Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter ShivanCommander
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
We are waiting for ID to do just that. Currently it has not succeeded.

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
Click to expand...
That could be the conundrum. We may not be able to formulate it while being in the design frame itself. We have talked about this before. On the other hand we cannot disregard design for we know it exists and we do process it.

It shouldn’t be a problem to fund some of this research considering the dubious research projects routinely funded.

And since we do know design exists science should not go around pretending it does not.
 
rossum said:
We are waiting for ID to do just that. Currently it has not succeeded.
Click to expand...
Rossum:

Quite some time ago, I recall reading Miller, etal’s, refutations against Behe’s IC argument. I recall them missing the point and being rather weak. (I will read back through them, though, and tell you what I mean.)

In the mean time, it seems to me that I recall that Miller’s argument glossed over the number of pieces the apparatus consisted of as relative to the step by step process by which it came about. He seemed to go straight to the Type III SS as the precursor. Period. Anyway, I need to re-familiarize myself with their arguments again, after which I’ll jump back in.
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.
Click to expand...
And, sir, that’s not the point. The point is that it would show that there “is” a designer. All “art” is useless, as Fitzgerald, I believe, once said. The Creation is God’s art. So, there’s no derogation if design is “useless.” Why that phrase to anti-Christians is so meaningful is beyond me. 🤷

God bless,
jd
 
Can someone start a new thread on this so we can address these topics in a clearer way? No one should have to sift through all these posts on such a complex topic.
 
rossum said:
And if the computer passes the Turing test?
Click to expand...
It is still just following set programming.
Note the team of people programming the machines that actually take these tests.
rossum said:
You would have no rational mind without salt; you would be dead.
Click to expand...
The necessity of a given substance does not provide evidence the substance is rational.
rossum said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are still left with a big question concerning where it all came from.
As well as the question of who put the laws in place and why.
Is it your position that science will supercede God?
 
rossum said:
Again with the “it sure looks designed to me”.
rossum
Click to expand...
No one said what you claim.
This is a falsehood that I am tired of seeing.

If you wish to be disagreeable, you should do so on the merits of what has actually been said, not what you wish was said.

Yours is a straw man.
 
rossum said:
Abiogenesis does not appeal to coincidences alone; chemistry is not a matter of coincidences.
rossum
Click to expand...
If you wish to drop the coincidence, then you are faced with the exact chemicals in the exact right place at the exact right time with the exact proper conditions…on purpose.
 
vz71 said:
For one thing, it predicts that an organism will be suited to its environment.
Click to expand...
How do you derive that prediction from the theory of ID? What properties of the designer force him/her/it/they only to make animals that are suited to their environment?

As a second point, evolution also predicts that organisms will be (mostly) suited to their environment. What predictions does ID make that are different from the predictions of evolution? Only if there are different predictions do we have an experimental test.

rossum
 
rossum said:
How do you derive that prediction from the theory of ID? What properties of the designer force him/her/it/they only to make animals that are suited to their environment?
rossum
Click to expand...
Do you suggest it is intelligent to design organisms that are ill suited to their environment?
 
rossum said:
As a second point, evolution also predicts that organisms will be (mostly) suited to their environment.
rossum
Click to expand...
Would you expect any different from an altenrate theory to explain the origin of all the species we see as well as the universe around us?
 
vz71 said:
If you wish to drop the coincidence, then you are faced with the exact chemicals in the exact right place at the exact right time with the exact proper conditions…on purpose.
Click to expand...
We have the chemicals; that is what the Miller-Urey paper, the Powner paper and many others are about. The place is Earth. The conditions are being studied, and we have a reasonable good idea of what they were, that is why the experiments are possible.

That is what science does. It is what ID fails to do; all it can do is to criticise science without putting forward any data of its own. It has to do that because it no data of its own.

Show me how the designer formed pyrimidines. I can show you how non-design formed pyrimidines, now you show me how design formed pyrimidines.

rossum
 
vz71 said:
Would you expect any different from an altenrate theory to explain the origin of all the species we see as well as the universe around us?
Click to expand...
It would help to recognize, through the use of vocabulary, that from the Catholic position, the origin of the human species is separate from the origin of all species.
The current attack on Catholicism is the attempt to lump together all the species as having the same material origin. Source of the distinctive origin of the human species is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-421.
 
tonyrey said:
It would matter if random mutations were accepted as the sole explanation of human existence!
Click to expand...
This needs addressing from the viewpoint of Catholic apologetics apart from Intelligent Design being used as Catholic apologetics.

Going back into history, it is correct that Catholicism rejected random mutations as the sole reason for the diversity of the species because that theory challenged the core belief of God as the existing Creator. Catholic apologetics needs to keep that challenge as a priority even though human nature is now stage front.

Also going back into history, when it came to the human species, which is not in the same category of general evolution, Catholic apologetics allowed the possibility of some kind of changes within the human anatomy over the course of time. However, Catholic apologetics did not back down from the fact that the human species included a spiritual soul directly created by God. Somewhere along the line, theistic evolution was considered a possibility.

Please do not consider me as discarding history.

What I am saying is that 21st century Catholic apologetics is at a watershed from what I am reading on CAF. (Maybe I need to find another Catholic Apologetics source?)

Catholic apologetics can stick with the current goal of Intelligent Design if it so wishes.

However, from what I am reading on CAF posts, Catholic Apologetics needs to get a grasp of what is happening in the current scientific realm because many Catholics are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the origin of human nature. It is now very easy for Catholics to accept the symbolism of Adam instead of the reality of original sin. Followers of Matthew Fox, whose early teachings denied original sin, now have the support of science.

My long range goal is to demonstrate how Catholics can deal with current scientific attacks against the monogenism of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, it is slow going in finding professional support.

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 said:
It would matter if random mutations were accepted as the sole explanation of human existence!
Click to expand...
This needs addressing from the viewpoint of Catholic apologetics apart from Intelligent Design being used as Catholic apologetics.

Going back into history, it is correct that Catholicism rejected random mutations as the sole reason for the diversity of the species because that theory challenged the core belief of God as the existing Creator. Catholic apologetics needs to keep that challenge as a priority even though human nature is now stage front.

Also going back into history, when it came to the human species, which is not in the same category of general evolution, Catholic apologetics allowed the possibility of some kind of changes within the human anatomy over the course of time. However, Catholic apologetics did not back down from the fact that the human species included a spiritual soul directly created by God. Somewhere along the line, theistic evolution was considered a possibility.

Please do not consider me as discarding history.

What I am saying is that 21st century Catholic apologetics is at a watershed from what I am reading on CAF. (Maybe I need to find another Catholic Apologetics source?)

Catholic apologetics can stick with the current goal of Intelligent Design if it so wishes.

However, from what I am reading on CAF posts, Catholic Apologetics needs to get a grasp of what is happening in the current scientific realm because many Catholics are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the origin of human nature. It is now very easy for Catholics to accept the symbolism of Adam instead of the reality of original sin. Followers of Matthew Fox, whose early teachings denied original sin, now have the support of science.

My long range goal is to demonstrate how Catholics can deal with current scientific attacks against the monogenism of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, it is slow going in finding professional support.

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 said:
Abiogenesis does not appeal to coincidences alone; chemistry is not a matter of coincidences.
rossum
Click to expand...
vz71 said:
If you wish to drop the coincidence, then you are faced with the exact chemicals in the exact right place at the exact right time with the exact proper conditions…on purpose.
Click to expand...
rossum said:
We have the chemicals; that is what the Miller-Urey paper, the Powner paper and many others are about. The place is Earth. The conditions are being studied, and we have a reasonable good idea of what they were, that is why the experiments are possible.
rossum
Click to expand...
You have a coincidence unless you wish to concede an intelligence.
 
rossum said:
Atoms and molecules were doing the chemistry. Do you know what the “bio-” part of biology means?

rossum
Click to expand...
The socratic questioning for Rossum is simple.
Is all codification created by a mind? Yes or no?
Languages, math, informational instructions, etc. are codes to
tell something what to do or how something is done.
Is DNA a code? Is it a codification of instructions?
It will take about 6 centuries for the religion of atheism that has infiltrated science to deal with basic hypotheses such as this. Remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Unfortunately, none of us will see the day that science will open its borders to
all hypotheses as true science is supposed to do. :hey_bud::ballspin:
 
StrawberryJam said:
What does ID predict?
Click to expand...
Here are some predictions:
  1. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
  2. Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
  3. Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
  4. The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.
  5. Goals
  6. Fine tuning
  7. Life is rare - earth is special
  8. Life needs initial information
  9. New designs
  10. Recovery after stress (extinctions)
  11. Designs are tested before implementation
Many have already been found to be true.
  1. ATP synthase motor found in all living cells
  2. Yup
  3. Yup - convergent evolution as they call it
  4. Junk DNA - debunked
  5. Life has purpose - to propagate
  6. Fine tuning - more parameters will be found
  7. Life is found to be rare
  8. Earliest cells were complex and loaded with the DNA language
  9. Rapid Adaptation and new manifestations of design
  10. Rapid recovery and adaptation after events
  11. Plants test designs before full implementation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top