Intelligent 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.

As my final word, I would say that when you consider your response, you should keep in mind that you decided to make it personal. Now you are stuck with the consequences. You chose to air out you psychological underpants in a public forum.

 

[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!

While intelligent design is observable, it, on its own, is a meager explanation for God. Yes, I do recognize that there are Catholics who consider Intelligent Design a good lead-in to God as the Creator. But in this century, Catholic apologetics needs to understand what comes after the lead-in. Thus, when it comes to a demonstration of two sole founders of the human species (my area of interest) I am in unchartered waters.

The reason for human life to exist is because God is a personal God Who at the dawn of human history had a personal relationship with the first human, Adam. The interpretation of human life flows from an understanding of the specific nature of the real Adam. The rational foundation for one’s interpretation of human life supports Divine Revelation which is the prime foundation for one’s interpretation of human life. Metaphysics plays its part by examining the “being” of God as far as possible on this side of the pearly gates and by examining the “being” of the human person.

Since I worked before Google, I have a different concept of research. Thus, I have been in contact with a few leaders in Intelligent Design plus contact with two science educators, three philosophy educators (and a partridge in a pear tree). It is time for me to step back and review all that I have learned. The difficulty is that I am missing a working scientist.

Blessings,
granny

“Scottish Folds reflect a part of God’s love and pass that love along to us if we are blessed enough to see God’s reflection in a simple cat.” from a post by Little Soldier**

 

[grannymh]

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

I would explain the immense value, beauty, and complexity of life in terms of Catholic theology.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Chemical laws, for example, increased in proportion to the number of elements.

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.

I agree.

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.

But it shouldn’t give the impression that it is the only possible 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.

There is no reason to suppose that the laws of physics or chemistry could not be different in such a way that would affect the possibility, let alone the probability, of life. We aren’t entitled to assume that anything whatsoever is essential or inevitable.

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.

I capitalise simply to indicate that the design in question is not human design but one which is immensely more potent!

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

That the origin of life was not due to a fortuitous combination of molecules but to rational activity far superior to that of human beings.

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?

Because life depends on an immense number of different factors the convergence of which is most adequately explained by purposeful organization.

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.

I mean intellectual rather than emotional satisfaction! Design satisfies the criteria of adequacy, coherence and fertility.

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.

You are assuming that human beings are no more than biological machines and that biological machines are no more than complex molecular structures.

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

The issue is not their emergence but the cause of, and reason for, their emergence.

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.

Do you believe truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are myths? That they are merely words and not intangible facts? Are they figments of our imagination or factors to be taken into account by anyone who believes in spiritual development?

 

[grannymh]

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

Actually, I can live with that. However, as I get into a defense of the real Adam and Eve, I will not be limited by two categories.

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…

I am not totally sure about a “rational being” as applied to God. But I have no intention of discussing that since I do have a Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

I have been caught completely off guard by Christians, including Catholics, who consider Adam as some kind of symbol which explains some kind of truth. The influence of people like Matthew Fox, former Catholic theologian, is stronger than I ever imagined. This is one of the reasons I need to go beyond design.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[tonyrey]

I would explain the immense value, beauty, and complexity of life in terms of Catholic theology.

In other words they are aspects of **existence in this world **which reflect the wisdom, goodness and glory of God and confirm our belief in His existence.

 

[grannymh]

In other words they are aspects of **existence in this world **which reflect the wisdom, goodness and glory of God and confirm our belief in His existence.

Yes. Personally, I relate to the majestic mountains in Alaska.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peepers

Try to get a grip, Charlemagne.

I certainly will if you will.

**1. Newton was an 18th century physicist. He has no relevance to a 21st century biologist.
**

Who said he did? Newton approaches the universe as a physicist. Do you mean that a physicist cannot detect, and has no right to detect, intelligent design in the universe? If that is your view, I disagree. We must know the laws of physics before we can know how physical things and their properties behave. When Newton sees order in the laws of the universe, he does not have to ask Darwin’s permission to conclude that the order was intelligently designed.

2. Behe is not mainstream thinking.

That’s for sure in the world of biology. But you surely don’t mean to say that mainstream thinking is always right. If that were so, astronomy would still be dominated by Ptolemy.
**

Stop taking these discussions so personally. **

I don’t take them personally if words like “bully” are not used to describe me when all I am trying to do is challenge you to defend your position by following your thought processes to their logical conclusion.

If you don’t want to address me, just say so. You don’t have to get personal. I’ll try to avoid your posts as well.

I have made as complete a case as I care to make. Those who despise Intelligent Design are by and large in the atheist camp.

This applies also to the atheist Stephen Hawking, whose recent book, The Grand Design, is meant to trash the idea of intelligent design by argues (rather ridiculously) that in an infinite number of universes, there is bound to be one that gives the appearance of being designed. That’s how he gets rid of God. No reputable astronomer scientist buys this as anything but speculation, but you don’t see the whole profession of physicists coming down on him for such an absurdity like biologists pile on Michael Behe for arguing a far more plausible hypothesis … that irreducible complexity argues for intelligent design.

 

[tonyrey]

This applies also to the atheist Stephen Hawking, whose recent book, The Grand Design, is meant to trash the idea of intelligent design by argues (rather ridiculously) that in an infinite number of universes, there is bound to be one that gives the appearance of being designed.

And we happen by sheer chance to find ourselves in that particular one out of an infinite number! Hawking is obviously well out of his depth in his attempt to establish a preconceived conclusion - which is understandable in view of his appalling disease. But affliction or compassion shouldn’t outweigh reason…

 

[tonyrey]

Yes. Personally, I relate to the majestic mountains in Alaska.

Don’t they reinforce your belief in God? Beauty doesn’t exist accidentally!

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, I can live with that. However, as I get into a defense of the real Adam and Eve, I will not be limited by two categories.

Quite right too!

I am not totally sure about a “rational being” as applied to God. But I have no intention of discussing that since I do have a Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

I have been caught completely off guard by Christians, including Catholics, who consider Adam as some kind of symbol which explains some kind of truth. The influence of people like Matthew Fox, former Catholic theologian, is stronger than I ever imagined. This is one of the reasons I need to go beyond design.

I entirely agree with you. Design is a stepping stone but also a solid foundation:

“Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these…”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**And we happen by sheer chance to find ourselves in that particular one out of an infinite number! Hawking is obviously well out of his depth in his attempt to establish a preconceived conclusion - which is understandable in view of his appalling disease. But affliction or compassion shouldn’t outweigh reason… **

I don’t know how much of the declining quality of Hawking’s thought process is attributable to his disease and how much is attributable to his atheism; or even whether the atheism might be partly attributable to the disease. God gave him great gifts in his youth, and then took away from him some of the means by which he might exploit those gifts. If atheism is sometimes rooted in anger with God (and I have seen plenty of evidence of that in my lifetime) then Hawking may in his mind have a reason to be intensely atheistic. But with a God-given intelligence such as his, there is every reason to believe that before he is finished he may be able to reason through his anger and find God.

Blaise Pascal did so after a physical accident that came close to ending his life. God finds ways to shake loose our false convictions and bring us around. But of course, we have to be willing recipients of his gift. We never really do see God until we begin to look sincerely for Him. Death is the great leveler, lifting up the lowly and dashing the mighty from their thrones.

 

[grannymh]

granny

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

The official term is Intelligent Design.

Thanks for correcting my intellectual.
I keep thinking about a recent demonstration for God–at least it is new to me. It is the intelligibility of the universe which is a different approach than intelligent design. It’s no wonder that I would goof up as I try to avoid the designation of intelligibility.

Hopefully, I replied in my previous posts as to why I find the concept of an intelligent designer limiting.

I understand what you are saying about Darwin’s followers and atheism.
What I have seen on CAF are Catholics who use the predominance of science as support for putting aside certain Catholic doctrines regarding the origin of humanity.
I have seen a faith/science website whose original statement regarding the origin of humanity was a veiled opposition to the Catholic doctrine. This was removed and replaced with a softer position on a form of polygenism. Maybe by now that, too, has been replaced with a general view.

I have a great respect for the molecular biologist Michael Behe.

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

I see that.

Blessings,
granny

Luke 23: 33-43

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

Hopefully, I replied in my previous posts as to why I find the concept of an intelligent designer limiting.

Sorry, I must have missed it. With poor eyesight, I have to limit the number of posts I can read and reply to.

Just curious … do you advocate a particular religion or philosophy? Cannot tell from your biography info.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Yes, Creator is a better term as “breathed” is better than designed. But, I would say that designer is an attribute of God.

 

[grannymh]

granny

Hopefully, I replied in my previous posts as to why I find the concept of an intelligent designer limiting.

Sorry, I must have missed it. With poor eyesight, I have to limit the number of posts I can read and reply to.

Basically, the description of intelligent designer does not adequately describe a personal God. Buffalo just posted (#652) that designer is an attribute of God which is also the way I view designer. I want to dig deeper into God’s nature.

Just curious … do you advocate a particular religion or philosophy? Cannot tell from your biography info.

I am Catholic. And a real granny which a couple of posters have doubted. As for advocating a particular philosophy, at this point I couldn’t name a specific one. Nonetheless, as I learn about different philosophies, I compare them to Catholic theology.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

Blessings,

 

[shoe]

Webster defines the word “design” as the following:
a : to conceive and plan out in the mind.
b : to have as a purpose.
c : to devise for a specific function or end.

I take this to mean that a “design,” by definition, is something intentionally planned and must arise in the mind of the designer before it is made real or concrete. A design is not the product of time, space, or random accident, but of thoughtful planning and purposeful processes of a designer. The design of anything made is the effect of a designer, and one usually with some degree of intelligence; and the making of the universe certainly would indicate that it was the effect of a highly Intelligent Designer. I think Buffalo’s statement that “designer is an attribute of God” is a good one.

 

[buffalo]

Webster defines the word “design” as the following:
a : to conceive and plan out in the mind.
b : to have as a purpose.
c : to devise for a specific function or end.

I take this to mean that a “design,” by definition, is something intentionally planned and must arise in the mind of the designer before it is made real or concrete. A design is not the product of time, space, or random accident, but of thoughtful planning and purposeful processes of a designer. The design of anything made is the effect of a designer, and one usually with some degree of intelligence; and the making of the universe certainly would indicate that it was the effect of a highly Intelligent Designer. I think Buffalo’s statement that “designer is an attribute of God” is a good one.

Perhaps God as the ultimate artist?

 

[rossum]

There is no reason to suppose that the laws of physics or chemistry could not be different in such a way that would affect the possibility, let alone the probability, of life.

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

I capitalise simply to indicate that the design in question is not human design but one which is immensely more potent!

It is not the design which is more potent, but the designer(s). You have not stated whether your potent designer is alive or not.

That the origin of life was not due to a fortuitous combination of molecules but to rational activity far superior to that of human beings.

That is not what I asked for. I asked for the design explanation for the otigin of life. What you are giving me here is your opinion as to why non-design is not an adequate explanation. You have not answered my question: what is the design explanation for the origin of life?

Was this “rational activity” by a living entity or a non-living entity? Where is there any independent evidence for this entity? Where is you evidence that chemistry is insufficient to explain the origin of life?

For example, we have chemical experiments that show us how pyrimidines can originate in prebiotic conditions. That is not life, but it is one of the building blocks of life. Where are the ID side’s similar experiments showing their proposed design entity making pyrimidines?

I mean intellectual rather than emotional satisfaction! Design satisfies the criteria of adequacy, coherence and fertility.

But the question is whether is satisfies the criterion of correctness. If it isn’t correct then all its other wonderful properties are useless.

You are assuming that human beings are no more than biological machines and that biological machines are no more than complex molecular structures.

I am doing no such thing. I was pointing out the philosophical incoherence of your statement which implied that nothing new could ever emerge in the universe because everything has to pre-exist in its cause. In our universe new things do appear, so your statement does not apply to the real universe. New things do emerge from causes that do not contain them. I am not the same as either of my parents yet they caused me.

The issue is not their emergence but the cause of, and reason for, their emergence.

You asserted that effects were present in their causes. I dispute that. You parents existed one day before you were conceived. You did not then exist.

Do you believe truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are myths?

No, but I do not believe they have an independent existence. “Truth” is a description of certain statements; it has no independent existence apart from those statements.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

It is not the design which is more potent, but the designer(s). You have not stated whether your potent designer is alive or not.

First, I do not consider God as a designer in accord with the human definition of design. God is present. God is a Pure Spirit without restrictions. With that in mind, I answer your question with yes, God is alive.

That is not what I asked for. I asked for the design explanation for the origin of life. What you are giving me here is your opinion as to why non-design is not an adequate explanation. You have not answered my question: what is the design explanation for the origin of life?

Is it that the design explanation for the origin of life is really a description of a method being used? Looking for methods would be both philosophically and scientifically acceptable. However, you are asking for origin.

The source for the origin of life is a Being Who by His nature is life itself. Since this Being is not restricted, He created a universe which contains both material and non-material features.

What makes the difference between a mountain and a man, is that this Being known as God created human nature as a union of both the material realm of the universe and the spiritual realm of God. Man is not two natures, because the unity of the spiritual and the corporeal is so profound that the spiritual can be considered the form of the body. It is because of its spiritual soul that the anatomy, made of matter, becomes a living, human person.

Was this “rational activity” by a living entity or a non-living entity? Where is there any independent evidence for this entity? Where is your evidence that chemistry is insufficient to explain the origin of life?

As for the living entity, please refer to my first answer. When you refer to “rational activity” are you implying that the human person is capable of “rational activity”?

Continued in post 658.