Intelligent Design

[buffalo]

Buffalo:

God knew we would pray that prayer. So, all He might have done is to say, “Just hold your horses; I’ve already taken care of that; it is a part of my plan, but it hasn’t come 'round to your eyes yet!”

God bless,
jd

Yes that could be it. In addition I have heard time (from God’s persepctive) described as a drop of milk hitting the table.

 

[buffalo]

There seem to be two main objections to Design: (1) It explains too little and (2) It explains too much! The truth, as so often, lies between the two extremes. It explains the abundant evidence for purposeful activity, both human and non-human. It does not seek to explain the nature of the Designer.

Nor should ID be equated with Design. ID is limited to science, as far as I can make out, but Design is not. Design encompasses ID and takes into account scientific facts as well as the non-physical aspects of human nature, such as free will, moral responsibility and the capacity for love - which cannot be explained scientifically. It exists in the work of Plato and the Stoics and predates modern science by thousands of years. I cannot see why it should include monogenism because it is not committed to any particular view of evolution, apart from the rejection of NeoDarwinism. I hope that clarifies the situation.

BTW The OP is mistaken in describing Design as “a non-religious view on **creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution **and natural selection” because it encompasses evolution and does not entail creationism except in the sense of Creation by gradual evolution.

It is important to recognize the difference between ID the science, and ID the philosophy (IDvolution).

 

[buffalo]

While I’ve no problem imagining that some of our traits developed through evolution, those sorts of explanations - which inevitably are based in evolutionary psychology - are extremely weak. They’re a hair away from simply gesturing at the air and saying, “I’m not sure, but I’m sure it was naturalistic whatever it was.”

And I think the ‘naturalistic’ explanation for free will is not to explain it, but to deny it. The same for a conscience, at least insofar as Catholics consider the term.

The evolutionary explanations are left wanting and are currently imploding.

 

[grannymh]

While I’ve no problem imagining that some of our traits developed through evolution, those sorts of explanations - which inevitably are based in evolutionary psychology - are extremely weak. They’re a hair away from simply gesturing at the air and saying, “I’m not sure, but I’m sure it was naturalistic whatever it was.”

And I think the ‘naturalistic’ explanation for free will is not to explain it, but to deny it. The same for a conscience, at least insofar as Catholics consider the term.

You are absolutely right about weak explanations, especially when one reads the research or looks at the videos with a critical eye. However, the public is buying it.
The research I have seen regarding free will attempts to locate a particular place in the brain, stimulate it either with an electrode or with visual pictures etc., and then conclude that any kind of action flows from the brain or an intention in the brain itself. Usually the test itself eliminates the possibility of true free. I think of this as an attempt to relocate the will from the soul to the brain. Often this is referred to as the mind/body problem.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[Nullasalus]

You are absolutely right about weak explanations, especially when one reads the research or looks at the videos with a critical eye. However, the public is buying it.

I’m more optimistic than that, I suppose. I think a certain segment of the public is buying it - but a certain segment will always buy everything. Evo psych in general strikes me as having fallen out of favor even with numerous naturalists.

I wonder if Jerry Fodor may be charting the future when it comes to evolutionary explanations.

 

[JDaniel]

I am not sure you mean a variety of human species. Maybe you mean varieties of races? There is only one human species in many shapes, sizes, colors, etc. These differences would develop over time.

Granny:

See the following url: wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html
Think “then,” instead of “now.” The reconstruction shows an overlaping of species, IOW, not an evolving. This means that some of the various species would have had to encounter one another.

God bless,
jd

 

[Al_Moritz]

Granny:

I may be wrong, but I don’t think that our illustrious moderator has any problem with reasonable discussions concerning evolution. Again, that is reasonable discussions: with a healthy dose of charitableness. Should anyone attempt to inflame, ignore that post: even if it’s me!

This is important stuff. And, we have Al Moritz in the thread now. We must avail ourselves of his expertise and viewpoints. So far, he has been affirming most of what we have reasonably thought.

God bless,
jd

Thank you, JDaniel,

you seem to understand the points that I am trying to make here.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If it came in His breath of creation it is not the same as intervening 1000 years later to make a fix.

Perhaps, but it still would be interventionist, with God helping out a bit where the laws of nature that He created do not suffice. The problem is, the scientific evidence speaks against that. Also an origin of life by natural causes now appears to be highly likely from a scientific perspective, see my article:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

(Of course, the theistic view is that God created these natural causes, but this of course not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one. Neither is the statement that the laws of nature are all that exist a scientific statement; it is a philosophical one as well.)

 

[Al_Moritz]

Of course God knows the outcome but we don’t! From our point of view His intervention does occur in time. Your objection implies that He never works miracles (!) to offset the harmful effects of evil decisions by men or disasters caused by the vagaries of chance.

Don’t you believe God ever suspends the laws of nature? Or are they beyond His control once they have been set in motion? Your view is equivalent to pantheism because it neglects God’s dynamic creativity. It implies He is a Gigantic Machine incapable of modifying what He has decreed. In other words He is a Slave of His own Laws!

Let me repeat: Our God is not the remote deity of the deists who sets the universe in motion and takes no further interest in the proceedings but a loving Father who watches over His children and cares for us directly at every opportunity.

Tonyrey:

How do you get the idea that I believe that God never suspends the laws of nature and performs miracles? Of course He performs miracles (tomorrow we will celebrate a big one), and I never said anything to the contrary.

I also said clearly that in some instances God intervenes with special creation. As I said on p. 54 of this thread on the rational soul in answer to you (you seem to have forgotten that post):

*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.*

So these things alone, special creation of the soul and sustaining creation in existence at every moment, clearly exclude a deistic God. (Apart from miracles which additionally enter the equation.)

The problem with the idea of a God who constantly intervenes in the material world (apart from clear miracles) is not just a scientific one, but it also opens a theological can of worms. If God constantly intervenes and steers things, why then did 99 % of all life go extinct over the hundreds of millions of years? Were these all God’s mistakes? And what about the earthquakes in Haiti and Japan? Were these also God’s mistakes? Why didn’t He intervene? After all, He could have given the tectonic plates a nudge here and there to release stress gently, instead of the violent release that we saw, and everything would have been fine. Or did God allow, or even cause, those earthquakes as a punishment? I trust that you do not subscribe to this dangerous and condescending theology a la Pat Robertson!

Thus, if you look at it closer, interventionist ID is not just bad science, it also tends to open the door to bad theology.

Of course I believe God intervenes in the world. He does perform physical miracles, though quite rarely it seems, and even here and there may change material events in a subtle manner in response to prayer. However, I do think He mostly leaves the laws of nature as they are and intervenes through the human soul. Not just by creating it for each human being, but also by influencing it, and thus human thoughts and deeds.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Behe holds no position on “how” irreducible complexity showed up in biology, nor does he claim that ID shows “God designed the first blood clotting cascade”. Nor does he insist that IC must show up in an interventionary way - it could have developed over time. What he argues is that Darwinian mechanisms could not have done the job, and that design is a reasonable inference.

Well, he’s wrong on that.

I didn’t say that it was “automatic”. I said that by the standards of quite a few people, Al’s stated views on nature and biology is just a form of intelligent design, as well as a rejection of “Darwinism”.

On whether Al really is an ID proponent, that’s trickier. No, I think by the standards of Behe and Dembski - unless Al thinks that one can infer design and intelligence in nature through science (and indications are he doesn’t think this, and that such inferences are philosophical) - Al is not an ID proponent. By the standards of Jerry Coyne and others? He is. And by most reasonable standards, the view of evolution he has is a view that rejects Darwinism. Not evolution, but certainly Darwinism.

Yes, as I have said repeatedly, I am a proponent of intelligent design, but not of interventionist Intelligent Design as understood by the ID movement. And yes, I am a Darwinist – or rather, Neo-Darwinist. Darwinism is primarily a term for a scientific theory:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Of course, some use “Darwinism” as a philosophical term synonymous with ‘atheistic evolutionism’, but this is a rather unorthodox usage.

 

[Nullasalus]

Well, he’s wrong on that.

Great, so we have a fully worked out understanding of how, say… a bacterial flagellum evolved, step by step, by Darwinian means? I’d love to read this! Where is it at?

Yes, as I have said repeatedly, I am a proponent of intelligent design, but not of interventionist Intelligent Design as understood by the ID movement. And yes, I am a Darwinist – or rather, Neo-Darwinist. Darwinism is primarily a term for a scientific theory:

And some people say that “Darwinism” is not a scientific term at all. And some people say that “Darwinism” is wrapped up with the philosophical term.

That word slides depending on who’s speaking.

Of course, some use “Darwinism” as a philosophical term synonymous with ‘atheistic evolutionism’, but this is a rather unorthodox usage.

So Jerry Coyne doesn’t understand what Darwinism is? Or Dawkins? Dan Dennett? How about Michael Ruse? Since Ruse says flatly that to believe what you do - that God designs through evolution, that evolution was directed towards ends, etc - is to abandon Darwinism. Not to mention Darwin himself seemed to suggest as much in correspondence with Asa Gray.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, he’s wrong on that.

Al:

Some time ago, I read Miller’s (and several other’s) refutation of Behe’s bacterial flagellum. It seemed to me, at the time, that Miller was making some assumptions that were really begging for more questions. The flagellum and its motor I think consist of about 20 parts. Is that about right?

God bless,
jd

 

[buffalo]

Tonyrey:

How do you get the idea that I believe that God never suspends the laws of nature and performs miracles? Of course He performs miracles (tomorrow we will celebrate a big one), and I never said anything to the contrary.

I also said clearly that in some instances God intervenes with special creation. As I said on p. 54 of this thread on the rational soul in answer to you (you seem to have forgotten that post):

*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.*

So these things alone, special creation of the soul and sustaining creation in existence at every moment, clearly exclude a deistic God. (Apart from miracles which additionally enter the equation.)

The problem with the idea of a God who constantly intervenes in the material world (apart from clear miracles) is not just a scientific one, but it also opens a theological can of worms. If God constantly intervenes and steers things, why then did 99 % of all life go extinct over the hundreds of millions of years? Were these all God’s mistakes? And what about the earthquakes in Haiti and Japan? Were these also God’s mistakes? Why didn’t He intervene? After all, He could have given the tectonic plates a nudge here and there to release stress gently, instead of the violent release that we saw, and everything would have been fine. Or did God allow, or even cause, those earthquakes as a punishment? I trust that you do not subscribe to this dangerous and condescending theology a la Pat Robertson!

Thus, if you look at it closer, interventionist ID is not just bad science, it also tends to open the door to bad theology.

Of course I believe God intervenes in the world. He does perform physical miracles, though quite rarely it seems, and even here and there may change material events in a subtle manner in response to prayer. However, I do think He mostly leaves the laws of nature as they are and intervenes through the human soul. Not just by creating it for each human being, but also by influencing it, and thus human thoughts and deeds.

Again, I ask about the quantum effects prayer. If God responds to prayers and alters a natural outcome is that interventionist? If the world converted and prayed would God suspend the earthquakes or violent weather? Mother Mary always is pleading with us to pray.

Will God adjust the laws favorably as a response to prayer?

 

[Al_Moritz]

So Jerry Coyne doesn’t understand what Darwinism is? Or Dawkins? Dan Dennett? How about Michael Ruse? Since Ruse says flatly that to believe what you do - that God designs through evolution, that evolution was directed towards ends, etc - is to abandon Darwinism.

In typical atheist fashion, all these atheists confuse science with philosophy (an eternal frustration in discussions with atheists on the web as well). As a theist you should be above that.

Not to mention Darwin himself seemed to suggest as much in correspondence with Asa Gray.

Did he? Here is part of a post by Charlemagne II on p. 56 of this thread:

Why can’t evolution be intelligently designed? Even Darwin said you can be a theist and think evolution.

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.” Charles Darwin

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

I think of this as an attempt to relocate the will from the soul to the brain. Often this is referred to as the mind/body problem.

Or maybe an attempt to relocate the entire soul in the brain?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

To be more precise about the source:

In an 1879 letter to John Fordyce, Darwin wrote three years before his death:

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist."

The following is also from Darwin:

“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).

In some modern publications of the Origin of the Species the term “Creator” is deleted.

Does anybody wonder why?

 

[Nullasalus]

In typical atheist fashion, all these atheists confuse science with philosophy (an eternal frustration in discussions with atheists on the web as well). As a theist you should be above that.

Above it? What the heck does that mean? Ignoring it? Pretending it never happens?

Did he? Here is part of a post by Charlemagne II on p. 56 of this thread:

Yeah, great quote. Go read Darwin’s actual correspondence with Asa Gray, when Asa - who was a pretty big booster of natural selection - suggested that God, being omniscient, foresaw and preordained the variation as well as the selection that would take place.

Darwin’s response was not “That’s great, Asa. It’s completely compatible with my theory, but not required by it and gets into philosophy. After all, you can believe in my theory and be an ardent theist.” Shall I provide quotes?

 

[tonyrey]

The current naturalistic explanation for the awareness of “something bad” (not necessarily sin) occurred over time until the point when the growing group of humans realized that some kind of order needed to be maintained. This group over time decided what would be best for the group to survive and also experience some sort of peace. Thus, over time and negotiation a specific culture was formed which may or may not have agreed with other kinds of group cultures.

That view reduces morality to expediency without any reason why individuals shouldn’t ignore the rules when they think they can feather their own nest - either by dissimulation or slaughtering their oppnents like Gadaffi.

The current naturalistic explanation for conscience and free will is that these developed as the humans became conscious of their surroundings. There was a growing awareness of some things being beneficial and some things being harmful. But all this is attributed to the anatomy as it developed new skills needed for anatomical survival. Scary isn’t it !!!

Scary and crazy! How can biological organism have free will? Self-control implies a self which doesn’t exist in the naturalistic scheme of things! Whether we are explained anatomically or atomically we remain totally determined physically…

Survival value is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the power of reason. In fact it jeopardises not only our survival but the survival of all life on this planet.

 

[tonyrey]

It is important to recognize the difference between ID the science, and ID the philosophy (IDvolution).

I agree. I also think Design is a more comprehensive view than IDvolution, depending on how the latter is interpreted.

 

[buffalo]

Published April 23, 2011
**
Pope: Humanity isn’t random product of evolution**

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI marked the holiest night of the year for Christians by stressing that humanity isn’t a random product of evolution.

           Benedict emphasized the  Biblical account of creation in his Easter Vigil homily Saturday, saying  it was wrong to think at some point "in some tiny corner of the cosmos  there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning  and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring  rationality into it."

           "If man were merely a random  product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then  his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he  said. "But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine  reason."