Intelligent Design

[buffalo]

Quantum Electrodynamics shows that there is chance in the universe. Furthermore, dating back even to relatively early studies of light (the study of which falls under QED) we could see that if we performed experiment A, light appeared to be wave-like in nature, but if we performed experiment B, light appeared to be particle-like in nature. For a long time this duality caused an issue; how could light be both, it must be one or the other.

But then the answer came - it really is both (and frankly, this is true of all matter) and if we test it one way it appears to be a wave, and test it another way, it appears to be a particle. In other words, the results of the test were determined by the choice of the test. This is very arguably an example of free will in action.

But this leads to a new possibility - one that is very odd, but that has never been discounted, and that has some (albeit slight) evidence behind it. That possibility is that every time there IS a choice that the universe actually splits. Assuming you choice A, you are aware of the choice A universe only; the one of you that chose choice B is aware of the choice B universe only.

Thus, the choices add up to either an infinite (or essentially an infinite) number of universes, as upon each choice in each universe there is a new splitting.

Note that this possibility is not necessarily at odds with Catholic teachings.

Also note that this possibility was raised with respect to dealing with another possibility (not an actual reality.) A poster claimed that there would necessarily be more chaotic universes than orderly ones. For all sorts of reasons previously given, that isn’t at all clear, BUT IN ADDITION TO those reasons, we can point out (as a response to a hypothetical) that if there are an infinite number of universes (something that we cannot yet rule out) that his assertion would necessarily be false.

Hence, if he wishes to make his assertion, he needs to deal with the possibility of an infinite number of universes.

The multiverse theory has its own issues. But I will state one - all possible universes exist, so there is one with an intelligent designer, there is one with a God, there is one where kbachler believes in IDvolution , there is one exactly as Catholic’s believed and taught, there are also fake ones, and one with a flying spaghetti monster.

Which one are we in?

 

[buffalo]

Would someone please provide me with an example of “irreducible complexity” in biology? I don’t understand what is meant by that.

ATP synthase motor.

The mousetrap is the popular example. The mousetrap was designed for a function. Take away any of the parts and it does not function as intended. Now we see that those parts have other independent functions and uses outside the mousetrap but they are uniquely utilized in the trap.

Take a car engine, remove the fuel rail and it no longer functions for its intention.

The ATP synthase motor spinning at 6000rpm is present in every cell of every living thing. It was there at the start as it provides energy for the cell. No motor, no energy, no functioning cell.

 

[kbachler]

**

The multiverse theory has its own issues. But I will state one - all possible universes exist, so there is one with an intelligent designer, there is one with a God, there is one where kbachler believes in IDvolution , there is one exactly as Catholic’s believed and taught, there are also fake ones, and one with a flying spaghetti monster.

Which one are we in?

The issue you state is not an issue; let’s break it down so you understand:

1. All possible universes exist - ok, not what the multiverse theory says, but we will go with it for now.

**2. So there is one with an intelligent designer **- several problems here. First the multi-verse theory is based on possible universes that arise do to choices made by humans (or beings) within our universe.

• It isn’t clear that there is a designer, if not, he can’t make a choice, so no such multiverse would exist
• If there is a designer, its even more unclear that he is within our universe, so he wouldn’t impact a multiverse.

**3. There is one with a God, ** - again, while I personally believe this, not provable.

4. there is one where kbachler believes in IDvolution , - Nope, in fact, I believe that ID is a malicious deviance from the truth, designed to lead Christians astray.

1. there is one exactly as Catholic’s believed and taught, your meaning here is unclear? One universe? I don’t believe that is part of* any* Christian belief; even if it is its meaning would be unclear. One God, yes we believe in one God.

6.** there are also fake ones, and one with a flying spaghetti monster.** and here your meaning is entirely lost.**

 

[buffalo]

**

The issue you state is not an issue; let’s break it down so you understand:

**1. All possible universes exis****t - ok, not what the multiverse theory says, but we will go with it for now.

**2. So there is one with an intelligent designer **- several problems here. First the multi-verse theory is based on possible universes that arise do to choices made by humans (or beings) within our universe.

• It isn’t clear that there is a designer, if not, he can’t make a choice, so no such multiverse would exist
• If there is a designer, its even more unclear that he is within our universe, so he wouldn’t impact a multiverse.

**3. There is one with a God, ** - again, while I personally believe this, not provable.

4. there is one where kbachler believes in IDvolution , - Nope, in fact, I believe that ID is a malicious deviance from the truth, designed to lead Christians astray.

1. there is one exactly as Catholic’s believed and taught, your meaning here is unclear? One universe? I don’t believe that is part of* any* Christian belief; even if it is its meaning would be unclear. One God, yes we believe in one God.

6.** there are also fake ones, and one with a flying spaghetti monster.** and here your meaning is entirely lost.

1. Tell me what the multiverse theroy postulates.
2. You believe ID is designed? How can it lead astray? ID is not materialistic. As I show in IDvolution it conforms with modern science, St Augustine, St Thomas, the ECF’s and continuous church teaching. Compare that to evolution.

 

[kbachler]

Would someone please provide me with an example of “irreducible complexity” in biology? I don’t understand what is meant by that.

The idea is that if you can find a biological device/function (say, an eyeball) that cannot be reduced (there is no reason for “earlier” simpler subparts for exist) then you have something that is complex and not reducible which is argued to mean that it didn’t arise through evolution (because the theory is that evolution provides for a hierarchical building of parts.)

Thus, if you find such a thing (and so far no one has) it would be evidence for DESIGN of that part, since it didn’t "arise naturally.

There are several issues with the concept.

1. No one has found such a thing.
2. Even if they found such a thing, chance is not eliminated.
3. Even if it appeared that such a thing were irreducible, it may be that it is cross-functionally reducible (for example, often a part may have been meant for something completely different, and then got conserved and drawn into a new function.) - and since we don’t have soft tissue fossils, it may be that evidence does not easily exist to demonstrate cross-function irreducibility (we may not know about the conservation of a part, and then re-using if for a new purpose.)

Consequently, even if such a thing were found - which is more likely - that there is only ONE thing that points to design, OR that we are simply missing a bit of information on one thing?

 

[kbachler]

1. Tell me what the multiverse theroy postulates.

Sigh, I sufficiently did, if you read the post.

1. You believe ID is designed?

No, I believe ID is falsehood.

How can it lead astray?

Because it leads people away from actual truth.

ID is not materialistic. As I show in IDvolution it conforms with modern science, St Augustine, St Thomas, the ECF’s and continuous church teaching. Compare that to evolution.

ID does not conform with modern science, nor does it conform with church teaching. Its not within Church teaching to provide people with falsehoods.

Evolution provides the best truth to people that it can at any moment. It doesn’t provide more than it can.

 

[buffalo]

Sigh, I sufficiently did, if you read the post.

No, I believe ID is falsehood.

Because it leads people away from actual truth.

ID does not conform with modern science, nor does it conform with church teaching. Its not within Church teaching to provide people with falsehoods.

Evolution provides the best truth to people that it can at any moment. It doesn’t provide more than it can.

A designed falsehood?

Evolution cannot be proven true so how can it lead people to the faith, evolution is considered the best explanation, but that paradigm is changing. So many findings in the last 20 years or so. Even the top evo’s know it.

 

[kbachler]

No and no one else has either. I always give scientific evidence.

You can start by refuting any of the peer reviewed science papers I reference, not dismissing them out of hand as is your habit. rossum to his credit comes back with his papers/sources, and around and around we go. (and have for quite a few years). You on the other hand post like a talking head making pronouncements. I tend to believe you are reading from a talking points memo you received from the NCSE.

The people who reason their science are the one’s who need to be credible and many are not. Even the peer review process has issues. Is it your contention that thinking people should not question science? How about the church? (can’t have it both ways)

Challenging the science does not lead people away from the faith. It is a valid exercise and science must be ready to defend it and not ask for a pass as you just did.

And just for your information, I have learned much here at CAF from other posters who present well. After studying the faith and reasoning issues for many many years I am confident in my posts and I back them with modern science’s own research. As others continually claim, that is how good science is done. Remember, science moves forward a funeral at a time. What funeral are we attending now? The modern synthesis.

When something has been refuted, it doesn’t do any good with you to continue to refute it.

Science is always challenging. Challenging it with lies and holding it out to be the truth is an issue.

If you wanted to say “ID raises these arguments, but science counters with those” ok; but that’s not what you do. You mislead.

 

[buffalo]

When something has been refuted, it doesn’t do any good with you to continue to refute it.

Science is always challenging. Challenging it with lies and holding it out to be the truth is an issue.

If you wanted to say “ID raises these arguments, but science counters with those” ok; but that’s not what you do. You mislead.

Sure, guys who quote the Dover Trial judge as an argument do not deserve consideration. Truth and science is not the domain of a judge.

Whoah - wait just a minute. Fair is fair, are you willing to say evo raises these arguments, but ID counters with these? You mislead, too.

For the record if I have a conversation person to person I do present both sides. In these forums many posters come here to attack, some genuinely want to know the debate, and some antagonize. For their benefit proper debate with references they can actually see for themselves is invaluable. Going back and forth in the manner you and I have is not professional and I will try to do better.

This is getting way too personal so this will be my last post with you on a personal basis.

Stick with the science. Show the science. Let posters and lurkers draw their own conlcusions.

 

[Peepers]

It sounds like a huge leap to me that one would say, “I don’t understand this, so it must be thus and so…” That is what the creationist idea (it is hardly a theory) appears to be to me. Am I correct that the Catholic Church does not oppose the idea that God created a universe which includes evolution and natural selection?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

And there is a chance that the study of particle physics can prove the existence of an infinite number of universes.

Sounds like, correct me if necessary, that you have been reading Stephen Hawking’s latest, The Grand Design.

“There is a chance,” as you put it, that there is **not **an infinite number of universes. Hawking’s solution is that an apparently designed universe might exist but would be illusory in this infinite number of universes, since every tpe of universe would exist, including one that seemed to be designed. Hence no need for God.

Still science fiction because, as you say, there is only a chance, and the chance, not evidence, certainly no more evidence than for intelligent design, but the fiction is fervently prayed for by atheists so that they can say, “See!”

If you want a more complete take on Hawking, read John Moench’s review of his book in the current issue of New Oxford Review.

newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0411-moench

I cannot post again today. :stretcher:

 

[buffalo]

It sounds like a huge leap to me that one would say, “I don’t understand this, so it must be thus and so…” That is what the creationist idea (it is hardly a theory) appears to be to me. Am I correct that the Catholic Church does not oppose the idea that God created a universe which includes evolution and natural selection?

You want a leap? - calculate the odds of a multiverse. It might be better to believe in a flying spaghetti monster that that monstrosity.

Th Catholic Church opposes polygenism.

 

[kbachler]

You want a leap? - calculate the odds of a multiverse. It might be better to believe in a flying spaghetti monster that that monstrosity.

Th Catholic Church opposes polygenism.

Want a leap? Read a typical Buffalo post.

Put a context on the information. Then maybe you’ll grasp it. Do you recall why multiverse was brought up anyway?

 

[Peepers]

You want a leap? - calculate the odds of a multiverse. It might be better to believe in a flying spaghetti monster that that monstrosity.

Th Catholic Church opposes polygenism.

I put the odds of a multiverse at the umpteenth of something that I don’t know what it is. I admit that theoretical physics is beyond me. There is a credible genetic researcher who claims to have found the genetic evidence that we are descended from Adam - a single genetic source. He heads the National Geographic project on genetic origins of man (Genographics Project). I don’t recall his name… (googling now…) Ahh… Spencer Wells. There is a viable theory now which includes the mountains of evidence for evolution and natural selection, and the existence of Adam.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

And there is a chance that the study of particle physics can prove the existence of an infinite number of universes.

Sounds like, correct me if necessary, that you have been reading Stephen Hawking’s latest, The Grand Design.

No, I haven’t read it.

“There is a chance,” as you put it, that there is **not **an infinite number of universes. Hawking’s solution is that an apparently designed universe might exist but would be illusory in this infinite number of universes, since every tpe of universe would exist, including one that seemed to be designed. Hence no need for God.

From what I know of the theory, the interpretation above is incorrect. For a universe to exist, (or at least for us to know that it exists) there would have had to have been a choice.

Still science fiction because, as you say, there is only a chance, and the chance, not evidence, certainly no more evidence than for intelligent design, but the fiction is fervently prayed for by atheists so that they can say, “See!”

Not at all. The question is to find what’s true.

The reason for bringing it up in the context of this thread was one where reasonable speculation was viable, since it was in answer to a speculative assertion.

If you want a more complete take on Hawking, read John Moench’s review of his book in the current issue of New Oxford Review.

newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0411-moench

I cannot post again today. :stretcher:

From my prior reading I know that Hawking became interested in the multiverse as a potential solution to the Hawking Paradox (the Black Hole Information Paradox.) Most scientists found his speculative answer unsatisfactory.

 

[kbachler]

A designed falsehood?

Evolution cannot be proven true so how can it lead people to the faith, evolution is considered the best explanation, but that paradigm is changing. So many findings in the last 20 years or so. Even the top evo’s know it.

Evolution has ALREADY been proven true.

Why do you think it cannot be proven true?

 

[kbachler]

You want a leap? - calculate the odds of a multiverse. It might be better to believe in a flying spaghetti monster that that monstrosity.

Th Catholic Church opposes polygenism.

And that last statement is relative how?

 

[kbachler]

Sure, guys who quote the Dover Trial judge as an argument do not deserve consideration. Truth and science is not the domain of a judge.

Whoah - wait just a minute. Fair is fair, are you willing to say evo raises these arguments, but ID counters with these? You mislead, too.

For the record if I have a conversation person to person I do present both sides. In these forums many posters come here to attack, some genuinely want to know the debate, and some antagonize. For their benefit proper debate with references they can actually see for themselves is invaluable. Going back and forth in the manner you and I have is not professional and I will try to do better.

This is getting way too personal so this will be my last post with you on a personal basis.

Stick with the science. Show the science. Let posters and lurkers draw their own conlcusions.

I have yet to see you post both sides.

 

[buffalo]

Want a leap? Read a typical Buffalo post.

Put a context on the information. Then maybe you’ll grasp it. Do you recall why multiverse was brought up anyway?

It’s the only way out of a fine tuned universe.

 

[buffalo]

I have yet to see you post both sides.

Read the post again, slowly. There are plenty here who post the “other” side. Opposing positions is the essence of the debate.