Intelligent Design

[Matt16_18]

wanerious:

Nothing in biology textbooks indicates that our immortal soul is the product of evolution.

The absence of discussion about immortal souls in humans isn’t necessarily a good thing for our students. One can just as easily be misled by the omission of facts, as by outright statements that are false. Most lawyers know how to mislead juries and evade the truth by eliciting testimony from a witness that is true as far as it goes.

I am not saying that a high school biology class that teaches evolutionary theory should include a section on the metaphysical arguments about randomness. What I am saying is that our students should be exposed to metaphysics in an appropriate class so that they can engage in critical thinking. That way the students would know when someone espouses conclusions about evolution that are nothing more than articles of faith of the religion of materialism. A student should know that someone is talking utter nonsense when he asserts that a bipedal animal without a mortal soul can “evolve” into a human being with an immortal soul. Surely there is nothing wrong with teaching our students why the evolutionary theories of dialectical materialism are highly flawed, and why the conclusions drawn from this flawed philosophy have led to such human misery in the last century.

I disagree. There is no need to point this out, since if one studies genetics and mutations, it is obvious what “random” means in this context.

Why would this be obvious to student? Random is a term that even physicists often misuse and abuse. I once read an article posted in the website of the nbi.ku.dk/english/]Neils Bohr Institute that discussed the meaning of random in detail as it applied to quantum physics, but unfortunately, I can’t find that article again. You are really trying to trivialize something that is far from trivial! The world random is as subtle as the word infinite, and that needs to be brought to the attention of students in a class about metaphysics.

Again, no one is claiming your take on the vocabulary.

You don’t speak for everyone.

The word “Darwinism” is too imbued with philosophical ambiguities, and is viewed as almost as incendiary as words like “macro-evolution” — things that only non-scientists would say.

The philosophical ambiguities of Darwinism disappear because of a name change?

Thankfully, if they, like you, tend to only see the word “random” in this limited and flawed way, they don’t hold sway over the educational system.

Please tell me how the way that I have been using the word “random” flawed? I am well aware of how important the concept of randomness is to modern quantum physics (and ultimately to the concept of “random” mutations).

A true random number generator has been the goal of software scientists for a long time now, and once one delves into what it would take to develop such a code, one realizes just how elusive the definition of random really is. There is no formal mathematical definition of random. How can there be “scientific” definition of random that is unambiguous if there is no formally defined mathematical definition of random?

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

Please tell me how the way that I have been using the word “random” flawed?

Here’s how: You’re reading a metaphysical meaning into the term “random,” and evolutionary scientists, strictly speaking, are not. This is the central flaw in your set of presuppositions. The scientific concept of randomness involves natural occurrences which are unexpected, unpredicted, and unforseen, and which provide no necessary direct survival benefit to the organism. This is how “randomness” is understood within science. Your definition, pregnant as it is with metaphysical significance, becomes a straw man when applied to the conclusions of genuine science, since this is not how scientists themselves use the term.

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

You’re reading a metaphysical meaning into the term “random,” and evolutionary scientists, strictly speaking, are not.

Why, “strictly speaking” are scientists NOT making a metaphysical statement when they speak about random events in nature? You have already admitted that you believe that there are no events in nature that are random to God, that the events that scientists say are random really only seem to be random.

Why not simply drop the term “random” when we teach about mutations and evolution in our public school science classes? That way there is less ambiguity about is being taught. The mutations scientists study may be caused by God, or they may not be caused by God – the scientists are only examining why a particular mutation to the DNA of an organism is repressed or selected over time when environmental factors are considered.

Talk to students about the possibility of true randomness in the public school courses teaching metaphysics.

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

…the events that scientists say are random really only seem to be random…

Talk to students about the possibility of true randomness in the public school courses teaching metaphysics.

So, you want the term “random” to be discontinued in science, and used only as a metaphysical concept. Shall we take all scientific terms that a few people simply can’t seem to grasp, and toss them out as well? Should the miniscule number of people whose metaphysical assumptions won’t allow them to comprehend how particular words are used *within science—and who therefore cannot seem to properly distinguish between the legitimate terminology of two different disciplines—*be permitted to eject those long-used terms from the scientific lexicon? The question is obviously rhetorical. If you can’t apply an exclusively scientific meaning to scientific terminology, if you can’t allow the scientific community to have its own language, and if you can’t keep your own metaphysical presuppositions out of your articulation of “science,” the answer is not to demand (or even suggest) that scientists throw out the particular concepts that you don’t happen to like. The answer is to acknowledge the significance that science places on such terms, and stick to that proper meaning when discussing “scientific” matters.

Yes, from a theological perspective, natural events are not random. But, from a scientific perspective (that of strict empirical observation), certain things do not merely “seem” random—as far as scientific investigation is concerned, things are “random.” In fact, the only way to conlude that such occurrences aren’t random is to borrow a non-scientific, metaphysical idea from *outside of *science and impose it upon a strictly scientific methodology. However, if one removes a priori metaphysical assumptions about a providential Creator from the discussion (and, given that these have no place in scientific inquiry, we must), natural occurrences are indeed random in a real, though not metaphysical, sense. So, we can observe that natural events may simultaneously be both theologically (supernaturally) non-random and *scientifically (*naturally) random. Note, however, that the term “random” is being used in two different ways here, and one must properly distinguish between the two.

As to your last statement, I agree that it would be fine to talk about metaphysical “randomness” in a class on metaphysics. Likewise, students should be taught a scientific understanding of “randomness” in their science classes. Each discipline’s particular language should be recognized and maintained.

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

Yes, from a theological perspective, natural events are not random. But, from a scientific perspective (that of strict empirical observation), certain things do not merely “seem” random—as far as scientific investigation is concerned, things are “random.”

How can the scientific perspective be true and at the same time contradict the theological perspective that holds that there is no such thing as an event in nature that is random? It seems to me that you trying to construct a variation of Averroist theory of double truth.Aquinas insisted that all legitimate methods of inquiry will converge upon a single, unified truth. Hence, science, properly conducted, and Scripture, properly interpreted, give a unified testimony to that truth. Aquinas vigorously opposed those who defended a theory of “double truth”, according to which the same proposition might be scientifically false but theologically true.

THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-74)

However, if one removes a priori metaphysical assumptions about a providential Creator from the discussion (and, given that these have no place in scientific inquiry …

Why must we remove “metaphysical assumptions about a providential Creator” from science? Did Einstein break some rigid rule of science when he said “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos”? Einstien’s question was prompted by the question of randomness and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

If the debate sparked by the Uncertainty Principle has proven anything, it has proven that the old view of science as an act of men engaging in “strict empirical observation” is no longer of much use, at least in quantum physics.

 

[zian]

Matt16_18:

How can the scientific perspective be true and at the same time contradict the theological perspective that holds that there is no such thing as an event in nature that is random? It seems to me that you trying to construct a variation of Averroist theory of double truth.Aquinas insisted that all legitimate methods of inquiry will converge upon a single, unified truth. Hence, science, properly conducted, and Scripture, properly interpreted, give a unified testimony to that truth. Aquinas vigorously opposed those who defended a theory of “double truth”, according to which the same proposition might be scientifically false but theologically true.

THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-74)

Sounds to me like we just don’t understand the conection between to two. Not the first time. Won’t be the last.
“I don’t know” is a perfectly legitimate scientific statement.

Why must we remove “metaphysical assumptions about a providential Creator” from science? Did Einstein break some rigid rule of science when he said “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos”? Einstien’s question was prompted by the question of randomness and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

If the debate sparked by the Uncertainty Principle has proven anything, it has proven that the old view of science as an act of men engaging in “strict empirical observation” is no longer of much use, at least in quantum physics.

On the contrary, I think it has merely demonstrated that the interface is challenging, especially when restricted to concepts that are described by language.

I don’t have to have a theory of everything.

But, it’d be nice!!

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

How can the scientific perspective be true and at the same time contradict the theological perspective that holds that there is no such thing as an event in nature that is random? It seems to me that you trying to construct a variation of Averroist theory of double truth.

Why must we remove “metaphysical assumptions about a providential Creator” from science? Did Einstein break some rigid rule of science when he said “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos”?

…the old view of science as an act of men engaging in “strict empirical observation” is no longer of much use…

I’ll address each of your statements in turn:

No, I’m not suggesting a double-truth position at all. For two propositions to be genuinely contradictory, a person would have to affirm both ‘A’ and ‘not A’ at the same time, and in the same sense (this is the philosophical Law of Non-Contradiction). However, theology and science understand the term “random” in completely different senses—therefore, the charge of contradiction does not apply. I am not simultaneously affirming two contradictory truths, rather I’m endeavoring to maintain the very distinct ways in which two disciplines utilize the same term. Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?

You ask why metaphysical assumptions should be removed from science, and I answer that the proper object of the natural sciences—by definition—is the natural world. Supernatural questions are simply beyond its purview. Einstein is expressing a theological conviction, not a scientific conclusion—scientists are certainly allowed to make such metaphysical statements, though they should not be delivered as science. Just because a scientist expresses a theological opinion about ultimate causes does not thereby make his statement “scientific.” Richard Dawkins makes anti-theistic statements all the time, but we should not label them “scientific,” since they fail to meet a genuine concept of science as being self-restricted to the world of nature.

As to your last comment, I’ve already addressed it in previous posts. It’s nothing more than a straw man, since I do not hold to the view of science you’re attempting to apply to me.

 

[Matt16_18]

zian:

On the contrary, I think it has merely demonstrated that the interface is challenging, especially when restricted to concepts that are described by language.

The old paradigm of science was that the universe sat “out there” independent of man’s consciousness, and scientists were thought to be “observers” of what was out there in the universe. The new paradigm brought about by quantum physics is that man’s consciousness is an inseparable part of the universe he dwells in - he is a particpator in the universe, not an observer of the universe.

To illustrate the new paradigm brought about by quantum physics, imagine a physical process that sends two electrons flying away from each other with different spins. The physical law governing this process is such that if the spin is up for one electron, the spin must be down for the other electron.

The old paradigm of scientist as “observer” was that the state of the electron spin was predetermined without the interaction the observer. If a scientist set up an experiment to determine whether one of the electrons had a spin of up or down, it was assumed that the electron was already in the state of up or down before the experiment was performed. The scientist was only observing the state of spin of the electron that was already determined in a deterministic universe. Quantum physics has forced that paradigm to be scrapped. According to quantum physics, the state of spin of neither electrons is determined UNTIL the scientist decides to interact with one of the electrons in an experiment. Once the scientist determines by his experiment what the state of spin is for one electron, the other electron instantaneously has its state of spin determined. This is what Einstein called a “spooky” action at a distance.

To me, this strange law of quantum physics that particles of matter can only be in a determined state by interacting with consciousness provides a clue as to how one might give a scientific explanation that debunks materialistic Darwinism.

Marx’s understanding of Darwinism is that a bunch of inanimate chemicals eventually found the proper environmental conditions to bring forth life, and then the lower forms of life eventually evolved by the proper environmental conditions into increasingly complex forms of life that brought forth human consciousness. But quantum physics shows that no particle of matter has a determined state unless there is a consciousness interacting with matter. So how does a universe where every particle exists without a determined state ever bring forth humans that possess consciousness? Is the matter of the universe that exists before man comes into being not inanimate after all? Is the pre-human universe a conscious being that self determines the state of particles whom eventually brings forth consciousness in human beings? A Hindu might love this theory of conscious rocks, given their belief in pantheism, but do Darwinian materialists really see themselves as closet Hindus?

The Catholic has a much easier time explaining the quantum paradox of a universe full of stateless particles and the question of preexisting consciousness before humans came into being. The Catholic sees that the Darwinian materialist as having everything backwards – the materialist imagines that nuclear and chemical reactions in inanimate matter brought forth life in simple living organisms made of matter, and then lower forms of life brought forth human consciousness. Rocks created human consciousness. The Catholic believes that this is nonsense. An eternal consciousness brought forth rocks out of nothing, an eternal consciousness took rock dust and gave life to lower forms of living beings made from rock dust, and eternal consciousness eventually brought forth a human being that is both flesh (rock dust) and spirit.

Quanutm physics gives us a choice, we can be atheistic materialists that believe that conscious rocks broght forth human consciousness, or we can be theists that believe that an eternally conscious being brought forth rocks without consciousness. It seems to me that if the atheistic Darwinists believe conscious rocks brought forth human consciousness, then they really do have rocks in their heads. The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools
Romans 1:18-21

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

… theology and science understand the term “random” in completely different senses—therefore, the charge of contradiction does not apply.

You have yet to explain how it is that theology and science have “completely different senses” of the word “random”.

This reminds me of the discussions I have had with Calvinists and their belief in “total” depravity. As one goes round and round with the Calvinist, the Calvinist will eventually admit that he doesn’t believe in total depravity – he believes in utter depravity. When the scientist says events in nature happen at random, what he really means it that they happen by chance.

I’m endeavoring to maintain the very distinct ways in which two disciplines utilize the same term.

Then define your terms. Give me the scientific definition of random, the theological definition of random, and show me how these are “completely different senses” of the word “random”.

You ask why metaphysical assumptions should be removed from science, and I answer that the proper object of the natural sciences—by definition—is the natural world.

The Marxist would have a definite advantage as a scientist in your schema, since he is unencumbered by all those pesky theological beliefs.

 

[zian]

There are a couple of go-rounds on the nature of chance to be found here and here .

Again, as I am not omniscient, I can not possibly answer any ot the questions posited in your other several paragraphs. They are certainly fair game though, both physically and metaphysically.

And I’ll bet Marxists have a distribution of beliefs too, same as most other groups do. As for the relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics, I’m sure you could google yourself into delirium before finding any concensus of thought. Bon voyage.

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

You have yet to explain how it is that theology and science have “completely different senses” of the word “random”…

…When the scientist says events in nature happen at random, what he really means it that they happen by chance.

Then define your terms. Give me the scientific definition of random, the theological definition of random, and show me how these are “completely different senses” of the word “random”.

The Marxist would have a definite advantage as a scientist in your schema, since he is unencumbered by all those pesky theological beliefs.

I’m puzzled. I have defined and described both the theological and scientific uses of terms like “randomness” and “chance” in several posts (# 227, 266, 282, and others), in addition to various similar references posted by others on this thread, and still you charge that I have not yet “defined my terms.” You may want to go back and re-read the thread more carefully.

In the context of evolutionary theory, biologist Douglas Futuyma writes: “Mutations occur at random. This does not mean that all loci mutate at the same rate, nor that all imaginable mutations are equally likely. Nor does it mean that mutations are independent of the effect of the environment; environmental mutagens increase mutation rates. Mutation is random in that the chance that a specific mutation will occur is not affected by how useful that mutation would be” (Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., p. 76).

As I’ve outlined elsewhere on this thread, something is “random” in science because it is unexpected, unpredicted, unforeseen, and not directly beneficial to the survival of the individual. In theology, on the other hand, “randomness” is seen in metaphysical terms, that is, in terms of ultimate, primary, and supernatural causality. The former deals with secondary physical causes, while the latter refers to primary metaphysical causes. Each discipline, religion and science, has its own particular understanding of “randomness,” which must be acknowledged and followed if confusion is not to be the result.

I don’t know if I can explain things more clearly than I already have. If, after reading these posts, you still cannot see and affirm the proper distinctions, I’m not sure that further discussion of the point would be of much help.

Yes, “random” and “chance” are pretty much synonyms within science. And when used within a scientific discussion, each should be employed according to a scientific rather than a theological perspective.

Lastly, a Marxist would be just as responsible to refrain from injecting his metaphysical biases into science as would any Christian or Jehovah’s Witness. (If I recall, Stephen Jay Gould was a political Marxist in his younger years.) It is simply required by the particular methodology of science itself.

Truly,
Don

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

As I’ve outlined elsewhere on this thread, something is “random” in science because it is unexpected, unpredicted, unforeseen, and not directly beneficial to the survival of the individual.

All you are saying is that a scientist cannot say an event in nature is, in reality, truly random. The mutation may appear to the scientist to be random, and he doesn’t need to know if the mutation is caused by God or if the mutation is not caused by God, in order to do his science. He doesn’t even need to know if the mutations are caused at all. The mutations could be spontaneously appearing for no reason at all for all that it matters to the evolutionary scientist (but of course most scientists assume that there is at least a physical cause of the mutation – such as a chemical or radioactive cause).

Lastly, a Marxist would be just as responsible to refrain from injecting his metaphysical biases into science …

Which of course, they don’t. And this is why we need to have classes in our public school to give our children the ability to see when scientists are interjecting their own religious beliefs into the conclusions that they are drawing from the physical evidence that supports evolution. Such as the ludicrous statements of atheistic secular humanists that assert that physical evidence for evolution shows that bipedal animals without immortal souls can evolve into human beings with immortal souls. That statement is a claim by atheists that a chemical process can create an immortal soul that is conscious of the supernatural Law of Right and Wrong.

 

[harinkj]

arieh0310:

He is also a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute

Food for thought…

Being a senior fellow of an outfit that pushes the position that one espouses is not exactly a qualification.:tsktsk:

The simple fact is Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it is not the result of the scientific method. It ranks with astrology and alchemy as a crackpot idea.:bigyikes:

-:clapping: Kathie :bowdown:

 

[harinkj]

Donald45:

As I’ve outlined elsewhere on this thread, something is “random” in science because it is unexpected, unpredicted, unforeseen, and …

Bownian motion is random, yet it is expected.

Donald45:

… not directly beneficial to the survival of the individual.

This appears to have come out of whole cloth. If randomness went away, so would thermodynamics go away and it would carry us with it into oblivion.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[The_Barbarian]

I wouldn’t say that the pope believes in evolution.

Our current Pope says:
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

That’s as strong as any scientist will give you.

He certainly doesn’t believe in traditional darwinian evolution because to do so would be contrary to the Catholic dogma that there was actually an Adam & Eve.

There is no conflict between those. However, not even scientists accept evolution as Darwin saw it; there have been many new findings about evolution, and on some points, Darwin was wrong. However, there is nothing in Darwin’s original theory that rules out Adam and Eve.

 

[zian]

Matt16_18:

Such as the ludicrous statements of atheistic secular humanists that assert that physical evidence for evolution shows that bipedal animals without immortal souls can evolve into human beings with immortal souls. That statement is a claim by atheists that a chemical process can create an immortal soul that is conscious of the supernatural Law of Right and Wrong.

Well, I’m speechless. :tiphat:

I had no idea that atheists thought that there even were souls.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I wouldn’t say that the pope believes in evolution.

He says that it is virtually certain that all living things on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. That’s about as strong a statement as can be given.

He certainly doesn’t believe in traditional darwinian evolution because to do so would be contrary to the Catholic dogma that there was actually an Adam & Eve.

Modern evolutionary theory isn’t traditional Darwin evolution, either. But you should understand that even traditional Darwinism did not rule out an Adam and Eve.

 

[Evan]

harinkj:

The simple fact is Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it is not the result of the scientific method.

Actually, Intelligent Design is an attempt to use the scientific method to investigate the possilbility that randomness (in a scientific sense) could produce life. Having done that, could it have evolved.

The creation of life, of course, has nothing to do with evolution. Life evolves, so evolution begins after the creation of life.

From the lectures I’ve heard on Intelligent Design, one of the big uses of the Scientific Method was the investigation into the creation of life.

 

[harinkj]

Evan:

Actually, Intelligent Design is an attempt to use the scientific method to investigate the possilbility that randomness (in a scientific sense) could produce life.
From the lectures I’ve heard on Intelligent Design, one of the big uses of the Scientific Method was the investigation into the creation of life.

What data were collected?

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

All you are saying is that a scientist cannot say an event in nature is, in reality, truly random… He doesn’t even need to know if the mutations are caused at all…

…we need to have classes in our public school to give our children the ability to see when scientists are interjecting their own religious beliefs into the conclusions that they are drawing…

When you say “truly random,” you apparently mean “truly random in a metaphysical sense.” You ignore or deny that physical phenomena may be “truly random” in another sense entirely, that is, in a scientific sense. This says more about you than it does about the topic under discussion.

Of course, contra your comments, a scientist is indeed interested in the natural (secondary) causes of mutations. Supernatural (primary) causes, however, are necessarily beyond the scope of science.

You suggest implementing public school courses on metaphysics, so that children can detect when scientists are injecting their personal philosophical biases into their science. This seems ironic, since this is precisely what Intelligent Design Creationists (and you yourself, it seems) are engaged in every time they, for example, offer a metaphysical cause for a physical effect. Shall we assume that your gradeschool philosophy class will also teach kids how to discern when religious people are attempting to inject their personal theological views into what they then presume to call “science”?

Truly,
Don