Intelligent Design

[Al_Moritz]

In order to survive, they have to have a level of understanding of how the world works. Fear of heights is an obvious example. That can be seen as a built-in understanding of gravity.

rossum

Sure, if you redefine ‘understanding’ any way you like, then obviously you can avoid the hard questions on the issue. That doesn’t mean that those questions cease to persist.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I am suspicious of phrases like, “in the truest sense”, because they put me on guard against an imminent “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

O.k., make that “at the most fundamental and encompassing level”.

 

[rossum]

Using common building blocks is a hallmark of design.

Evolution also uses common building blocks, but only within a nested hierarchy. Design is not restricted to a nested hierarchy. For example, a pegasus takes a body from the mammal branch and feathered wings from the avian branch of the hierarchy. A pegasus is a designed animal that breaks the hierarchy and could not evolve.

In real life, common building blocks (above the level of HGT) are all found to be compatible with the nested hierarchy. No animal or plant shows cross-hierarchy elements, like a pegasus, which would be expected from free design. Either the designer is constrained to work within the hierarchy or the designer is Loki/Trickster and playing an immense joke on us.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Ribbit. Croak.

“Some day my Princess will come …”

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Why should there be a presumption that natural processes and life are of one and the same nature or origin?

Certainly, it aligns well to the scientific method as a paradigm for making sense of the world, but why need we assume reality must fit the method merely because we have found the method useful?

I brought up, by way of analogy, how physics and biology might be related to each other here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12569128&postcount=494

For the scientific method to be relied upon to provide the full account for human biological evolution requires a presumption that physics is the causal mechanism for life.

Science may presume that account in order to try to understand the relationship between physics and biology as an integral whole, but that does not mean the mechanistically causal view regarding explanatory sufficiency that science takes must be the correct one with regard to the origin of life.

It is legitimate, as far as I can tell, to ask the difficult questions concerning what science can or cannot demonstrate strictly using its own methods. However, it is just as legitimate to wonder why science refuses to broach questions that may be within its scope simply because science may find answers which disagree with or are difficult to reconcile with the naturalistic presumptions of some of its practitioners.

Search for complete truth ought to determine the method, the method should not determine the nature of truth.

The proposal is physics and chemistry somehow led to us. This is assumed but the evidence is not there. Scientific inquiry does have value but if current scientists were told at University, “you can only look in this direction,” it establishes a bias that is only reinforced by others. Take the supposition that was promoted with some fanfare some years ago about birds and dinosaurs. That has changed:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140709140203.htm

My other argument was a photo I saw of an insect trapped in amber. It had legs, wings and compound eyes. It was remarkable. It appears that all fossils found were fully functional creatures with only the necessary ‘parts’ if you will.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

The teaching of Jesus implies that God prevents misfortunes whenever possible without defeating the purpose of creating an orderly universe. Miracles are not rare events but everyday responses to urgent needs. Answers to prayer are the rule without exception although the answers are not always what we want or expect.

We tend to take it for granted that the vast majority of living beings are not maimed or killed by earthquakes or other cataclysms. Yet there could be far more disasters than there are. It is a miracle life has survived for almost four billion years in a largely hostile environment.

Whenever possible, eh? He seems to be missing most of the time.

And your view of the world is, how shall I put this, naive at best. Do you really believe that the vast majority of living beings live, and have lived, a happy and comfortable life, relaxing in the sunshine and pondering the meaning of life?

Have you not heard of the food chain? Every living creature on the planet is either busy trying not to be eaten alive or spends most of its time looking to kill something. Even as I write this there is a kookaburra sitting a few metres from me bashing something to death against a branch so it won’t struggle so much while he eats it.

Did you have chicken for dinner last night? Maybe beef? Fish? How did you buy it? Nicely trimmed, filleted, marinated and prepared to cook no doubt. How about you had to wander the local suburb until you found a sheep and then beat it to death with a rock before you got your lamb chop? How about you eviscerated a pig and left it screaming while you tore chunks of pork from its belly? How about you had to tear the chicken apart with your bare hands to get to the liver?

All this is going on right now, Tony. As you are reading this, countless millions of life forms are, right at this exact moment, killing something else so that they can live a little longer.

And you say it was designed this way…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And you say it was designed this way…

I don’t know what Tony will say, but I say yes, it was designed this way.

We must all die. Do you seriously have a problem with that? I wonder why.

Things must die so that other things may live.

Life is good. If you don’t think so, consider how every creature fights for its life.

If life were so tragic as you make it out to be, every animal would be committing suicide.

No?

 

[tonyrey]

On the contrary, the theology of the Intelligent design movement is haunted by the “ghost of Deism”, as it disregards God constant and active participation in creation as He sustains the regular working of the laws of nature that He created, and instead falsely searches for an active God only in moments of 'intervention’. God the sustainer of evolution is just a ‘passive bystander’, and we can’t have that, can we? Of course, that is a false concept of God.
Matthew 10:29-30:
“Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”

You need to produce evidence the proponents of Design “disregard God constant and active participation in creation” and** “falsely searches for an active God only in moments of ‘intervention**’.” They select the most impressive examples of divine power and wisdom because they have to contend with hardened sceptics who reject the idea of God altogether.

But obviously God does not intervene when someone becomes bald with age. And yes, during both the full-hair phase and the balding process “the very hairs of your head are all numbered” as Jesus says. Clearly Jesus does not claim that God intervenes with every hair, but that God knows everything and cares about us and sustains us – even when He lets natural processes such as balding occur without ‘intervention’. God is not a ‘passive bystander’ as in Deism even when He lets natural processes that He created go their natural course. He is active at all times in creation, sustaining its processes.

If God is active at all times it doesn’t make sense to deny that He works miracles and **never **prevents natural disasters. The very fact that Jesus healed the sick while He was on earth and promised to answer our prayers demonstrates beyond all doubt that He is not a “passive bystander” if we ask for His help.

So if God lets natural processes occur like balding or growing of hair without ‘intervention’, why should He not let evolution, another natural process that He created, run its course without ‘intervention’?

For the simple reason that minor ailments are not comparable with major tragedies. Why would a loving Father allow His children to suffer and die unnecessarily without doing anything whatsoever to prevent or at least assuage their pain and grief? Does God **never **answer prayers? If a human father did nothing he would be regarded as a diabolical monster but our divine Father is supposed to add insult to injury by doing no more than keep His children alive when He knows they are writhing in agony.

Nothing could be closer to the ghost of Deism than a Creator who sustains and does nothing else.

 

[Al_Moritz]

For the simple reason that minor ailments are not comparable with major tragedies. Why would a loving Father allow His children to suffer and die unnecessarily without doing anything whatsoever to prevent or at least assuage their pain and grief? Does God **never **answer prayers? If a human father did nothing he would be regarded as a diabolical monster but our divine Father is supposed to add insult to injury by doing no more than keep His children alive when He knows they are writhing in agony.

That is supposed to be an answer to my point:

So if God lets natural processes occur like balding or growing of hair without ‘intervention’, why should He not let evolution, another natural process that He created, run its course without ‘intervention’?

…but it doesn’t answer it.

 

[tonyrey]

The teaching of Jesus implies that God prevents misfortunes whenever possible

“seems” is the key word. You assume without evidence and on principle that miracles never occur even though there is abundant evidence that they do. .

And your view of the world is, how shall I put this, naive at best.

Yours is simplistic in its implication that an earthly Utopia is feasible. Any evidence?

Do you really believe that the vast majority of living beings live, and have lived, a happy and comfortable life, relaxing in the sunshine and pondering the meaning of life?

Do you really believe that the vast majority of living beings live, and have lived, are diseased and in constant pain?

Have you not heard of the food chain? Every living creature on the planet is either busy trying not to be eaten alive or spends most of its time looking to kill something. Even as I write this there is a kookaburra sitting a few metres from me bashing something to death against a branch so it won’t struggle so much while he eats it.

Have you not heard of the immense amount of pleasure and satisfaction enjoyed by the vast majority of living beings ? Do you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet? If not why not?

Did you have chicken for dinner last night? Maybe beef? Fish? How did you buy it? Nicely trimmed, filleted, marinated and prepared to cook no doubt. How about you had to wander the local suburb until you found a sheep and then beat it to death with a rock before you got your lamb chop? How about you eviscerated a pig and left it screaming while you tore chunks of pork from its belly? How about you had to tear the chicken apart with your bare hands to get to the liver?

Did you have chicken for dinner last night? Maybe beef? Fish? You are prepared to live off the fat of the land while condemning the source of your nourishment and enjoyment unless you are a vegetarian of course, in which case you are condemning most people on earth to death by slow starvation. Have you ever killed anything? A fly or mosquito? If so why? Isn’t it because you value your life and the lives of your friends and relatives - and perhaps a few others in the world (although that seems doubtful in view of your condemnation of anything that poses a potential threat to your survival).

All this is going on right now, Tony. As you are reading this, countless millions of life forms are, right at this exact moment, killing something else so that they can live a little longer.

Have you ever lived for any length of time in Africa where you can see wild life for what it really is? Where the norm is a peaceful existence full of pleasure, excitement and enjoyment - of food, mating, reproduction and caring for their young who play and delight in being alive? Your distorted view of life is both negative and unrealistic in exaggerating its disadvantages and totally ignoring its benefits. Is killing per se evil? If so why? Can you offer a feasible alternative from your comfortable armchair in an artificial, sheltered, man-made environment?

And you say it was designed this way… Whenever possible, eh? He seems to be missing most of the time.

Do you have any statistics to justify your reliance on “seems”, i.e. appearances?

And your view of the world is, how shall I put this, naive at best. Do you really believe that the vast majority of living beings live, and have lived, a happy and comfortable life, relaxing in the sunshine and pondering the meaning of life?

And your view of the world is, how shall I put this, naive at best. Do you really believe that the vast majority of living beings live in, and have lived, in constant pain and fear, unable to relax or enjoy the pleasures of life? Have you ever seen zebra and wildebeeste aware of lions they can actually see yet continuing to graze fearlessly rather than stampeding in blind panic?

Have you not heard of the food chain? Every living creature on the planet is either busy trying not to be eaten alive or spends most of its time looking to kill something. Even as I write this there is a kookaburra sitting a few metres from me bashing something to death against a branch so it won’t struggle so much while he eats it.

Another distortion of the facts. Is every living creature on the planet really either busy trying not to be ** always** eaten alive or spending most of its time looking to kill something? Are you aware that most predators kill swiftly to avoid injury to themselves thereby sparing their prey a lingering death from injury or disease?

Which would you prefer? Or do you regard death as the worst of all evils and long to live on this earth for all eternity? Do you regret having been born? Would most human beings prefer to be dead rather than alive? Do you believe it is possible to live without any risks or dangers and would such a life be even desirable? Would you be bored?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Nothing could be closer to the ghost of Deism than a Creator who sustains and does nothing else.

But nobody claims that He does nothing else. Of course He does – miracles, even continual ones like the Holy Eucharist, anybody? We have had this discussion before. You are boxing with shadows on the wall of things that aren’t there.

You are simply missing the point. If God does not intervene in natural processes, like balding, why should He intervene in a natural process like biological evolution? And again, why is there so much resistance against plain biological evolution, if there is the common assumption that plain physical evolution, such as the formation of stars, galaxies and planets, simply follows the physical laws that God created?

 

[tonyrey]

For the simple reason that minor ailments are not comparable with major tragedies. Why

Yet another gratuitous assertion which totally ignores my questions:

1. Why would a loving Father allow His children to suffer and die unnecessarily **without doing anything whatsoever **to prevent or at least assuage their pain and grief?
2. Does God **never **answer prayers?

 

[tonyrey]

But nobody claims that He does nothing else. Of course He does – miracles, even continual ones like the Holy Eucharist, anybody?

1. Is there are any difference between a minor ailment and a major tragedy?
2. Would you intervene if you could cure a person, alleviate a person’s suffering or prevent a death? What reason do you have for excluding divine intervention in such cases?

And again, why is there so much resistance against plain biological evolution, if there is the common assumption that plain physical evolution, such as the formation of stars, galaxies and planets, simply follows the physical laws that God created?

1. Are living beings more valuable than stars, galaxies and planets where there is no life?
2. Which would you put first if you had a choice?
3. Are miracles confined to spiritual events? If so why?

 

[Bradski]

Things must die so that other things may live.

So God couldn’t have designed it any other way? Well, He being omni this and omni that, of course He could have. So He wanted animals to kill each other just to survive. He designed it that way.

He gave creatures talons and incisors and fangs and claws to enable them to rip and tear and eviscerate on purpose. And if you watch a cat torture a mouse or a hyena eat a chimp alive or a wolf eat the belly out of a live sheep you can say - hey, all part of God’s great plan.

Happy days, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

“seems” is the key word. You assume without evidence and on principle that miracles never occur even though there is abundant evidence that they do. .

Indeed.

One has to wonder how many interventions God would have to do to convert an atheist.

Wouldn’t one be enough?
Must there be over 100 miraculous interventions to be compelling?
What if there were only 99?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

1. Are living beings more valuable than stars, galaxies and planets where there is no life?

“Man is a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed…. Even if the universe should crush him, man would still be nobler than that which kills him, because he knows he dies; and he knows the advantage the universe has over him…. All our dignity, then, resides in thought.” Blaise Pascal

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know what Tony will say, but I say yes, it was designed this way.

We must all die. Do you seriously have a problem with that? I wonder why.

Things must die so that other things may live.

Life is good. If you don’t think so, consider how every creature fights for its life.

If life were so tragic as you make it out to be, every animal would be committing suicide.

No?

At the very least they would be apathetic, lethargic and not attempt to defend themselves. What a jaundiced view of life! Its main defect is the implication that every single detail of life has been designed - which is absurd. Even the sceptic David Hume realised God works through the laws of nature which are not infallible and cause most of the physical evil in the world. His mistake was to exclude all miracles on principle. Even now others, including Catholic scientists, have followed his example concerning physical events…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So God couldn’t have designed it any other way? Well, He being omni this and omni that, of course He could have. So He wanted animals to kill each other just to survive. He designed it that way.

He gave creatures talons and incisors and fangs and claws to enable them to rip and tear and eviscerate on purpose. And if you watch a cat torture a mouse or a hyena eat a chimp alive or a wolf eat the belly out of a live sheep you can say - hey, all part of God’s great plan.

Happy days, eh?

How would God have designed it another way? So that there would be no death?

Since animals may not be immortal, their deaths are natural.

Our deaths alone are never natural, since the essential part of us is supernatural and immortal.

We need not fear death if we have lived the good life.

Only the atheist need die fearful that he is finished once and for all.

 

[tonyrey]

“Man is a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed…. Even if the universe should crush him, man would still be nobler than that which kills him, because he knows he dies; and he knows the advantage the universe has over him…. All our dignity, then, resides in thought.” Blaise Pascal

A superb insight into our value as rational beings - in stark contrast to the sceptical cynicism of David Hume:

What a peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call ‘thought’.

It is ironic that Hume dedicated so much of his life to intellectual activity - as if it is valuable and significant! :whacky:

 

[LoganBice]

I 100% regret asking my OP.