Intelligent Design

[Peepers]

A yes or no does not suffice, because the entire notion of “designing” something is a human concept. I don’t pretend to know the “mind” of God, if such thing even exists. Nor do I pretend to understand what the word “design” would mean of God.

I have already answered the question as to whether I think that God created the universe. I am not impressed by bullying tactics like personal insults and trying to pin a person down to a “yes or no” answer for questions which I don’t admit to having such and answer simply because you have a point to “prove” which makes sense to you.

Let me ask you these “yes or no” questions. Do you know the mind of God? Do you know what God was “thinking” at the moment of creation?

You may put yourself in God’s mind, and limit him to your own perceptual framework. I choose not to do that.

 

[grannymh]

That was Behe’s response. My quote was taken form the abstract of his own paper, Behe and Snooke (2004) which I referenced. The 20,000 year figure for 10^8 generations is taken from Behe’s own testimony at the Dover trial, where this paper was discussed. IIRC it was on day twelve.

The whole paper is available at the link in my post.

rossum

I have the printed paper and am stuck on the first sentence of the Abstract. In the section Results, “The Model” I am very curious about the third sentence which begins with “Any given organism in the population may be thought to have anywhere from zero to multiple extra copies of the gene; …” However, since my questions are directed to scientific methods rather than to philosophy, tomorrow I will post my questions in the Back Fence Forum, thread: “How does the nitty-gritty of methods and materials of science research contribute to the various theories of [human] evolution?”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

Thanks for a thought-provoking paper.
granny

“The soul, the ‘seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material,’ can have its origin only in God.” CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 33

 

[tonyrey]

1. The increase in complexity of the laws of nature.

Complexity is measured by the number of entities and the extent to which they are organized. By any standards the universe became more complex even before the advent of life. The lighter elements were formed first and then the heavier ones. At the outset there were no galactic, stellar or planetary systems. There has also been an increase in molecular complexity which presupposes further laws of nature.

The development of a universe with properties necessary for life

Any theory which proposed the development of a universe not suitable for life will immediately be rejected, since the universe we live in is, at least in a small part, suitable for life.

Rejected by whom?! The point is that life need not have emerged.

Any all successful theories will result in a universe that is suitable for life since a successful theory has to explain the observed outcome.

You are assuming that theories (and life) must exist!

1. The development of life from inanimate matter

Again, the development of life is an observed outcome.

Again the development of life is not a necessary or inevitable outcome.

Note that a living designer fails to explain the origin of life, but merely assumes it.

Design does not assume the origin of life because the only adequate explanation of the immense value, beauty and complexity of life is Design! There is otherwise no reason for life to exist and you base your entire interpretation of life on an irrational foundation.

Hence such an explanation, while it may be theologically satisfying, is not philosophically satisfying.

It is incomparably more satisfying than the theory that purposeful beings emerged from purposeless processes.

What do you mean by hindsight? Much of the present universe is influenced by the past.

Physical influence has nothing to do with hindsight which is the monopoly of rational beings. According to the Non-Design theory hindsight, insight and foresight have all emerged from processes which lack those powers.

BTW You have neglected the following important facts:

Non-Design also presupposes that truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love have been produced by purposeless events.

Most fascinating of all is the inevitable conclusion that the theory of Non-Design - like all theories - has a non-rational origin! I wonder how much it is really worth in such circumstances…

Further explanation of all the above is required if the absence of Design is to be at all plausible!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peepers

I am not impressed by bullying tactics like personal insults and trying to pin a person down to a “yes or no” answer for questions which I don’t admit to having such and answer simply because you have a point to “prove” which makes sense to you.

**Let me ask you these “yes or no” questions. Do you know the mind of God? Do you know what God was “thinking” at the moment of creation?

You may put yourself in God’s mind, and limit him to your own perceptual framework. I choose not to do that. **

You trash Behe as a quack, then deliberately distort what I said about him and Isaac Newton, then have the nerve to say I am using bullying tactics because I answered you and request that you account for your point of view? Sheesh!

Yes, I do know the mind of God as revealed to me in the Scriptures. You ought to know it too since you are a Protestant and the Scriptures are supposed to be what you know.

If, as a Protestant, you have read the 1st book of Genesis, you would know that God did design and make the world and he did it over a certain number of time periods (seven). That is my belief. If you can’'t say even that, and try to get out of saying that because you don’t know the mind of God, why not just go back and read Genesis and tell me there is no design in the making of the universe and all that is in it? Then please tell me why that would be inconsistent with the idea of intelligent design?

But before you address another post to me, you maybe should be careful about the accusations you make (bullying, for one). In another thread, as I recall, you asked for someone to let you know if you ever get out of line, because you noticed that there was a lot of tension at CAF, and you didn’t want to get caught up in that.

Stick to the issues and don’t take offense when somebody requests that you account for your views instead of resorting to evasive replies.

 

[grannymh]

BTW You have neglected the following important facts:

Non-Design also presupposes that truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love have been produced by purposeless events.

Most fascinating of all is the inevitable conclusion that the theory of Non-Design - like all theories - has a non-rational origin! I wonder how much it is really worth in such circumstances…

Further explanation of all the above is required if the absence of Design is to be at all plausible!

A non-design theory. Are we now in a mutually exclusive or situation?

 

[grannymh]

But before you address another post to me, you maybe should be careful about the accusations you make (bullying, for one). In another thread, as I recall, you asked for someone to let you know if you ever get out of line, because you noticed that there was a lot of tension at CAF, and you didn’t want to get caught up in that.

Stick to the issues and don’t take offense when somebody requests that you account for your views instead of resorting to evasive replies.

Would it be appropriate if I now post that I am in a very cranky (feminine for snarky) mood?

I have to admit that I do not know the official philosophy of Intellectual Design. A link would be sincerely appreciated. For some organizations, a well-written mission statement is a type of philosophy so that would be acceptable.

What I am seeing on CAF are some unusual, yet intriguing, statements. One example: “Note that a living designer fails to explain the origin of life, but merely assumes it. Hence such an explanation, while it may be theologically satisfying, is not philosophically satisfying.”

Another example is the reply: “Design does not assume the origin of life because the only adequate explanation of the immense value, beauty and complexity of life is Design! There is otherwise no reason for life to exist and you base your entire interpretation of life on an irrational foundation.”

Depending on the philosophical scope of Intelligent Design and its use of terms, both statements appear to be somewhat accurate even from both sides of the fence.
Both avoid defining the Creator which could be due to Christians not agreeing on the initial relationship of God with the first human or due to the immense difficulty in being limited to the physical/material world.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[tonyrey]

A non-design theory. Are we now in a mutually exclusive or situation?

Can you suggest a third possibility? Perhaps Design **and **non-Design?

 

[tonyrey]

Another example is the reply: “Design does not assume the origin of life because the only adequate explanation of the immense value, beauty and complexity of life is Design! There is otherwise no reason for life to exist and you base your entire interpretation of life on an irrational foundation.”

Depending on the philosophical scope of Intelligent Design and its use of terms, both statements appear to be somewhat accurate even from both sides of the fence.

Please explain how the rejection of Design can provide a reason for life to exist and a rational foundation for one’s interpretation of life. It seems to me like a metaphysical conjuring trick!

 

[tonyrey]

A yes or no does not suffice, because the entire notion of “designing” something is a human concept.

All our concepts are necessarily human concepts!

I don’t pretend to know the “mind” of God, if such thing even exists. Nor do I pretend to understand what the word “design” would mean of God.

If we can say nothing about God what are we left with? Agnosticism…

 

[rossum]

Complexity is measured by the number of entities and the extent to which they are organized. By any standards the universe became more complex even before the advent of life. The lighter elements were formed first and then the heavier ones. At the outset there were no galactic, stellar or planetary systems. There has also been an increase in molecular complexity which presupposes further laws of nature.

I will take that to mean that the laws (such as gravity) stay the same, but that the complexity increases. The law of gravity is unchanged from the early universe, but the number of stars has increased.

Rejected by whom?! The point is that life need not have emerged.

If a cosmological theory proposed that the universe would always be a static uniform cloud of hydrogen then that theory would be rejected by scientists because the observed universe is not a static uniform cloud of hydrogen. I take your point that life is possibly not inevitable but in any universe that contains life then life must at least be possible. Since our universe contains life then our universe must be one if the subset of possible universes that allows life.

You are assuming that theories (and life) must exist!

The observed outcome is that our universe is suitable for life. A successful theory explains the observed outcome.

Again the development of life is not a necessary or inevitable outcome.

How do you know this? We do not know enough about the chemistry behind abiogenesis yet to be able to determine whether or not life is unlikely to arise, likely to arise or certain to arise.

Design does not assume the origin of life because the only adequate explanation of the immense value, beauty and complexity of life is Design!

Firstly, you capitalise “Design”; for me that rings alarm bells that you are reifying something. I do not accept any reification.

Secondly, you say “Design does not assume the origin of life”. Good, then what is the Design explanation for the origin of life?

There is otherwise no reason for life to exist and you base your entire interpretation of life on an irrational foundation.

There are things that happen for no reason. Why cannot life be one of them?

It is incomparably more satisfying than the theory that purposeful beings emerged from purposeless processes.

I am not interested in satisfaction (unless by the Rolling Stones), I am interested in the correct answer. The satisfying answer may not be the correct answer.

Physical influence has nothing to do with hindsight which is the monopoly of rational beings. According to the Non-Design theory hindsight, insight and foresight have all emerged from processes which lack those powers.

Yes. Iron atoms emerge from a process which lacks iron atoms. I emerged from a process that lacked me. You emerged from a process that lacked you. Lots of things emerge from processes which lack them. The kind of universe you describe is a universe in which nothing new ever emerges because anything that emerges can only ever emerge from something which already possesses it.

Since we can easily observe new things emerging in this universe, what you are describing is not our current universe.

Non-Design also presupposes that truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love have been produced by purposeless events.

See my thoughts above on a universe in which nothing new can emerge. I also get the sense that you are reifying here.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Can you suggest a third possibility? Perhaps Design **and **non-Design?

How about Manicheanism, the principle of emanation, chance, or Thomism which describes “creator” in significant terms far better than an “intelligent designer.”

Seriously, I find the concept of an intelligent designer philosophically limiting.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

I have to admit that I do not know the official philosophy of Intellectual Design.

The official term is Intelligent Design.

That the universe appears to reflect evidence of a design is as old as Plato and Aristotle. It was emphasized again in Augustine and Aquinas. In modern science even Isaac Newton subscribed to it in a very forceful way, even to pointing to animal life as reflecting signs of an ordering intelligence. Einstein said he wanted to know the mind of God, by which I believe he meant that there is order in the universe, rather than chaos, and therefore there must be an ordering Intelligence which for want of a better word he called God, since he didn’t believe in a personal God but rather in a sort of Deist God like Spinoza’s.

Darwin also spoke in this way, or at least hinted at some ordering Intelligence.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

But many of Darwin’s followers, right up to modern times, have taken the theory of evolution as an excuse to espouse atheism (certainly Richard Dawkins is the foremost of them today, having said that the theory of evolution finally made atheism respectable).

The molecular biologist Michael Behe, the mathematician William Dembski and others have explored in depth the peculiar qualities of life that make it seem unlikely that even the first form of life could have come to be without extraordinary circumstances coming together in such a way to make an organism all at once (without evolving since there was nothing to evolve from) that this organism could not only breathe and nourish itself, but also reproduce itself.

This principle of abiogenesis Behe likened to a mousetrap, which if any one of its parts was missing, could not be a mousetrap. This is what is meant by irriducible complexity. Now a mousetrap is designed. Mousetraps don’t come into existence by accident. If anything so simple as a mousetrap must be designed, how much less likely is it that anything as complex as the first living organism could have suddenly popped into existence without the circumstances being arranged for it to do so (Intelligent Design).

The reason intelligent design is so threatening to evolutionists is not that it is illogical, but that it threatens the comfort zone many of them have built up around themselves that fits nicely their atheistic world view. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionists, but he is also an atheist, and there is nothing so fascinating as to watch him philosophically self-destruct in his debates with those who see merit in the idea of Intelligent Design.

In the meantime, Intelligent Design theorists have taken a pounding the likes of which no one in the scientific world has taken since Galileo.

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

**Seriously, I find the concept of an intelligent designer philosophically limiting. **

It would be interesting to know why.

 

[tonyrey]

The number of chaotic universes exceeds the number of orderly universes.

It does not follow that this universe must exist - and must exist as it is - simply because it is the only universe we know. Cosmology would not be a science if that were true.

1. There may be laws which make it more likely for orderly universes to arise rather than chaotic ones.

That is unfounded speculation unless a reason can be given.

2(a) Even if "equal or if chaotic exceed orderly, life in any sense that we understand it would likely arise only in orderly universes, thus a being would be unlikely to know about chaotic universes anyway.

What a being is likely or unlikely to know has no bearing whatsoever on the nature of reality.

1. Even if the number of orderly and chaotic universes that initially arise are equal (or if chaotic is greater than orderly) it is reasonable (and appears likely) that chaotic universes would be much more likely to quickly (perhaps even immediately) self-annihilate, leaving a greater number of orderly universes rather than chaotic universes.

Please explain why. The law of entropy suggests otherwise.

4. IF there is a multiverse (based on QED decision processes) then there is an infinite or near infinite number of universes, all of which are orderly. To accept as reasonable an assertion that there are a greater number of chaotic universes, either a reasonable reason must be given as to why, OR a reason must be given showing that there is a hierarchy of infinities and that the chaotic infinity exceeds the orderly infinity.

What we do know** for certain** is that this is not the only possible universe - unless it is necessary rather than contingent. Yet anyone who believes in God is committed to the belief that there is only one Necessary Being.

1.We also know just one rule decreases the amount of disorder

1. The more rules there are the more order there is
2. The more order there is the more improbable it is that the rules exist for no reason
   because order is imposed by a rational being whereas disorder is not.
3. Rules are imposed by rational beings for specific purposes
4. There are many rules in the universe which serve specific purposes
5. Therefore the most reasonable explanation of all the purpose-serving rules in the universe is rational Design
   .

 

[Peepers]

Peepers

I am not impressed by bullying tactics like personal insults and trying to pin a person down to a “yes or no” answer for questions which I don’t admit to having such and answer simply because you have a point to “prove” which makes sense to you.

**Let me ask you these “yes or no” questions. Do you know the mind of God? Do you know what God was “thinking” at the moment of creation?

You may put yourself in God’s mind, and limit him to your own perceptual framework. I choose not to do that. **

You trash Behe as a quack, then deliberately distort what I said about him and Isaac Newton, then have the nerve to say I am using bullying tactics because I answered you and request that you account for your point of view? Sheesh!

Yes, I do know the mind of God as revealed to me in the Scriptures. You ought to know it too since you are a Protestant and the Scriptures are supposed to be what you know.

If, as a Protestant, you have read the 1st book of Genesis, you would know that God did design and make the world and he did it over a certain number of time periods (seven). That is my belief. If you can’'t say even that, and try to get out of saying that because you don’t know the mind of God, why not just go back and read Genesis and tell me there is no design in the making of the universe and all that is in it? Then please tell me why that would be inconsistent with the idea of intelligent design?

But before you address another post to me, you maybe should be careful about the accusations you make (bullying, for one). In another thread, as I recall, you asked for someone to let you know if you ever get out of line, because you noticed that there was a lot of tension at CAF, and you didn’t want to get caught up in that.

Stick to the issues and don’t take offense when somebody requests that you account for your views instead of resorting to evasive replies.

Try to get a grip, Charlemagne.

1. Newton was an 18th century physicist. He has no relevance to a 21st century biologist.
2. Behe is not mainstream thinking. He proposes some interesting arguments. I did not “trash” him, as you suggest. I merely pointed out that his point of view is not widely accepted. My language was harsh, but accurate. You may subscribe to his views if you like. I won’t hold it against you. We know how the Church struggled with Galileo, and it took them something like 500 years to apologize. Behe is no Newton, and he is no Galileo. He is just another scientist who has proposed a controversial theory which appears to lack merit. Time will tell if his theory is adopted.

Stop taking these discussions so personally, and you will find that people will start to take your opinion more seriously. There is no personal victory here. If I took your personal attack on me personally, than I apologize. I should have risen above it.

 

[grannymh]

Please explain how the rejection of Design can provide a reason for life to exist and a rational foundation for one’s interpretation of life. It seems to me like a metaphysical conjuring trick!

This is the problem with the mutually exclusive or situation.
From post 620: "Design does not assume the origin of life because the only adequate explanation of the immense value, beauty and complexity of life is Design! "
Is the only response the rejection of Design?

 

[Peepers]

Peepers

I am not impressed by bullying tactics like personal insults and trying to pin a person down to a “yes or no” answer for questions which I don’t admit to having such and answer simply because you have a point to “prove” which makes sense to you.

**Let me ask you these “yes or no” questions. Do you know the mind of God? Do you know what God was “thinking” at the moment of creation?

You may put yourself in God’s mind, and limit him to your own perceptual framework. I choose not to do that. **

You trash Behe as a quack, then deliberately distort what I said about him and Isaac Newton, then have the nerve to say I am using bullying tactics because I answered you and request that you account for your point of view? Sheesh!

Yes, I do know the mind of God as revealed to me in the Scriptures. You ought to know it too since you are a Protestant and the Scriptures are supposed to be what you know.

If, as a Protestant, you have read the 1st book of Genesis, you would know that God did design and make the world and he did it over a certain number of time periods (seven). That is my belief. If you can’'t say even that, and try to get out of saying that because you don’t know the mind of God, why not just go back and read Genesis and tell me there is no design in the making of the universe and all that is in it? Then please tell me why that would be inconsistent with the idea of intelligent design?

But before you address another post to me, you maybe should be careful about the accusations you make (bullying, for one). In another thread, as I recall, you asked for someone to let you know if you ever get out of line, because you noticed that there was a lot of tension at CAF, and you didn’t want to get caught up in that.

Stick to the issues and don’t take offense when somebody requests that you account for your views instead of resorting to evasive replies.

I am going to withdraw from this “discussion”. When the bully accuses his intended victim of being a bully, something is amiss.

I have not evaded any question. Yet, because my direct answers do not conform to your controlling expectations, you reject them and repeat the question which has already been answered. I would expect this of an 11 year old, but not from an adult.

There is a paradigm for this sort of behavior is referred to as “codependence”. You might want to check out the patterns and characteristics of “codependence” and its related pathologies. While a diagnosis would be presumptive, it is clear that you might gain some insight. BTW, CODA is a faith based program.

 

[tonyrey]

How about Manicheanism, the principle of emanation, chance, or Thomism which describes “creator” in significant terms far better than an “intelligent designer.”

Seriously, I find the concept of an intelligent designer philosophically limiting.

All the beliefs you mention fall into the category of Design or non-Design according to the way they are interpreted.

Belief in Design does not imply that the capacity for Design is the sole attribute of the Rational Being responsible for the immense complexity, value and beauty of the universe.
Design implies intention and it is absurd to suppose the Creator had** no intention** of creating us - at least for Christians who believe we are made in His image and likeness. All the terms we use to describe God are inadequate but without them we must remain agnostic…

 

[tonyrey]

This is the problem with the mutually exclusive or situation.
From post 620: "Design does not assume the origin of life because the only adequate explanation of the immense value, beauty and complexity of life is Design! "
Is the only response the rejection of Design?

How else would you explain the immense value, beauty and complexity of life?

 

[tonyrey]

1. Behe is not mainstream thinking.

That may well be an advantage considering the fashionable trend is NeoDarwinism…

Without Design God may well become superfluous - and is for many people…

 

[Peepers]

Try to get a grip, Charlemagne.

1. Newton was an 18th century physicist. He has no relevance to a 21st century biologist.
2. Behe is not mainstream thinking. He proposes some interesting arguments. I did not “trash” him, as you suggest. I merely pointed out that his point of view is not widely accepted. My language was harsh, but accurate. You may subscribe to his views if you like. I won’t hold it against you. We know how the Church struggled with Galileo, and it took them something like 500 years to apologize. Behe is no Newton, and he is no Galileo. He is just another scientist who has proposed a controversial theory which appears to lack merit. Time will tell if his theory is adopted.

Stop taking these discussions so personally, and you will find that people will start to take your opinion more seriously. There is no personal victory here. If I took your personal attack on me personally, than I apologize. I should have risen above it.