Is DNA Designed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You may be going a step too far in saying there is no teleology in nature. Teleology is not quantifiable and so is not something that could or could not be directly measured. It requires a value judgment based on observable data. When you state there is no teleology in nature you are making a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. If you’re okay with that, that’s fine.

There is a growing movement among scientists back towards believing in teleology, though, which I’ve found interesting, without making any theistic claims.
 
I have no problem with any of what you say. But accept that when I say ‘I know how X happened’ I am using the shortened version of: ‘As far as we are aware at this time with our current understanding of the available data and notwithstanding future discoveries that might contradict the following statement…I know how X happened’.

And that cartoon has always been in my favourite top ten…
 
Last edited:
And to add to my last post, it seems difficult to deny teleology in our own intentions, thoughts, and actions.
 
Wesrock said:
You may be going a step too far in saying there is no teleology in nature. Teleology is not quantifiable and so is not something that could or could not be directly measured. It requires a value judgment based on observable data. When you state there is no teleology in nature you are making a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. If you’re okay with that, that’s fine.

There is a growing movement among scientists back towards believing in teleology, though, which I’ve found interesting, without making any theistic claims.
Click to expand...
I am stating that in the situations being discussed, there is no teleology. I don’t believe there is any whatsoever in nature. But I would be keen to discuss it. Another thread perhaps?
 
Wesrock said:
And to add to my last post, it seems difficult to deny teleology in our own intentions, thoughts, and actions.
Click to expand...
Asking science to supply evidence for teleology is a pretty tall order.
Even concerning why a kettle of water is boiling on the stove, the causes having to do with BTUs, atmospheric pressure and intermolecular forces are far easier to identify than what it was in the order of the universe that seized your mom to want a cup of tea right now and not at some other time.
 
Wesrock said:
And to add to my last post, it seems difficult to deny teleology in our own intentions, thoughts, and actions.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure you can describe it as such. But definitely a thread that needs starting. In the next day or so if you don’t kick start it sooner.
 
Bradskii said:
I am stating that in the situations being discussed, there is no teleology. I don’t believe there is any whatsoever in nature. But I would be keen to discuss it. Another thread perhaps?
Click to expand...
If all one can accept as a reason for why something happens is a string of events brought about by the ordered functioning of the universe, how can any other purpose ever be discovered?

That’s not to say science is a bad thing, but just to point out that by its nature there are causes that could exist in theory that would by the nature of science be beyond the realm of science to investigate.

I mean really–can you describe an ominipotent and omniscient being that science can prove? Science can’t prove either of those. I think it is axiomatic, then, that science can never be the source of faith. Nature, sure, because if different kinds of evidence are admitted then nature can provide that kind of evidence, obviously. Science, however, is an activity whose method precludes anything believed based on “the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb. 11:1) By science, we can understand the order that is in the universe, but only by faith can we ever accept that “the universe was ordered by the word of God” or that “what is visible came into being through the invisible.” (Heb. 11:3)
 
PetraG said:
40.png
niceatheist:
No. My view (not scientific, I remind you) is that the universe is self-caused. I have to be convinced of the veracity of multiverses.
Click to expand...
Self-caused? What does that mean? That it has existed eternally?
Click to expand...
No, it means it had a beginning of some kind. A concept like imaginary time means that it is finite in time, even if there wasn’t a zero point in absolute terms.
 
niceatheist said:
No, it means it had a beginning of some kind. A concept like imaginary time means that it is finite in time, even if there wasn’t a zero point in absolute terms.
Click to expand...
What is the evidence for the “veracity of multiverses.” This sounds a great deal like supplanting one article of faith for a different article of faith.

Also, please clarify how “there wasn’t a zero point in absolute terms” is reconciled with “it had a beginning of some kind.” I am not following you. I hope you see my problem and how that sounds as if it could be talking out of both sides of the mouth, on first glance.
 
“PetraG said:
If all one can accept as a reason for why something happens is a string of events brought about by the ordered functioning of the universe, how can any other purpose ever be discovered?
/quote]

That’s not my position. We are all most definitely here now because of ‘a string of events brought about by the ordered functioning of the universe’. But now we are here we can ignore, should we choose, the blind forces that brought us to this point.

And tbat’s almost like the introduction to Humanism.
Click to expand...
 
No, I don’t believe there was a god behind it, nor do I believe there needs to be purpose and intent. And I will remind you that my speculation is beyond science.

And the moment you start invoking an uncaused creator, I will invoke Occam’s Razor. We know the Universe exists, therefore I take the property “uncaused” and place that as a property of the Universe, thus removing what I view as the unnecessary entity.

I’m not bound by Aristotlean or Medieval philosophical assumptions. I’m also go to remind everyone once again that this is my philosophical view. It is not a “scientific” view, simply because it isn’t a scientific hypothesis at all.

My view, simply put, is that the Universe had no beginning as such. No zero hour from which everything than proceeded. My view is that time is like an infinite curve, the further back in time you go, the steeper the curve gets. Thus, the Universe is finite in all four dimensions (three spacial plus time), but since time and space are an infinite curve, there is no actual starting point. In other words, the Universe is a four dimensional closed manifold; it is finite, but without defined border.
 
PetraG said:
40.png
niceatheist:
No, it means it had a beginning of some kind. A concept like imaginary time means that it is finite in time, even if there wasn’t a zero point in absolute terms.
Click to expand...
What is the evidence for the “veracity of multiverses.” This sounds a great deal like supplanting one article of faith for a different article of faith.

Also, please clarify how “there wasn’t a zero point in absolute terms” is reconciled with “it had a beginning of some kind.” I am not following you. I hope you see my problem and how that sounds as if it could be talking out of both sides of the mouth, on first glance.
Click to expand...
The multiverse hypothesis relies on certain interpretations of string theory (specifically brane theory). The problem is that we don’t even have a testable hypothesis for string theory, and it might take decades or longer before string theorists can even tell us how they could propose to test the theory. Some physicists are even hesitant to call string theory a “theory”, viewing it as a mathematical model that may or may not have anything to do with reality.

And I do explain in another post what I mean by a finite universe with no starting point. I conceive of a four dimensional (three spatial dimensions plus time) that are a closed manifold; in other words, it is finite in all directions (including time) without any definite border.
 
Bradskii said:
That’s not my position. We are all most definitely here now because of ‘a string of events brought about by the ordered functioning of the universe’. But now we are here we can ignore, should we choose, the blind forces that brought us to this point.
Click to expand...
How do we know the forces are blind? What is the evidence do we have to make any presumptions about that? I can concede that it requires faith to know it. I don’t see how it is possible to conclude that it can be definitively known that things we can’t sense must not exist. There are too many examples in the history of science that are to the contrary.

Let us say there was a force that was not blind but rather refrained from being a control freak. Let’s say that this force gave awareness of itself to some beings but not to others. Would it not be just for this being to expect different behavior from a being from which such awareness was withheld than from a being to whom the awareness was provided?

In short, isn’t it possible that a God might exist who could require those with faith to act on it while permitting those without faith to honestly admit that they had none of the evidence that those granted faith had and could not in good conscience consent to the existence of evidence that was outside of every sense they had and was, as nearly as they could tell, non-existent?
 
Last edited:
For some, science is the only source of knowledge. On a Catholic forum, it should be pointed out that that is incomplete since Divine Revelation does count as actual knowledge. If the Old Testament is discarded for a moment, if everything Jesus did regarding raising the dead to life, healing the blind and so on, was not literal, what was it?

How was Pope John Paul II declared a saint? Miracles, which the Church thoroughly investigates. Yes, God, being God, can do this. He can intervene in the lives of human beings. And the Church does investigate other claims of miracles and finds that a good number were not actual miracles.
 
Last edited:
Just trying to be helpful for those who are unfamiliar - it’s called a Turing Test.
 
Bradskii said:
Again, you are assuming that instincts indicate a teleology.
Click to expand...
I’m not assuming anything. It’s self evident that are thoughts, desires, and intentions are goal orientated. It’s teleological. If you wish to imagine that this is an illusion, that in itself does not make my argument wrong. In fact you have failed to demonstrate that you are right. Try to keep the straw-men to a minimum.
Bradskii said:
There is none in nature. None whatsoever.
Click to expand...
That’s a statement and not an argument.
Bradskii said:
That nature is blindly led by instincts that have no goal and weren’t designed and are the result of the filter of natural selection. Says evolutionary psychology.
Click to expand...
As a scientific statement this can only mean that there is no direct intelligent intervention in those processes. It is not a metaphysical statement as to whether organisms behave teleologically or not.

If you don’t believe that organisms behave teleologically then that is your philosophical belief and it has nothing to do with science. It is clear that instincts normally cause animals to walk, eat, and act in a manner that supports it’s survival. There is clearly teleology in that behavior. The underlying processes may be blind to whats going on, but the behavior of an organism is clearly conditioned toward the survival of the organism holistically. It’s nature is goal orientated. If you wish to say this is an illusion, that’s okay, but that’s an unsupported conclusion both logically and scientifically. Science has nothing to say on the matter.
Bradskii said:
And you are wrong in saying that science cannot explain why we do what we do and only how we do it. Evolutionary psychology does nothing other than explain why.
Click to expand...
In principle, science can describe how physical objects behave in regard to one another and identify how one particular object moves another object and how that movement might involve a change in it’s nature or correlate to the emergence of some quality. But i don’t know what you mean when you say that evolutionary psychology explains why some quality or thing exists. If you are saying that the trait that drives me to sustain and protect my nature came into existence for that very reason (so that i would sustain and protect myself) then you are no longer doing science, but instead philosophy, and teleology to be specific. But that can’t be what evolutionary psychologists mean since they are simply describing how things behave. Naaa. I’d rather think that you have misunderstood the goal directed intentions (pun intended) of evolutionary psychologists before throwing it out of the scientific pantheon.
 
Last edited:
Since any proof must be part of the illusion, the only solution is to wake up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top