Intelligent Design

[edwest2]

Ed, I am not using the word “information” in the same sense you are. I am using it in the sense required by a robust hylemorphic dualism. Form is what actualizes matter and in human beings the soul is the form of the individual human being. In"form"ation, properly understood, is the collection of immaterial intellective properties that determines the “what ness” of any particular thing - the “stuff” that allows it to be understood.

The traits and characteristics of any particular human are determined in large part by the inherited “humanity” that has been determined by the “information” derived from the genealogical ancestry of that individual.

The coming together of that information occurs at conception, hence the individual soul is formed at conception. The unique form of each individual is immaterial, and this aligns well with the Thomistic view (hylemorphic dualism) of the physical world being comprised of form and matter. In a sense, everything in the physical universe is immaterial to some degree, to the extent that it has intelligible form. In fact, our capacity to apprehend the immaterial forms of things is used by some Thomists to argue for the immateriality of the soul. For Thomists, matter is pure potentiality, actualized by being in"formed."

It is key to understanding my point that you understand the Thomistic metaphysic behind hylemorphic dualism and not view “information” in the watered down sense it connotes to modern thinkers.

As to God acting at the moment of conception to form the immaterial soul, I would content that God ONLY acts in the NOW for he is eternal. There is no past time for him, so determining the forms (souls) of every individual human at some moment (that is in the past time for us) is not, for God, a different “time” than doing such a thing in the present. For God all is done in the eternal now - it is all done e-ternally (without the constraints of time.)

An insistence, by the way, of some kind of mind-body dualism, as if the human soul is a disembodied entity in its own right, is not exactly Catholic thinking. Remember that the Church’s great Creeds speak of the resurrection of the body and Jesus took on a human body and glorified it. I don’t think it is helpful to separate out body and soul as if they are two distinct entities.

Does that mean that under hylemorphic dualism the soul cannot exist without the body. No, but disembodied existence is not the normal state of existence for a human being.

I also suspect the reason genealogies are carefully tracked through the Old Testament relates specifically to this point. Jesus’ body has a particular provenance and genetic origins are crucial even though the reasons were not understood then, nor properly understood now.

It also goes a long way to explaining original sin and how that state is “contracted” and transmitted and not committed. If God simply makes new human souls holus bolus at conception, why does he not just make them pristine and immaculate?

By the way, I am not claiming thus is the correct view, merely that it shouldn’t be dismissed so easily.

I’m not dismissing the idea but I would say it makes no sense. God gave human beings the ability to reproduce. According to Catholic teaching, the soul is infused by God into the developing child. The exact moment of ensoulment has not been defined but we are to treat all human beings from the moment of conception as if the soul was already there. Original Sin is automatically transmitted to all of us. This is beyond the scope of science to know or study.

From Humani Generis -

“Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

That is why all of us are born with Original Sin. And yes, there is a direct connection between body and soul but for science, the soul does not exist. The mind can be defective from the moment of birth, but that human being is to be treated like all human beings regardless of his or her mental deficiencies.

We also pray to the Saints who no longer have their physical bodies but will at the Final Judgment.

Best,
Ed

 

[rossum]

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Ah, so you are a non-Trinitarian? You did know that Newton was a heretic non-Trinitarian, didn’t you? If you accept Newton’s authority, then …

Newton was wrong about gravity. He was less wrong than anyone who came before him, but he was still wrong. Laplace made a few small improvements, and then Einstein replaced his ideas almost completely. His equations remain as a useful low-energy approximation to reality.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

St Ambrose - “And fittingly [Moses] added: ‘He created,‘ lest it be thought that there was a delay in creation. Furthermore, men would also see how incomparable the Creator was Who completed such a great work in the briefest moment of His creative act, so much so that the effect of His will anticipated the perception of time.”
Hexameron, Homily 2, Chapter 1

St. Anthanasius“As to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first and that second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds and fishes, and cattle, and plants… No one creature was made before another but all things subsisted at once together upon one and the same command.”
Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2, Chapters 48, 60

These two fathers would like IDvolution.

 

[buffalo]

Is Evolution True, Laying out the logic.

“Monday we published a paper in the journal BIO-Complexity that demonstrates that enzymes can’t evolve genuinely new functions by unguided means. We argue that design by a very sophisticated intelligent agent is the best explanation for their origin. I want to take some time to lay out our argument against evolution and for intelligent design. It’s important, because it reveals the logical fallacy in most evolutionary thinking.”

and

“Now here’s the point: anyone who wants to make a special case for the *non-uniformitarian *origin of enzymes (or animal groups) has created a special category to protect the idea that evolution is true. That idea is apparently untouchable. Any hypothesis about the deep past is accepted if it allows an evolutionary explanation for current diversity, and avoids problems with difficult facts. As a consequence, papers on the origin of life, protein evolution, the origin of animal form, and human origins are full of speculation masked as supporting argument, or even as statements of fact. But the problem remains. If you start with the assumption that evolution is true, and view all evidence through those glasses, you won’t even notice that your argument chases its tail.”

 

[oldcelt]

There is evidence for chance. There is no evidence for other than chance. As and when evidence for other than chance I will reconsider. Until then I will follow the evidence.

rossum

Nothing more need be said.

John

 

[fhansen]

There is evidence for chance. There is no evidence for other than chance. As and when evidence for other than chance I will reconsider. Until then I will follow the evidence.

rossum

Doghouses don’t result from chance, let alone the most sophisticated and complex creations of man. Why should we presume that something as orderly and complex as DNA does? Evidence abounds for other than chance in our own experience.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nothing more need be said.

John

Of course, “chance” is a placeholder for “we don’t know and nothing more CAN be said until we do know more." The problem comes with pretending that “chance” has considerable explanatory power – it doesn’t.

It is the atheist’s version of “God did it,” but instead of “God” the atheist dreams up the notion of “chance” which explains exactly nothing.

It does, however, allow atheists – and deists, apparently – the satisfaction of thinking they are brighter than theists for concocting such as profound idea.

Ironic, isn’t it?

 

[rossum]

Doghouses don’t result from chance, let alone the most sophisticated and complex creations of man.

Correct. We have evidence of the existence of man, and we have evidence of the existence of the things that man has made.

Why should we presume that something as orderly and complex as DNA does?

Because, despite what the ID side tells you, there is no evidence that what we see in DNA today cannot have evolved. There is zero evidence of the existence of the type of designer the ID side talks about.

For a Catholic scientific perspective on the issue have a look at what Ken Miller (a Catholic) has to say: Edging towards Irrelevance (in five short parts).

Evidence abounds for other than chance in our own experience.

Evidence abounds for design by known designers. Evidence also abounds for apparent (but not real) design in nature. Does a spider ‘design’ her web? There is a computer program which can develop the standard orb-web shape, just using the goal, “catch more flies efficiently”. A web gives the appearance of design, but is not actually designed. Appearances can be deceptive.

Every ID/creationist calculation I have seen of the probability of something evolving has failed to model evolution correctly. The models often omit the effect of natural selection, and often omit the effects of cumulative evolution over many generations. A lot of models omit both. Such models are inaccurate, and cannot be used to draw correct conclusions.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Correct. We have evidence of the existence of man, and we have evidence of the existence of the things that man has made.

Because, despite what the ID side tells you, there is no evidence that what we see in DNA today cannot have evolved. There is zero evidence of the existence of the type of designer the ID side talks about.

For a Catholic scientific perspective on the issue have a look at what Ken Miller (a Catholic) has to say: Edging towards Irrelevance (in five short parts).

Evidence abounds for design by known designers. Evidence also abounds for apparent (but not real) design in nature. Does a spider ‘design’ her web? There is a computer program which can develop the standard orb-web shape, just using the goal, “catch more flies efficiently”. A web gives the appearance of design, but is not actually designed. Appearances can be deceptive.

rossum

Yes, and the computer programs to meet the challenge of “catch more flies” were, themselves, designed. The only reason you have for not believing the spider was designed to design webs is a predetermination on your part that the designing ability of the spider is merely an “apparent” one. You have no non-question-begging reason for thinking it.

 

[fhansen]

Correct. We have evidence of the existence of man, and we have evidence of the existence of the things that man has made.

We have evidence of the existence of a designer, a demonstration that order/complexity flows from reason.

Because, despite what the ID side tells you, there is no evidence that what we see in DNA today cannot have evolved. There is zero evidence of the existence of the type of designer the ID side talks about.

I don’t read ID stuff but strictly in regards to design, the proof is simply in the pudding; the evidence of a designer is in the design. We know from experience that complexity and order arise from intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut, not accidentally. We at least have reason to trust that which we can observe.

Evidence abounds for design by known designers.

So do we ignore evidence simply because we can’t locate the designer? If we were to find a doghouse on some previously unexplored planet, should we deduce that some doghouses must have natural causes? Or should we consider other causes? How much more should we consider that unfathomably more complex systems in nature should have been caused by design?

Evidence also abounds for apparent (but not real) design in nature. Does a spider ‘design’ her web?

No, her programmer designed her web.

There is a computer program which can develop the standard orb-web shape, just using the goal, “catch more flies efficiently”. A web gives the appearance of design, but is not actually designed.

Why not? If you we’re to set out to catch flies more efficiently, or to design a robot to do so, you might well eventually arrive at designing a web yourself.

Appearances can be deceptive.

Maybe, or maybe we just miss the forest for the trees.

 

[rossum]

Yes, and the computer programs to meet the challenge of “catch more flies” were, themselves, designed.

And I can design a computer program to emulate God – plenty of games programmers have done something similar. Does that mean that God is designed?

Michaelangelo designed a model of God, which he painted in the Sistine Chapel. There are a great many designed models of God around the place.

Your argument is faulty.

The only reason you have for not believing the spider was designed to design webs is a predetermination on your part that the designing ability of the spider is merely an “apparent” one. You have no non-question-begging reason for thinking it.

How do we tell apparent design from real design? What is your method?

My method is two part. Real design has a designer/s for which there is independent evidence.

Apparent design has a causative process for which there is independent evidence.

In both cases there independent evidence is required.

rossum

 

[rossum]

We have evidence of the existence of a designer, a demonstration that order/complexity flows from reason.

I’m afraid not. The mathematics of the probability calculations used by ID is faulty. Their calculations do not correctly model evolutionary processes. For example, they often omit natural selection. Any model which does not include natural selection is not a model of evolution, and hence not useful in a discussion of evolution.

I don’t read ID stuff but strictly in regards to design, the proof is simply in the pudding; the evidence of a designer is in the design. We know from experience that complexity and order arise from intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut, not accidentally.

Then I suggest that you experience more:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

A snowflake is both complex and ordered, yet it arises naturally from natural processes.

So do we ignore evidence simply because we can’t locate the designer?

If science does not know, then it says, “We don’t know”. It does not assume the existence of a designer.

So far nothing that has been discovered is outside the realm of chemistry, for abiogenesis, or of evolution, for the development of species and higher clades. There are some places where science says, “we don’t know yet”, mostly in abiogenesis, but each year science discovers a bit more. Trying to fit a designer into a gap in science is a recipe for a shrinking designer.

It used to be thought that thunder was designed, by Thor, Zeus or one of the other thunder gods. Science closed that gap, and you can see what has happened to Thor, Zeus and the others. The ID designer is trying to fit into a gap. The gap is getting smaller, which does not bode well for the long term future of the ID designer.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

And I can design a computer program to emulate God – plenty of games programmers have done something similar.

This is rich.

It actually proves my point, however.

What a computer web-drawing program does is nothing like what a spider does, in actuality.

What “emulating God” means …

… well, not much, except that the phrase creates laughter in the same way that stick figures representing humans draw snickers.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If science does not know, then it says, “We don’t know”. It does not assume the existence of a designer.

And it shouldn’t assume the non-existence of a designer from the fact that its instruments and methods aren’t tuned to looking for one.

Your argument is a bogus one.

 

[Peter_Plato]

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/x041219b055.jpg

A snowflake is both complex and ordered, yet it arises naturally from natural processes.

Yes, and it is clearly understood that the ordered “complexity” of a snowflake comes from the inherent nature of water molecules.

What we don’t have is a clear understanding of the inherent nature of genetic code and how that nature could have possibly been originated.

First off, the complexity of genetic code is of an entirely different magnitude, one which chemical bonding cannot explain.

Punting to “chance” is precisely the same quality of argument as “God of the gaps” and gets us nowhere. The question isn’t answered by appeal to “random acts” in the same way as it isn’t answered by appeals to “God did it.”

The question remains: What has the potential to create the sublime complexity of the genetic code found in DNA and RNA? References to snowflakes are unhelpful as is blind faith in the inherent capacity of science to arrive at the solution.

Until science actually gets us there, the question is an open one. What could sufficiently account for the information found in the genetic code of living things? Until that question has a complete answer, one that meets the sufficiency requirements of the PSR, your claims are no less filled with hot air and bluster than the claims of the ID proponents you presume you have successfully countered.

 

[buffalo]

Correct. We have evidence of the existence of man, and we have evidence of the existence of the things that man has made.

Because, despite what the ID side tells you, there is no evidence that what we see in DNA today cannot have evolved. There is zero evidence of the existence of the type of designer the ID side talks about.

For a Catholic scientific perspective on the issue have a look at what Ken Miller (a Catholic) has to say: Edging towards Irrelevance (in five short parts).

Evidence abounds for design by known designers. Evidence also abounds for apparent (but not real) design in nature. Does a spider ‘design’ her web? There is a computer program which can develop the standard orb-web shape, just using the goal, “catch more flies efficiently”. A web gives the appearance of design, but is not actually designed. Appearances can be deceptive.

Every ID/creationist calculation I have seen of the probability of something evolving has failed to model evolution correctly. The models often omit the effect of natural selection, and often omit the effects of cumulative evolution over many generations. A lot of models omit both. Such models are inaccurate, and cannot be used to draw correct conclusions.

rossum

We know understand natural selection to be a conservative process not a creative one.

 

[buffalo]

I’m afraid not. The mathematics of the probability calculations used by ID is faulty. Their calculations do not correctly model evolutionary processes. For example, they often omit natural selection. Any model which does not include natural selection is not a model of evolution, and hence not useful in a discussion of evolution.

Then I suggest that you experience more:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/x041219b055.jpg

A snowflake is both complex and ordered, yet it arises naturally from natural processes.

If science does not know, then it says, “We don’t know”. It does not assume the existence of a designer.

So far nothing that has been discovered is outside the realm of chemistry, for abiogenesis, or of evolution, for the development of species and higher clades. There are some places where science says, “we don’t know yet”, mostly in abiogenesis, but each year science discovers a bit more. Trying to fit a designer into a gap in science is a recipe for a shrinking designer.

It used to be thought that thunder was designed, by Thor, Zeus or one of the other thunder gods. Science closed that gap, and you can see what has happened to Thor, Zeus and the others. The ID designer is trying to fit into a gap. The gap is getting smaller, which does not bode well for the long term future of the ID designer.

rossum

The snowflake are the consequence of the ordered arrangement of the water molecule. It is an downhill energy process following the 2nd law.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ah, so you are a non-Trinitarian? You did know that Newton was a heretic non-Trinitarian, didn’t you? If you accept Newton’s authority, then …

Newton was wrong about gravity. He was less wrong than anyone who came before him, but he was still wrong. Laplace made a few small improvements, and then Einstein replaced his ideas almost completely. His equations remain as a useful low-energy approximation to reality.

rossum

Yes, Newton was a heretic. That doesn’t mean he was an idiot.

He saw order in the solar system of a magnitude that defied mere chance.

He is still regarded as a genius of the first order, and a vote of the Royal Society a few years ago placed him higher than Einstein as an Olympian genius.

“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).

 

[rossum]

What we don’t have is a clear understanding of the inherent nature of genetic code and how that nature could have possibly been originated.

So, you have a clear understanding of the nature of your proposed designer, and how that designer could have possibly been originated? No, I think not.

DNA can evolve. DNA has been observed to evolve in the lab and in nature. Despite the best efforts of ID, there has been no evidence shown that there is any unevolvable DNA present in living organisms, with the exception of some DNA placed by humans (GM organisms).

No, Behe’s IC systems don’t count. They cannot evolve by direct routes, but they can and do evolve by indirect routes.

First off, the complexity of genetic code is of an entirely different magnitude, one which chemical bonding cannot explain.

How are you measuring “complexity”? All scientific measures of complexity/information can be increased by non-intelligent processes. Shannon information can increase. Kolmogorov information can increase. Complexity can increase over time. Remember that evolution builds on what went before. You personally did not have to evolve an entire eye. Your eye had already evolved when we shared an ancestor with the chimpanzees.

Punting to “chance” …

How it this relevant to either evolution or ID? ID is not a chance process, and evolution includes natural selection, which is also not a chance process. One of the (name removed by moderator)uts to evolution is chance – random mutations – but the output is not chance. The results that we observe around us are the outputs. The non-chance end of the process.

The question remains: What has the potential to create the sublime complexity of the genetic code found in DNA and RNA?

Random mutation followed by selection, with a helping of genetic drift, founder effect, sexual selection and other processes.

Until science actually gets us there, the question is an open one.

No it is not. It is a closed question. Evolution can account for all observed increases in the information content of DNA. Evolution fits organisms to the environment they live in. Hence, evolution can be seen as a mechanical copying process, copying information from the environment into the DNA of organisms living in that environment. Viewed as a simple copying process, then the transfer of information into DNA ceases to be an issue. On a rough calculation, it averages about 500 generation per single bit of information to make the human genome the size it is today.

That moves the question of origin of the information back to the origin of earth, and of the universe. Those questions are well outside the remit of biology, and render all of the effort put into biological ID moot. The question moves to cosmological ID.

rossum

 

[rossum]

We know understand natural selection to be a conservative process not a creative one.

Correct. Random mutation is the creative process, creating new variants. Natural selection weeds through those variants, throwing out the bad ones, ignoring the neutral ones and increasing the beneficial ones. Between them the two processes create a lot of new variants, and preserve the better ones.

In a fixed environment, natural selection will be strictly conservative. In a changing environment, natural selection will not be conservative, but will shift the overall genome in a new direction to better survive in the changing environment.

rossum