indeed perceive God’s actions and causes within nature in one form or another-- which others are free to disagree with if they so choose.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Sorry. It’s there for everyone to see. If one alters someone’s statements like that, there are consequences.

Yes. Unfortunately, you seem to be the only one who’s actually seeing it.

The fact that he did it isn’t at issue. It’s there to see. You may want to take a more kindly interpretation of his motivation for doing it, than I do. But then, he didn’t do it to you.

Just saying.

Yeah, just saying.

Anyway, maybe we could get back to the discussion in various distinctions between theistic evolution and intelligent design.

That’s what I’ve been suggesting. As I said, I doubt if it will happen again. Usually one time is enough for most people.

You said before that you were not a theistic evolutionist, which has puzzled me.

I accept the fact of evolution, and I believe in God. But I do that by two entirely different ways of knowing.

Admittedly, I think most of us would ultimately consider ourselves Catholic (or Christian)-- and that these other views, such as theistic evolution, intelligent design, etc. are more peripheral than essential to the faith.

Yes. Most creationists are still Christians, unless like some of the IDers, they drift toward a strict “design” idea.

But what exactly is your position in this creation-evolution discussion?

As Pope Benedict acknowledged, common descent is virtually certain. But there are no consequences for being a creationist, or even a YE creationist, so long as one doesn’t believe the YE concept of “life ex nihilo”, which is contradicted by Genesis.

Science can only study natural things, and can’t even say if the supernatural exists.