Intelligent Design

[vz71]

You are assuming design, something which you have not shown. Then, you use this to imply a designer (which of course is already assumed in the assumption of design.)

Actually, no.
I recognize the complexity of the life around us. I recognize the complexity of the universe itself.
And I also recognize the complexity in the smallest engines contained within our own cells.
This was no accident, there is a very specific design.
There is design in these posts.
There is design in the language of DNA.

One has to shut there eyes pretty tightly to avoid it all.

Still waiting on that SOS written on the beach that is not intelligently designed.
You implied examples abound. Where are they?

 

[vz71]

I haven’t seen any difficulties in posting this. Even wikipedia shows references to speciation.

Then why hasn’t it been posted?
Why would Rossum have such a difficult time finding this?

Sorry, simply stating it is not a difficulty does not make the case.

 

[vz71]

I’ll go one better.

Provide me any clear picture of numerous pebbles on a beach, in a parking lot, anywhere at all. The picture must be clear, and sufficiently large for me to see at least 4x6 would be nice.

Provide this picture, and I will point out the pebbles to you that spell out SOS.

I figured right.

You cannot do it.

How much else have you uttered that is not true?

 

[levinas12]

It is not a failure of the ID hypothesis, it is a failure of the IC hypothesis, both versions. IC systems can evolve and can do so reasonably quickly.

rossum

So, has Behe pulled back from the IC hypothesis (both versions)? Wouldn’t he have to agree with your conclusion? And, if he doesn’t agree, I wonder what his reasons could be. I’m assuming that Behe is a genuine scientist, not an ideologue.

 

[rossum]

So, has Behe pulled back from the IC hypothesis (both versions)? Wouldn’t he have to agree with your conclusion? And, if he doesn’t agree, I wonder what his reasons could be. I’m assuming that Behe is a genuine scientist, not an ideologue.

You will have to ask Professor Behe that. I have not seen any scientific papers he has published since 2004, though he has published “The Edge of Evolution” in 2007.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Given that our universe contains life, then the range of possible laws is constrained.

Rossum, I realise you’ve had a lot on your plate in this thread but you neglected the following important points:

1.There is no reason to suppose the laws of physics or chemistry could not be different in such a way as to make life impossible.

1. The Being responsible for the Design which has produced this universe must be not only intellectually potent but still immensely physically potent given that the universe is still enduring and developing.
2. Any design explanation invokes the intention, knowledge, foresight and rational decision-making of the designer. The Design of the universe is confirmed by the adaptation of means to ends throughout the global ecological system to which all living beings contribute.

4.There is no evidence that rational activity has ever been produced by inanimate objects.

1. The onus is on you to prove that non-rational activity is a superior explanation of the order and purpose in the universe.
2. Inorganic compounds have never been known to be purposeful or have an urge to survive.
3. Building blocks presuppose a builder if the building serves at least one purpose. It is unreasonable to ask for a replication of Design on the scale of the universe given that even design by a human being is intangible and unobservable by the senses.
4. Correctness is assessed by the criteria of adequacy, coherence and fertility in addition to correspondence to reality. Reasonable persons don’t live as if life is purposeless and valueless.
5. If there are no limits to what can emerge from lifeless objects human beings are advanced biological machines composed of complex molecular structures.

10.Truth is the correspondence of statements to facts. We don’t create or invent facts. Like physical constants, numbers, scientific laws, mathematical principles and spiritual truths we **discover **them.

 

[rossum]

Rossum, I realise you’ve had a lot on your plate in this thread but you neglected the following important points:

1.There is no reason to suppose the laws of physics or chemistry could not be different in such a way as to make life impossible.

Agreed. The question is how many ways on each side. If there are 1,000,000 ways for life to be possible against 1 way for life to be impossible then life is not unexpected. If the numbers are the other way around then life is unexpected. The question is to determine how many possible sets of laws there are, and how many different types of life there are. Neither question is easy, and we cannot just assume a convenient answer. Whatever way round the numbers are, we live in a universe where life is possible.

1. The Being responsible for the Design which has produced this universe must be not only intellectually potent but still immensely physically potent given that the universe is still enduring and developing.

You have yet to show evidence for the presence of design. You have yet to show evidence that this being exists.

1. Any design explanation invokes the intention, knowledge, foresight and rational decision-making of the designer. The Design of the universe is confirmed by the adaptation of means to ends throughout the global ecological system to which all living beings contribute.

I hear your opinion. I do not accept it. Where is your evidence? Evolution is a perfectly good explanation of why populations are adapted to their environments.

4.There is no evidence that rational activity has ever been produced by inanimate objects.

Is playing chess a rational activity? Is a computer animate? Can a computer play chess?

1. The onus is on you to prove that non-rational activity is a superior explanation of the order and purpose in the universe.

No. The default explanation is science is “we don’t know.” I have to show evidence for the standard scientific explanation, which I have done. You have to show evidence for your designer, which you have not so far done. In the absence of evidence then “we don’t know” remains the best explanation. ID cannot win by default.

1. Inorganic compounds have never been known to be purposeful or have an urge to survive.

Incorrect. Salt is an inorganic compound. Your body contains salt, indeed it requires salt in order to survive. Are you purposeful?

1. Building blocks presuppose a builder if the building serves at least one purpose. It is unreasonable to ask for a replication of Design on the scale of the universe given that even design by a human being is intangible and unobservable by the senses.

Metaphors assume that a metaphor is not taken too far. Self-adhesive building blocks do not require a builder. Chemistry gives us the adhesion. Where is your evidence of the designer assembling even a single molecule?

1. Correctness is assessed by the criteria of adequacy, coherence and fertility in addition to correspondence to reality. Reasonable persons don’t live as if life is purposeless and valueless.

How is this a scientific, as opposed to a philosophical argument? I am concentrating on the scientific aspect of ID. I have no problem with teaching ID in a philosophy class. I have major problems with teaching ID in a science class. It may be philosophy but it isn’t science.

1. If there are no limits to what can emerge from lifeless objects human beings are advanced biological machines composed of complex molecular structures.

Our physical body is indeed such. I am Buddhist so we differ greatly on the non-physical component.

10.Truth is the correspondence of statements to facts. We don’t create or invent facts. Like physical constants, numbers, scientific laws, mathematical principles and spiritual truths we **discover **them.

I disagree. Scientific truth is rooted in the real world, hence the requirement for evidence and experiment. Mathematical truth is based on axioms which may or may not relate to the real world: “Consider the Sun as a point mass…”. Spiritual truth has no similar criteria, hence the number of different religions and the number of different sects within those religions. For example, what objective proof is there of the Immaculate Conception?

rossum

 

[vz71]

Is playing chess a rational activity? Is a computer animate? Can a computer play chess?

A computer follows the instructions provided to it.
It does not decide for itself.
Playing chess could be termed rational, but in a very real sense, the computer is not playing anything. It is simply following the instructions provided it in the programming.

Incorrect. Salt is an inorganic compound. Your body contains salt, indeed it requires salt in order to survive. Are you purposeful?

Salt does not seek its own purpose.
Unless you wish to argue the rational mind of a gram of salt.

Where is your evidence of the designer assembling even a single molecule?

The fact of the molecule being there at all.

 

[grannymh]

Rossum, I realise you’ve had a lot on your plate in this thread but you neglected the following important points:

1.There is no reason to suppose the laws of physics or chemistry could not be different in such a way as to make life impossible.

1. The Being responsible for the Design which has produced this universe must be not only intellectually potent but still immensely physically potent given that the universe is still enduring and developing.
2. Any design explanation invokes the intention, knowledge, foresight and rational decision-making of the designer. The Design of the universe is confirmed by the adaptation of means to ends throughout the global ecological system to which all living beings contribute.

4.There is no evidence that rational activity has ever been produced by inanimate objects.

1. The onus is on you to prove that non-rational activity is a superior explanation of the order and purpose in the universe.
2. Inorganic compounds have never been known to be purposeful or have an urge to survive.
3. Building blocks presuppose a builder if the building serves at least one purpose. It is unreasonable to ask for a replication of Design on the scale of the universe given that even design by a human being is intangible and unobservable by the senses.
4. Correctness is assessed by the criteria of adequacy, coherence and fertility in addition to correspondence to reality. Reasonable persons don’t live as if life is purposeless and valueless.
5. If there are no limits to what can emerge from lifeless objects human beings are advanced biological machines composed of complex molecular structures.

10.Truth is the correspondence of statements to facts. We don’t create or invent facts. Like physical constants, numbers, scientific laws, mathematical principles and spiritual truths we **discover **them.

Pardon me. If the being responsible for the design is God Who is a Pure Spirit beyond restrictions, how does “immensely physically potent” (point 2) fit it?

If there are no limits to what can emerge from lifeless objects, (point 9) then there is the possibility for a spiritual soul as co-principle of the unique human nature. However, it is obvious that God has set limits within His creation.

It looks to me that demonstrating the existence of God is secondary to the goal of opposing evolutionary theory. This is the link to the article, “Does ID presuppose a mechanistic view of nature?” by William Dembski on the UncommonDescent website. I have quoted the last paragraph which worries me.
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-presuppose-a-mechanistic-view-of-nature/

“P.S. ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide. But that’s not to say the designer is anonymous. I’m a Christian, so the designer’s identity is clear, at least to me. But even to identify the designer with the Christian God is not to say that any particular instance of design in nature is directly the work of his hands. We humans use surrogate intelligences to do work for us (e.g., computer algorithms). God could likewise use surrogate intelligences (Aristotelian final causes?) to produce the sorts of designs that ID theorists focus on (such as the bacterial flagellum).”

What does that say about the Catholic certainty of God and the economy of Salvation? What does that imply, if anything, about God’s direct, immediate creation of every spiritual soul, including yours and mine?

Blessings,
granny

Then the angel said to the women in reply, "Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised just as He said.
Matthew, Chapter 28

 

[tonyrey]

Pardon me. If the being responsible for the design is God Who is a Pure Spirit beyond restrictions, how does “immensely physically potent” (point 2) fit it?

I used the term “physically” in reponse to:

“You have not stated whether your potent designer is alive or not.”

It seems strange out of that context but my point is that the Source of the physical energy in the universe is hardly likely to have become extinct given that energy has to be sustained. The fact that God is Pure Spirit does not exclude being the Source - which is implied in belief in Creation.

If there are no limits to what can emerge from lifeless objects, (point 9) then there is the possibility for a spiritual soul as co-principle of the unique human nature. However, it is obvious that God has set limits within His creation.

The key factor is that lifeless objects can’t exist without a sustaining and directing Source. If they could you would have no reason to believe in God!

It looks to me that demonstrating the existence of God is secondary to the goal of opposing evolutionary theory. This is the link to the article, “Does ID presuppose a mechanistic view of nature?” by William Dembski on the UncommonDescent website. I have quoted the last paragraph which worries me.
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-presuppose-a-mechanistic-view-of-nature/

“P.S. ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide. But that’s not to say the designer is anonymous. I’m a Christian, so the designer’s identity is clear, at least to me. But even to identify the designer with the Christian God is not to say that any particular instance of design in nature is directly the work of his hands. We humans use surrogate intelligences to do work for us (e.g., computer algorithms). God could likewise use surrogate intelligences (Aristotelian final causes?) to produce the sorts of designs that ID theorists focus on (such as the bacterial flagellum).”

I disagree with that interpretation of Design (and I’m sure I’m not the only one). Belief in the Christian God entails** direct intervention** not only through miracles but through control of events. Like Creation Design is not a one-for-all event but a continuous process. Random mutations, for example, are not sufficient to guarantee progressive development or even survival. Guidance by the Holy Spirit is not restricted to the life of the Church…

What does that say about the Catholic certainty of God and the economy of Salvation? What does that imply, if anything, about God’s direct, immediate creation of every spiritual soul, including yours and mine?

What I have just stated fits in perfectly with all those doctrines!

 

[tonyrey]

**rossum:
**

That is true and we can recognise design without the need for evidence of the assembly of objects. In fact design often has no physical effects at all and is concerned solely with psychological activity - as a Buddhist must be well aware.

 

[grannymh]

I used the term “physically” in reponse to:

“You have not stated whether your potent designer is alive or not.”

It seems strange out of that context but my point is that the Source of the physical energy in the universe is hardly likely to have become extinct given that energy has to be sustained. The fact that God is Pure Spirit does not exclude being the Source - which is implied in belief in Creation.

The key factor is that lifeless objects can’t exist without a sustaining and directing Source. If they could you would have no reason to believe in God!
I disagree with that interpretation of Design (and I’m sure I’m not the only one). Belief in the Christian God entails** direct intervention** not only through miracles but through control of events. Like Creation Design is not a one-for-all event but a continuous process. Random mutations, for example, are not sufficient to guarantee progressive development or even survival. Guidance by the Holy Spirit is not restricted to the life of the Church…
What I have just stated fits in perfectly with all those doctrines!

Personally, I consider that discussions about Intelligent Design do not help demonstrate the reality of Adam and Eve which is my area of interest. The fact is that genes do change otherwise we would all be clones of Adam and Eve. From my point of view, it does not matter if changes are random or whatever. What matters is that the current diversity of humans did originate from two founders.

What really gets to me is that I see all this Catholic energy going into a project which ignores the scientific reality of Adam and Eve. I am about to read a book about the doctrines in *Genesis. *This is a good thing. But if Catholics are unaware of how to deflect current attacks against human nature, there is a good chance that many doctrines will slide down the drain. I have seen a couple of examples of that on CAF.

I have a great deal of admiration for the Catholics who defend our Faith on CAF at the same time they support ID.

Blessings,
granny

Then the angel said to the women in reply, "Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised just as He said.
Matthew, Chapter 28

 

[rossum]

A computer follows the instructions provided to it.
It does not decide for itself.
Playing chess could be termed rational, but in a very real sense, the computer is not playing anything. It is simply following the instructions provided it in the programming.

And if the computer passes the Turing test?

Salt does not seek its own purpose.
Unless you wish to argue the rational mind of a gram of salt.

You would have no rational mind without salt; you would be dead.

The fact of the molecule being there at all.

We can trace the origin of molecules back to the Big Bang without any requirement for a designer. There is currently just about room for a Deist designer at the time of the Big Bang, but that space is getting smaller and smaller as cosmology advances. do you really want to fit your designer into a contracting gap?

rossum

 

[rossum]

That is true and we can recognise design without the need for evidence of the assembly of objects.

Again with the “it sure looks designed to me”. That, as you should realise by now, is insufficient for science. It may be fine for philosophy but it is woefully inadequate for science.

In fact design often has no physical effects at all and is concerned solely with psychological activity - as a Buddhist must be well aware.

Agreed. But such design will not be amenable to scientific study of the material. DI-ID asserts that certain material biological features are designed, for example the bacterial flagellum. So far is has not produced any scientific support for that position.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Again with the “it sure looks designed to me”. That, as you should realise by now, is insufficient for science. It may be fine for philosophy but it is woefully inadequate for science.

It’s not a question of “looks” but “Design is the best explanation”. There comes a stage at which an appeal to a series of coincidences becomes highly implausible.

In fact design often has no physical effects at all and is concerned solely with psychological activity - as a Buddhist must be well aware.

Agreed. But such design will not be amenable to scientific study of the material. DI-ID asserts that certain material biological features are designed, for example the bacterial flagellum. So far is has not produced any scientific support for that position.

Why do you exclude psychology from science? I’m sure you would agree it is ultimately far more significant.

 

[tonyrey]

Personally, I consider that discussions about Intelligent Design do not help demonstrate the reality of Adam and Eve which is my area of interest. The fact is that genes do change otherwise we would all be clones of Adam and Eve. From my point of view, it does not matter if changes are random or whatever. What matters is that the current diversity of humans did originate from two founders.

It would matter if random mutations were accepted as the sole explanation of human existence!

What really gets to me is that I see all this Catholic energy going into a project which ignores the scientific reality of Adam and Eve. I am about to read a book about the doctrines in Genesis. This is a good thing.

The historical reality of Adam and Eve is indisputable for anyone who believes in moral responsibility. It is highly improbable that many individuals committed a sin** and **became aware of the distinction between good and evil at precisely the same time.

But if Catholics are unaware of how to deflect current attacks against human nature, there is a good chance that many doctrines will slide down the drain. I have seen a couple of examples of that on CAF.

Current attacks against human nature are based on the view that we are “naked apes” which is falsified by the incontrovertible evidence for Design which was recognised even by the archsceptic David Hume (but not with the same implications!)

I have a great deal of admiration for the Catholics who defend our Faith on CAF at the same time they support ID.

I regard Design as an essential counterblast to the NeoDarwinist propaganda which dominates the media.

 

[buffalo]

It’s not a question of “looks” but “Design is the best explanation”. There comes a stage at which an appeal to a series of coincidences becomes highly implausible.
Why do you exclude psychology from science? I’m sure you would agree it is ultimately far more significant.

It looks designed - humans process that and differentiate all the time. If ID the science can take the process a human uses and turn it into an equation then what will be the argument?

Why waste our time on things that we do not recognize as design?

 

[grannymh]

It would matter if random mutations were accepted as the sole explanation of human existence!

Science has advanced beyond random mutations regarding human existence. The current problem regarding human existence is so much bigger. If by any chance you have read about some of the research conducted by Patrick Haggard, London, you know that free will as taught by Catholicism is being subjected to materialistic science theories. I found Haggard when he commented about volition research during awake brain surgery. I am sure he is doing research in multiple areas because of the current interest in the mind/body problem. I have the research paper which does not exactly prove what it claims.

The historical reality of Adam and Eve is indisputable for anyone who believes in moral responsibility. It is highly improbable that many individuals committed a sin** and **became aware of the distinction between good and evil at precisely the same time.

I have seen the reality of Adam and Eve disputed by Catholics on CAF. Their issue is how humans came into existence according to today’s science regarding populations which slowly developed norms for living in society.

Current attacks against human nature are based on the view that we are “naked apes” which is falsified by the incontrovertible evidence for Design which was recognised even by the archsceptic David Hume (but not with the same implications!)

The “naked ape” concept has been replaced by the cladistic classification which, in my opinion, is only slightly different from the older version. However, while Chilly Chimp is my cousin, my ancestral line is not directly connected to a bent-over ape as depicted in the popular drawings. It is also my opinion that a scientist could use the newer classification system to construct a separate lineage for the human species, one which would account for God’s creation of the spiritual soul.

Apparently, ID does not address human nature in depth. I am sure that if it did, Rev. Warkulwiz would have known the person involved. He did mention a reference in one of the popular books. Instead, I will be reading the relevant chapters in his book and checking footnotes.

I regard Design as an essential counterblast to the NeoDarwinist propaganda which dominates the media.

That is a good plan. However, I also believe that it is important to educate people about how to interpret propaganda.
Because my own faith was shaken when I first encountered the current attack on Adam and Eve, I believe that Catholic apologetics needs to go beyond “design”. I apologize for saying this, but design will not win when it comes to human nature. This is because the science theory can say that intellect and will are part of the design of the human anatomy. No spiritual soul needed.

There is not anything else that I can add to the Intelligent Design discussion, except to wish God’s blessings on it. I’ve done what I could.

Out of respect for the ban on evolution discussion, I have posted two reputable websites in post 874 in the thread “How does the nitty-gritty of methods and materials of science research contribute to the various theories of [human] evolution?”
Back Fence Forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7778445&postcount=874

So far, this thread has had 21,809 views.

Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[rossum]

It’s not a question of “looks” but “Design is the best explanation”.

In what sense “best”? In science this usually means measuring something and comparing it with the predictions.

Evolution predicts 47.3 Bests while ID predicts 82.9 Bests. The experimental result is ##.# bests. Where a ‘Best’ is a unit of bestness. The problem is that ID makes precious few predictions to compare with experiment.

There comes a stage at which an appeal to a series of coincidences becomes highly implausible.

Evolution does not appeal to coincidences alone; natural selection is not a matter of coincidences. Abiogenesis does not appeal to coincidences alone; chemistry is not a matter of coincidences.

Simple probability calculations that mindlessly use a flat random probability distribution are more often than not incorrect.

Why do you exclude psychology from science? I’m sure you would agree it is ultimately far more significant.

No. My background is in physics so I see physics as the most significant. YMMV.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If ID the science can take the process a human uses and turn it into an equation then what will be the argument?

We are waiting for ID to do just that. Currently it has not succeeded.

Why waste our time on things that we do not recognize as design?

If God created (= designed) the entire universe then you cannot distinguish between Paley’s watch on the heath, the grass on which it is lying and the rocks scattered on the ground. In that case a design detector is incredibly easy: a battery and a green bulb. No need for a red bulb since nothing will ever register as not designed. ID will be true but useless. There will be nothing not recognised as design.

rossum