Intelligent Design

[Al_Moritz]

Welcome to the forum!

The flaw in your argument is that the development of rational, moral beings with the power of self-control and the capacity for unselfish love is not adequately explained by natural causes. Design is not a static plan but a dynamic process of control and guidance to ensure survival and progress with direct intervention at critical junctures. Otherwise you are committed to deism rather than theism…

Thank you for the welcome.

I agree with you when it comes to the rational soul. The point is that the rational soul of humans is not something physical, and therefore cannot be explained by evolution, which solely guides the material processes under the laws of physics (which, in extension, are the laws of chemistry and biology). The rational soul is a direct creation by God, as the Church affirms, but as also can be deduced from philosophical reasoning.

In fact, next to cosmological arguments for the existence of God the Argument from Reason is essential for me as a rational foundation upon which my faith in God can rest securely.

See also:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

(Section ‘Background’)

But evolution itself as a physical process, up to higher animals and the human body, is (made by God to be) self-sufficient and as such does not directly show intelligent design which would have to steer the process a bit here and a bit there – at least as far as we can tell by science.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al

Intelligent design is a non-argument when it comes to evolution and the origin of life. An entirely different matter are the laws of nature that make physical, chemical and and biological evolution possible in the first place.

And why were those laws formulated in the first place … by chance? Or by Intelligent Design?

By intelligent design.

As a Catholic, do you believe that God designed and created the universe to produce life somewhere down the line? Do you believe that God did that by producing laws conducive to abiogenesis and later evolution?

Yes, I do, see:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

If you believe that, and you have to believe it as a Catholic (you have no choice in the matter), why is it so unbelievable to you that intelligent design is not at work throughout the universe and through all time from the start of the universe to the present?

Because from a scientific point of view (and I am a scientist myself) I see no evidence for a tinkerer God who constantly has to intervene with “Intelligent Design”. However, intelligent design is certainly at work throughout the universe through the unfolding of the world according to the physcial laws that God creates and sustains at every moment (God as sustainer of being is of course both Catholic doctrine and standard Thomistic philosophy).

 

[buffalo]

By intelligent design.

Yes, I do, see:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

Because from a scientific point of view (and I am a scientist myself) I see no evidence for a tinkerer God who constantly has to intervene with “Intelligent Design”. However, intelligent design is certainly at work throughout the universe through the unfolding of the world according to the physcial laws that God creates and sustains at every moment (God as sustainer of being is of course both Catholic doctrine and standard Thomistic philosophy).

Why does an intelligently designed project need intervening?

IDvolution posits that when God “breathed” information life was front loaded.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t know, we haven’t examined them yet.

Rossum:

Very cute! But, in any event, you are merely postulating that there “might” be some we don’t know about and didn’t humanly produce. Yet, your statement indicated that there existed many with such positivity that anyone would have expected more than a few good samples.

We can say that all codifications that were designed by humans have been intelligently designed. I am not aware of any evidence that the codifications used in the Bees dance have been intelligently designed.

There are thousands of recognizable animal behaviors extant in the world. I would be willing to bet that you could say the same thing about all of them. But, that begs the question(s). :bounce:

It would be just as correct to say "chemical instructions. How much do you know of the trident structure of Transfer RNA (tRNA)? It has a handle and three prongs. The handle chemically bonds to a specific amino acid. The three prongs chemically bond to a particular triple of RNA bases. Chemical bonding drives the whole thing.

Now you’re straw-manning again: In the IRS codes of the United States, we are told that the income tax system is based upon voluntary compliance. To most, that means that if one does not wish to comply one can opt out. But just let the IRS take you to court and you soon discover that their twist is to the effect that, “it is the same voluntariness and one has that makes one stop at a red light.” Your rationale is clear sophistry.

However, one man’s gobbledygook is another man’s poetry. Here is some poetryivi va bhuvi va mamastu vaso
Narake va narakantaka prakamam
Avadhirita-sarada aravindau
Charanau the marane api chintayami
Determining gobbledygook from something sensible depends on the knowledge of the person reading the text. That makes the determination subjective, rather than objective.

That may be written in another language altogether; I don’t know. There’s no possible way someone unfamiliar with a different language from his own would even be able to tell what that was. For all he knows it could be a secret message from an espionage agent. Regardless, it’s another excellent example of a “real” straw man; which further makes strange that you can you accuse me of that when I was not guilty of it, but yet blatantly use it twice in one post? Slick: very slick! It’s what I love about you!

Nevertheless, gobbledygook is “not” poetry.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

As long as ID does not provide the detail it will have an uphill struggle against existing science.

Rossum:

Why is it always assumed, by non-theists, that the data, the quanta of nature, is the sole property of the non-design scientist? That is not the debate. The quanta belongs to both. But, the anti-design people have been successful, unfortunately, IMO, in intimidating the design scientists away from it. I disagree that the quanta of the early earth was self-compiling. Such a conclusion can only be arrived at after an unjustified agreement with numerous naked assumptions.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Welcome to the forum!

The flaw in your argument is that the development of rational, moral beings with the power of self-control and the capacity for unselfish love is not adequately explained by natural causes. Design is not a static plan but a dynamic process of control and guidance to ensure survival and progress with direct intervention at critical junctures. Otherwise you are committed to deism rather than theism…

And, besides, such dynamic processes are perfectly parallel with the view that creation is rolling out, i.e., still in process. Creation is not a singular event of the distant past. We are currently in it. What else better explains complexification, evolutionary progress and creatural advancement?

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al
**
Because from a scientific point of view (and I am a scientist myself) I see no evidence for a tinkerer God who constantly has to intervene with “Intelligent Design”. However, intelligent design is certainly at work throughout the universe through the unfolding of the world according to the physcial laws that God creates and sustains at every moment (God as sustainer of being is of course both Catholic doctrine and standard Thomistic philosophy). **

Can you please cite a passage from Behe in which he uses the term “tinker”?

I’m not aware that that is his definition of intelligent design.

It seems you are struggling to reconcile your religious belief with what you have been told by evolutionists you must not believe in: that the universe and everything in it, including life, shows signs of and intelligence constantly at work … not tinkering.

As a Catholic are you aware that the principle antagonists of intelligent design (like Richard Dawkwins and Stephen Hawking) are atheists who are desperately trying to annihilate any inkling that this might not be a soulless and meaningless universe?

 

[grannymh]

By intelligent design.

Yes, I do, see:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

Because from a scientific point of view (and I am a scientist myself) I see no evidence for a tinkerer God who constantly has to intervene with “Intelligent Design”. However, intelligent design is certainly at work throughout the universe through the unfolding of the world according to the physcial laws that God creates and sustains at every moment (God as sustainer of being is of course both Catholic doctrine and standard Thomistic philosophy).

Thomistic philsophy:thumbsup:

I have just started to learn his thoughts on creation – Aquinas on Creation translated by Steven E. Baldner & William E. Carroll. I am still in the book’s introduction.
Would the universe and its inhabitants coming to be through evolution be an update on the 13th century idea that the universe is self-sufficient?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al,

Can you please cite a passage from Behe in which he uses the term “tinker”?

I’m not aware that that is his definition of intelligent design.

It seems you are struggling to reconcile your religious belief with what you have been told by evolutionists you must not believe in: that the universe and everything in it, including life, shows signs of and intelligence constantly at work … not tinkering.

I am not struggling with “what I am told by evolutionists I must not believe in”. I am looking at the scientific data, and they indicate that evolution is a self-sufficient process.

As a Catholic are you aware that the principle antagonists of intelligent design (like Richard Dawkwins and Stephen Hawking) are atheists who are desperately trying to annihilate any inkling that this might not be a soulless and meaningless universe?

Of course I know that all too well. I have not only read Dawkins’s books on evolution but also his ludicrous, terrible and infantile ‘The God Delusion’ where he proves that he is an amateurish philosophical nitwit. Hawking is also one, given that, while in ‘The Grand Design’ he declares that “philosophy is dead”, he does not even realize that the physical ‘nothing’ of the quantum vacuum, which is not nothing at all, is not the same as the true nothing of the philosophers.

How naive and uninformed do you think I am, Charlemagne II? Do you really think that I don’t know about the issues?

Have you even looked at my article on the origin of life (linked to on page 53 of this thread)? I have studied more than 100 articles of the primary scientific literature on the topic, most of them thoroughly (see list of references at the end of the article).

---

Ken Miller (book ‘Finding Darwin’s God’ *)) is one of those theists who use the word “tinkerer” when it comes to God as “Intelligent Designer” (in the sense of the ID movement a la Behe). He agrees with Dawkins on the scientific data of evolution as a self-sufficient process, but as a Catholic obviously he disagrees on the philosophical interpretation of the scientific data as indicating a soulless and meaningless universe. See also my comment above about “natural causes” not being the same as “godless causes”.

*) amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/

 

[rossum]

Given that assumption, how would you know for a certainty that you could reproduce the exact conditions that led to abiogenesis, never mind amino acids?

How would you know for a certainty that you could reproduce the exact conditions that led to the designer doing her work? Remember, that ID also has to show, in a scientific way, that what it proposed was possible.

If ID wants to be science then it needs to do the experiments.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that with all the developments in technology, the best you can do is refer to a sixty year old experiment that produced amino acids and nothing more?

I just use that as an obvious example. Look at the date on the Powner paper about pyrimidines. Also the Miller-Urey experiment has been repeated many times since with varying conditions.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Just an aside…what do you suppose the error rate is of their prediction of what the early earth was like?
And how would that error rate compare to the experiment itself?

Would a 1% error in their calculations for the early earth model fail the experiment?
How about a 3%?
Perhaps .1%?

How would the uncertainty about the early conditions on Earth affect the work of the designer? Where are the ID experiments showing what effect different levels of Methane or Hydrogen Sulfide would have on the designer? Abiogenesis has those experiments and the results from them. What does ID have?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Do you genuinely believe the physical sciences can in principle provide an adequate explanation of human existence?

The physical sciences can provide an adequate explanation of the physical part of human existence. The non-physical part is outside the range of the physical sciences. Do you have a problem with the human body evolving from an earlier ape body?

rossum

 

[vz71]

Given that assumption, how would you know for a certainty that you could reproduce the exact conditions that led to abiogenesis, never mind amino acids?

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that with all the developments in technology, the best you can do is refer to a sixty year old experiment that produced amino acids and nothing more?

How would you know for a certainty that you could reproduce the exact conditions that led to the designer doing her work?

Just an aside…what do you suppose the error rate is of their prediction of what the early earth was like?
And how would that error rate compare to the experiment itself?

Would a 1% error in their calculations for the early earth model fail the experiment?
How about a 3%?
Perhaps .1%?

How would the uncertainty about the early conditions on Earth affect the work of the designer? Where are the ID experiments showing what effect different levels of Methane or Hydrogen Sulfide would have on the designer? Abiogenesis has those experiments and the results from them. What does ID have?

rossum

I am not the only one to notice, but I believe am the only one mentioning this.
rossum does not answer questions.
Look at the above examples.
A pointed question, and rossum cannot answer.

rossum seems to think the answer to defending his argument is to simply accuse opposing opinion. This in itself tells me that there are no merits to the side he is defending. Else he would rely on the merits…right?

 

[vz71]

The physical sciences can provide an adequate explanation of the physical part of human existence. The non-physical part is outside the range of the physical sciences. Do you have a problem with the human body evolving from an earlier ape body?

rossum

Interesting that you believe in a non-physical part of human existence.
How exactly does evolution explain this?

 

[rossum]

Uh - my sources are scientific sources.

They may well be. I suggest that you go to those sources and find answers to my questions.

• How, in reasonable detail, are your predictions derived from ID theory?
• Why is it not possible for the ID designer to design a species with large quantities of useless DNA?
• Why is in not possible for the ID designer to place life on the majority of planets capable of supporting life?

You need to show us how your predictions are derived from ID theory and how the opposite of those predictions is not possible under ID theory.

This last is important. If a theory predicts that both there will be junk DNA and that there will not be junk DNA then that theory is unfalsifiable.

We are finding uses for the ex-junk DNA everyday. Junk DNA is gone.

Biologists are finding new uses for part of non-coding DNA every day. The great bulk of non-coding DNA is still appears to be useless junk. Just have a look at the Puffer Fish genome for a small genome with a lot of what appears to be junk removed.

rossum

 

[vz71]

You need to show us how your predictions are derived from ID theory and how the opposite of those predictions is not possible under ID theory.
rossum

And just like that, the target has been moved.

 

[grannymh]

Al

**Because from a scientific point of view (and I am a scientist myself) I see no evidence for a tinkerer God who constantly has to intervene with “Intelligent Design”. However, intelligent design is certainly at work throughout the universe through the unfolding of the world according to the physcial laws that God creates and sustains at every moment (God as sustainer of being is of course both Catholic doctrine and standard Thomistic philosophy). **

Can you please cite a passage from Behe in which he uses the term “tinker”?

I’m not aware that that is his definition of intelligent design.

It seems you are struggling to reconcile your religious belief with what you have been told by evolutionists you must not believe in: that the universe and everything in it, including life, shows signs of and intelligence constantly at work … not tinkering.

As a Catholic are you aware that the principle antagonists of intelligent design (like Richard Dawkwins and Stephen Hawking) are atheists who are desperately trying to annihilate any inkling that this might not be a soulless and meaningless universe?

Do correct me…

It is my understanding that the phrase tinkering with creation refers to the “god of the gaps” accusation which has been leveled at Intelligent Design and at any concept of miracles or extraordinary phenomenon. My guess is that “god of the gaps” is a philosophical accusation because “designer” does not tell the whole story about God.

Catholics believe that God did not need any pre-existent thing in order to create in the true, original sense of the word. God is certainly a wise and intelligent Creator; however; there was nothing that needed to be designed. Through God’s wisdom, His creation is ordered or in our words there is purposeful design so that the entire universe is intelligible in some degree. Not only does God give us being and existence, but He upholds and sustains us in our existence.* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition* paragraphs 295-301

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 1

 

[vz71]

Biologists are finding new uses for part of non-coding DNA every day. The great bulk of non-coding DNA is still appears to be useless junk. Just have a look at the Puffer Fish genome for a small genome with a lot of what appears to be junk removed.
rossum

Since we keep finding uses for ‘junk DNA’ you cannot assume any junk DNA at all.

But it is perfectly reasonable to assume a purpose behind all of it.

Here is why…
If the default is ‘we do not know’
Then the obvious answer to any given strand of DNA we cannot find the purpose for is ‘we do not know’ NOT ‘it has no purpose.’

 

[rossum]

There is no proof of abiogenesis.

You need to learn that “proof” is for mathematics, not science.

Just numerous theories.

You need to learn what “theory” means in science. Abiogenesis is not even a theory yet, it has reached the stage of a number of competing hypotheses. As we find more data the incorrect hypotheses will be modified or removed. Last hypothesis standing becomes a theory.

But, in any event, you said that chemistry is not chance. You are incorrect, in my opinion.

Your opinion is not of any relevance here. It is not chance that exactly two hydrogen atoms combine with exactly one oxygen atom to make H[sub]2[/sub]O. Chemistry is not a chance process.

Any amalgamation of just the right chemicals, under just the right conditions, at just the right time, and at just the same time, to produce life, is either design or chance.
Firstly, “just” may cover a wide range. Is it 999 in 1000 or 1 in 1000? Where are your experimental results justifying the precise figures of chance you are using in your calculations? You did do some calculations didn’t you? Or is this another “it sure looks unlikely to me” moment?

This is science; you need to have the detailed figures and you need to have done the calculations. Subjective opinion does not count.

So what is spirit to you?

Buddhism analyses a human into five components: form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. The first, form, is the physical body. The other four are probably what you would call “spirit”.

There are thousands of recognizable animal behaviors extant in the world. I would be willing to bet that you could say the same thing about all of them. But, that begs the question(s).

I begged no questions. I pointed out that there is currently no evidence that the Bees’ dance was intelligently designed. Do you have such evidence available?

Now you’re straw-manning again

No. I am merely discussing the known chemical structure of tRNA. Do you have any alternative sources which counteract my brief description of its structure? I have mentioned before that science goes into a lot of detail; this is just part of the detail. tRNA is a chemical and its chemical action is well understood.

That may be written in another language altogether; I don’t know. There’s no possible way someone unfamiliar with a different language from his own would even be able to tell what that was.

The language was Sanskrit. It made my point that the difference between meaningful text and gibberish is dependent on the knowledge of the reader. That is a subjective criterion, and as such will be extremely difficult to incorporate into a scientific and objective method to determine whether or not something is designed. So far all of IDs attempts to come up with an objective design detector have failed.

Nevertheless, gobbledygook is “not” poetry.

But something which appears to be gobbledygook may actually be poetry in another language. Appearances can be deceptive. That is why science cannot accept “it sure looks designed to me” as an objective measure of design.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Interesting that you believe in a non-physical part of human existence.
How exactly does evolution explain this?

It doesn’t. The physical part of human existence is explained by evolution: there is no physical part of a human that is not also possessed by a chimpanzee for example.

The non-physical part is explained by Buddhism, not by evolution. I presume you will have a different explanation for the non-physical part.

rossum