Intelligent Design

[The_Barbarian]

Behe is one of the few genuine scientists left who actually doesn’t accept Darwin’s theory. He does, however accept evolution. He just thinks God has to push start it every now and then to get it to work.

I figure God could do it right the first time, but obviously, not everyone thinks so.

 

[JSmitty2005]

There are supposedly many scientists (atheists among them) who call themselves ‘anti-darwinists’ but they are ostracized by the scientific community because Darwin is not only their scientific hero but also their philosophical hero (naturalistic/materialistic). The two (scientific darwinism & naturalism) are complementary and have led to the heresy of scientism and the rampant secular humanism in our society. Thanks Charles!

 

[sirknightron]

Peace be with you.

I see it this way.
What has had to always existed before anything ever could?
Even if you believe in the BIG BANG thing, the substances that made the big bang had to come from somewhere.
So where did it come from?
What existed before that, including the empty space that was nothing because even empty space would be something.
My answer is TRUTH. Truth had to exist before anything else could.
God is all Truth! Nothing exist without the will of God.
God is all encompassing.
Even if you say that nothing existed before anything else, that in itself would have to be true. Truth is in itself an inteligence unlike anything else. It has to exist before anything else can or else nothing else can exist.
It sounds like a run aruond explination but think about it.
Faulsehoods do not realy exist in the actual.
Name one thing that is fause that actualy exist.

Peace be with you
Ron

 

[zian]

JSmitty2005:

The conference that Hawking is referring to was the 1981 Vatican Conference on Cosmology. I don’t think that scientists that are secretly trying to disprove a moment of Creation should be informing our Church leaders on scientific issues, but that’s just me. The article can be found at this link:
sycophants.info/hawking.html

Well, I have to take issue with your categorization of Hawking “secretly” trying to do anything. He’d just given a talk at this conference. His ideas are widely published in the journals. What was so secret about it? Since he admitted that his talk was about “the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary”, it hardly sounds like he was lecturing recalcitrant schoolchildren on their abc’s. Neither you, nor I, nor the Pope, nor Steve Hawking, for that matter, are omniscient. We don’t have a right to have a full understanding of the universe, right here, right now. At least I’m not expecting it, any time soon. And who better to hear from regarding the latest ideas in cosmology than those who are generating them. These ideas could be right; these ideas could be wrong. Intelligent people should be able to discuss them rationally.

 

[JSmitty2005]

“If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been created by God from nothing, let him be anathema.” -Canon 5 of the First Vatican Council

 

[Anonymous_1]

seriously, the case for intelligent design is extremley compelling. For a comprehensive look at the scientific arguments for intelligent design from physics, chemistry, microbiology, astronomy, philosophy, etc…check out Lee Strobels Case for a Creator.

Why do we harden our hearts??? Why dont we open our eyes???

For Ron who was talking about what existed before existence as we know it…God existed from everlasting…when He revealed His name t o Moses…I AM WHO AM…there are some AMAZING things we can learn from this…God has always existed…it is part of His very nature to exist…

God is the source of everything that is good…basically everything that is benevolent is brought to infinite perfection in God…take truth for example…truth is good so it would not be wrong to say that Truth existed before space and time…because God is Truth…even Jesus said “I Am the Truth…”
…love is good…love is brought to infinite perfection in God…thus God is love…and so on…but there are other things that are good that are not so fuzzy and warm like Justice…they are also brought to perfection infinitley in God…

Whatever begins to exists has a cause…the universe began to exist…therefore the universe has a cause…What can we deduce about his uncasued first cause? It must be immensley powerful, intelligent, personal, timeless(existing outside of space and time), and so on ad infinttum…the amazing thing is the Old Testament declared these things over 3000 years ago!!!I love it!!! Praise God!!!

through the hubble space program scientists are able to see the background radiation from just after the Big Bang…God is Spirit…He exists outside of the dimension of space and time…things in space and time are subject to corruption and change…God is eternal enthroned from everlasting to everlasting…He is the Alpha and the Omega…the beginning and the end…One of the most exciting things to me is how science illuminates God…

any way…im just rambling…

 

[urban-hermit]

… The “intelligence” appealed to in ID theory is necessarily metaphysical/ supernatural/ immaterial. …

Well … no, not necessarily.

ID theory—while fine as a theological argument—is not "science."

It strikes me as a poor theological argument, because Intelligent Design does not even specify who the intelligent agent is. Behe, a Roman Catholic, believes it to be the God of Abraham. But that is not explicitly stated in ID theory, and there are other possibilities. The point is, the focus of ID theory is not to argue that God guided the evolutionary process, but simply that it WAS guided, because natural selection is not a completely adequate explanation for it.

Perhaps there is a philosophical undercurrent to it, but would that alone invalidate it as science? ID theory as expressed in writings such as Dr. Behe’s is science, because of the method in which it challenges current evolutionary theory.

Isn’t this clearly seen in the scientific argument that has resulted between scientists who are rabid evolutionists and those who see merit in the points brought up by Intelligent Design ?

I have been impressed by Dr. Behe’s intelligence, clarity, and gentlemanliness in answering his critics who are sometimes quite hostile. His book, Darwin’s Black Box, has been widely reviewed, but his work has also been peer-reviewed by various scientists of various religious/irreligious persuasions. That review process was not a philosophical discussion, but a scientific one.

 

[Anonymous_1]

yea you can conclude from the SCIENTIFIC AND VERIFIABLE evidence presented by proponents of ID that there is a Higher Being…then it is up to us to seek that Higher Being, who is He, what is He like, what are the implications OF His existence, etc… this is where Christian apologetics can be useful…if there is a God, how could we know Him unless He revealed Himself to us…Has God revealed Himself to man in a way that is verifiable and in a way that only He could have? The answer is yes, in the fulfilment of prophesy in the incarnation life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ…from there we can look at Catholic Apologetics and see that the Church is the true Church that Christ founded…the thing is that we need to seek these answers like we would seek for Gold or Treasure…I mean what could possibly be more important, certainly not bling or property or prestige…we have been told that if we seek, we will find…the problem is many are constantly being distracted and are content with what this world offers…but as Saint Augtine put it…our souls are restless until they rest in God…there is not enough of anythign to fill the God sdhaped void in our hearts…

Anyway…the case for ID is strong and it is a great place for soemone to start who is seeking truth…however…on the flip side of the same token, we do not have all the answers, everything has not been revealed to us and there still are great mysteries…this is one reason why we need faith…

 

[Donald45]

“If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been created by God from nothing, let him be anathema.” -Canon 5 of the First Vatican Council

This is a concise theological statement. The Canons of the first Vatican Council do not function as scientific pronouncements. The same may be said of the conclusions of ID theory, which point to a supernatural Cause outside and beyond the limits of the scientific enterprise.

God bless,
Don

 

[JSmitty2005]

Donald45:

This is a concise theological statement. The Canons of the first Vatican Council do not function as scientific pronouncements. The same may be said of the conclusions of ID theory, which point to a supernatural Cause outside and beyond the limits of the scientific enterprise.

God bless,
Don

I didn’t mean to present that as a scientific pronouncement but rather as an infallible Church declaration on regarding we are to believe. Shape your evolutionary theory accordingly.

 

[Donald45]

urban-hermit:

Well … no, not necessarily.

…Intelligent Design does not even specify who the intelligent agent is… The point is, the focus of ID theory is not to argue that God guided the evolutionary process, but simply that it WAS guided, because natural selection is not a completely adequate explanation for it.

Behe’s…book, Darwin’s Black Box, has been widely reviewed…

Hi, and God bless ~

You disagree with my statement that “The ‘intelligence’ appealed to in ID theory is necessarily metaphysical/supernatural/immaterial.” Yet, if I’m wrong about this, one must then conclude that the “intelligence” is itself a part of nature, simply one more material cause in a long line of physical phenomena. But this is not what ID contends. Rather, ID’s Intelligent Designer is the ultimate Cause behind irreducably complex biological structures and mechanisms. It is beyond and outside of nature, and thus acts as a supernatural intelligence.

True, as you write, “Intelligent Design does not even specify who the intelligent agent is,” but neither does the Teleological Argument for God’s existence employed by Paley, and by philosophers up to our own day. ID is simply the Teleological Argument baptized in pseudo-scientific terminology, the better to appeal to the modern technological mindset. But the approach is the same: Describe a natural phenomenon, demonstrate its complexity, and finally declare that it necessarily points to the existence of something beyond that natural phenomenon.

You write that “the focus of ID theory is…to…argue that [the evolutionary process] was guided, because natural selection is not a completely adequate explanation for it” (my emphasis). However, as the clause in italics shows, this is a clear “God-of-the-gaps” argument: “Because” (in ID’s view) natural selection is an inadequate evolutionary mechanism, a metaphysical “intelligence” is postulated as an explanatory entity. While I agree that this works as a corroborative argument within the philosophy of religion, it fails utterly as a “scientific” idea.

Yes, Behe’s book has been widely reviewed. In my understanding, it’s assumptions and conclusions have been soundly refuted as well. I recommend the following excellent books:

Edward J. Larson, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (2004).
Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God & Evolution (1999).
Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (1999).
Keith B. Miller, Perspectives On An Evolving Creation (2003).
Michael Ruse, Darwin & Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? (2003).

In Christ,
Don

 

[Donald45]

JSmitty2005:

I didn’t mean to present that as a scientific pronouncement but rather as an infallible Church declaration on regarding we are to believe. Shape your evolutionary theory accordingly.

As Catholoics, we agree with the statement you quoted as theological truth. It’s something we arrive at by faith based upon divine revelation: “It is by faith [not science] that we understand that the ages were created by a word from God, so that from the invisible the visible world came to be” (Heb. 11:3). ID theory, on the other hand, seems to reverse this biblical truth, saying, in effect, “It is by science that we understand that God is behind natural phenomena.” Even if this last statement were true, however, it would not qualify as a “scientific” conclusion, but rather as a religio-philosophical assumption based upon one’s prior belief in a supernatural realm within which an immaterial creative intelligence operates.

The Vatican statement affirms the theological truth that God is the ultimate transcendent Creator of all created reality. But this theological truth in no way impinges upon the scientific reality of evolution as a real material process in nature. We don’t need to “shape our evolutionary theory” according to such a theological statement, since science does not, and cannot, pronounce upon theological matters. Whether or not God created the natural world is not a question that can be addressed by the scientific enterprise. Nor have the Vatican Fathers, in the statement you referred to, pronounced upon matters of science.

So, then, we should shape our evolutionary views according to science, and our theological beliefs according to revelation.

God bless,
Don

 

[Ahimsa]

ID isn’t necessarily super-naturalistic.

In Black Box, Behe considers the possibility that the intelligence responsible for irreducible complexity was that of an alien being, very much a part of this universe.

 

[Donald45]

Ahimsa:

ID isn’t necessarily super-naturalistic.

In Black Box, Behe considers the possibility that the intelligence responsible for irreducible complexity was that of an alien being, very much a part of this universe.

Yes, and this is puzzling to scientists, who then ask, “So what?” If ID’s “intelligence” is merely another entity in nature, then ID has simply suggested a further possible material cause, and must then demonstrate such a cause by scientific means. If ID claims that an alien being is behind the creation of certain physical structures, it needs to scientifically establish its claim. Neither Behe, nor any other ID theorist, has done this.

In addition, if such a being did exist, it would itself require an intelligent designer, all the way back to an Ultimate Designer that is beyond and outside of the created order. And this Creator we would call “God.” At that point, however, we’ve gone way beyond the limits of science into the realm of theology and philosophy. This is the fallacy of ID theory.

In Christ,
Don

 

[Anonymous_1]

Donald45:

Hi, and God bless ~

You write that “the focus of ID theory is…to…argue that [the evolutionary process] was guided, because natural selection is not a completely adequate explanation for it” (my emphasis). However, as the clause in italics shows, this is a clear “God-of-the-gaps” argument: “Because” (in ID’s view) natural selection is an inadequate evolutionary mechanism, a metaphysical “intelligence” is postulated as an explanatory entity. While I agree that this works as a corroborative argument within the philosophy of religion, it fails utterly as a “scientific” idea.

Yes, Behe’s book has been widely reviewed. In my understanding, it’s assumptions and conclusions have been soundly refuted as well. I recommend the following excellent books:

As Donald stated…many proponenets of ID are accused of propogating a God of the Gaps, that is, to make an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy. However, I would like to make the argument that proponents of ID are not postulating Intelligent Design on the grounds that there is a lack of explanation or evidence on part of neo-darwinian evolutionary theory, butr ather because there is strong and convincing empirical evidence that supports the Design thesis.

The truth is of the matter is…I dont believe that evolution and Design are necesarily in disjunction…unless by evolution you mean it is random and unguided which is the version that is propogated in puiblic school and the media.

Also, sounds like you misunderstand the concept of irreducible complexity. Behe is a biochemist if I am correct. He has made the case of irreducible complexity on the grounds of cellular structure and functioning. The entire arguement of Irreducible Complexity undermines the possibility of unguided proccesses producing the diversity and complexity of life as we know it completley unguided as explained in current evolutionary theory

The entire arguement of ID does not simply refute evolution…its not evolution vs ID or Religion verse science… It is the refutation based on verifiable empirical evidence that life is not random, its not an accident, but rather the result of an Intelligent Being acting in the dimension o fspace and time to bring about the diversity and complexity of life and existence as we know it.

First of all, to any observer, whether it is the casual everyday man walking his block in the morning time, or the most skeptical seasoned scientist, existence certainly has a strinkingly powerful impression of design…in light of the latest discoveries this holds even more true!

why do so many scientists emphatically and impassionatley rule out even the remote possibility of design, despite the evidence…i think you will find the answer is in the implications of the existence of such a Creator…

Donald…please give me an example of a strong uncontested rebuttal tot he case of Intelligent Design…

 

[Anonymous_1]

Ahimsa:

ID isn’t necessarily super-naturalistic.

In Black Box, Behe considers the possibility that the intelligence responsible for irreducible complexity was that of an alien being, very much a part of this universe.

is thsi alien exists in the dimension of space and time then this too must be explained…what we are looking for is the Uncaused First Cause…namley God…the one who created space and time…

 

[Anonymous_1]

Donald45:

In addition, if such a being did exist, it would itself require an intelligent designer, all the way back to an Ultimate Designer that is beyond and outside of the created order. And this Creator we would call “God.” At that point, however, we’ve gone way beyond the limits of science into the realm of theology and philosophy. This is the fallacy of ID theory.

In Christ,
Don

It is possible to make the case for an Intelligent Designer on scientific evidence though…in fact the intelligent design thesis is not just a attempt to explain the Origin of Species, or the diversity and complexity of life…it is a theory that takes into account ALL THINGS…It is a compilation based on cosmology, physics, astronomy, biochemsitry and so on…The comprehensive case is amazingly compelling…

 

[urban-hermit]

Donald45:

You disagree with my statement that “The ‘intelligence’ appealed to in ID theory is necessarily metaphysical/supernatural/immaterial.” Yet, if I’m wrong about this, one must then conclude that the “intelligence” is itself a part of nature, simply one more material cause in a long line of physical phenomena. But this is not what ID contends. Rather, ID’s Intelligent Designer is the ultimate Cause behind irreducably complex biological structures and mechanisms. It is beyond and outside of nature, and thus acts as a supernatural intelligence.

We agree ID does not specify the intelligent agent. I’m not saying I believe they exist, mind you, but if intelligent extra-terrestrial life forms did exist, they would be just as real as you and I - not metaphysical, not supernatural, and not immaterial. So ID leaves open the possibility of a non-supernatural intelligent agent. This is because they do not want to focus on who guided evolution, but rather on the fact that the evolution of certain biological processes and structures is poorly explained by current evolutionary theory.

The main focus, what makes ID fall within the realm of science, and the whole reason it has gotten such widespread attention - from my local liberal newspaper to Time magazine - is that it has made scientific arguments that question whether evolution can be responsible for certain biological processes and structures.

You say that ID’s claims have been “refuted”. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct about that. How were they refuted? Philosophically or scientifically?

What I am trying to say is, I already know Who guided evolution. I’m more interested in the scientific reasoning that makes natural selection a poor explanation for the evolution of certain biological processes and structures. This is what ID is saying too.

Maybe God did use evolution to create us. But at this stage in the game we are still allowed to question if He did and, if so, how He did it. It’s been a real pin-prick to the overinflated egos of some atheistic scientists and thinkers who idolize their own intellects and respond to ID with sputtering rage in an attempt to protect their faith in their belief structure. Whatever the outcome, I have to admit I find that hilarious. In a way, there are no atheists, are there? Even the atheists believe in something.

I’m not saying you are an atheist, and I agree with you that, just because a biological process or structure is extremely unlikely to have evolved only by natural selection does not “prove” God guided the process. That is not the immediate goal.

What I am saying - and you have said it too in a way when you said you believe Behe’s claims have been refuted - is that Behe’s claims were scientific in nature. If indeed they have been refuted, ID may refine its claims in the light of new evidence as it becomes available. If current evolutionary theory can stand up to the challenges, it will ultimately become a stronger theory because of it. Or perhaps the holes in evolutionary theory will get bigger in future battles, and ID Theory will gain more credence among more scientists. I don’t think either side has quit the discussion yet. And the discussion is a scientific one as I see it. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree about that.

 

[Donald45]

Anonymous_1:

…there is strong and convincing empirical evidence that supports the Design thesis.

…unless by evolution you mean it is random and unguided… The entire arguement of Irreducible Complexity undermines the possibility of unguided proccesses producing the diversity and complexity of life as we know it completley unguided as explained in current evolutionary theory

…to any observer, whether it is the casual everyday man walking his block in the morning time, or the most skeptical seasoned scientist, existence certainly has a strinkingly powerful impression of design…

Donald…please give me an example of a strong uncontested rebuttal to the case of Intelligent Design…

Regarding your first statement, this is the case for Paley’s Teleological Argument as well, but this doesn’t make it a “scientific” concept. Basing one’s philosophical conclusions on the findings of science doesn’t thereby make those philosophical conclusions “science.”

Next, your reference to evolution as “random and unguided” shows that you may not understand the way that terms like “chance,” “random,” or “purpose” are actually used within science. We have our own popular definitions of those terms in society at large, but they are understood quite differently within science itself.

You write that “to any observer…existence certainly has a strikingly powerful impression of design.” However true, this is not a scientific conclusion, but a religio-philosophical one.

I would love to honor your request for a detailed rebuttal of ID theory, but I fear I could not do the issue justice due to the brevity of this forum. What I can do is offer a few resources for your consideration. One of the best books on the subject, written by a committed Catholic and dedicated biologist, is Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God & Evolution. It’s available in paperback, and offers an excellent scientific critique of ID. You also might consider the following introductory articles from Dr. Miller’s website:

millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/op-ed-krm.html
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/papal-letter.html
ctlibrary.com/11081
hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/33-2_miller.html

Finally, there’s an interesting debate between Behe, Dembski, Miller and Pennock:

natcenscied.org/article.asp?category=15

God bless,
Don

 

[Donald45]

Anonymous_1:

It is possible to make the case for an Intelligent Designer on scientific evidence though… It is a compilation based on cosmology, physics, astronomy, biochemsitry and so on… The comprehensive case is amazingly compelling…

Yes, the case for an Intelligent Designer can be founded upon an observation of nature (this is how the Teleological Argument is constructed), but this does not make it’s conclusions “scientific.” ID certainly makes use of scientific data, but this does not thereby make ID itself a “scientific” theory. The conclusion that a transcendent Creator is behind natural phenomena is a theological idea which takes one beyond the bounds of the natural sciences. I can observe that a cake implies the existence of a baker, but this does not make baking a “science” in any technical sense of the term.

I recognize that, as you write, ID is “based on” various scientific facts. But, again, this doesn’t make ID’s general conclusion—that a supernatural Creator exists—a “scientific” concept. To observe that the mammalian eye, for example, is structurally complex is a scientific statement. However, to then move to the conclusion that therefore the eye must have been designed by a divine mind is not a “scientific” conclusion, but rather a theological conviction. The conclusion, while “based upon” science, does not itself qualify as “science.”

You conclude that the case for ID is compelling. If you mean it’s convincing as a corroborative argument within an overall case for faith (that is, as an evangelistic argument), then I would agree. It may be compelling in this sense, but ought not be labeled a “scientific” theory. While it’s convincing as a religio-philosophical argument (i.e., the Teleological Argument), ID fails to qualify as “science.”

Truly,
Don